what I'm talking about above--the letter in RWR
I've cut out bits here and there but the gist is there. I don't want to cut too much because she's a good writer (other than the actual thinking/tolerance part) and it's bad idea to ignore that fact.
. . . romance isn't about just any "two people" celebrating "love in its many forms." Organizations such as the Man-Boy Love Association would certainly refer to themselves as celebrating love "two people" (or more) finding love in one of its many forms" . . . while they actively promote pedophilia.
Think RWA can't go down that slipper slope? Think again. Under our present definition, we cannot exclude such "love stories" under the category of "romance". We, as a culture, seem to have forgotten how to say "enough is enough," but RWA can--indeed, must--do better than that. . . .
And, please, spare us the arguments about "censorship" and "inclusiveness." Preference for "one man, one woman" stories represents what RWA has always claimed is romance's target demographic: college-educated, married, middle-class, monogamous, and moral. . . .Only in recent years has a vocal (translate: shrill) minority tried to drive RWA's focus off that path, under the guise of "broadening its horizons." But refusing to define romance according to the parameters it has held for centuries doesn't "broaden" anything . . . it only starts us down the aforementioned slope, and once we're in that slide, heaven help us.
There's an old saying, "Go home with the one who brought you here." What brought romance fiction to its present level of success is a collection of decades' worth of one-man, one-woman relationships stories, in all their richness, variety, and power. RWA should be the first to endorse that, rather than attempting to placate fringe groups trying to impose their standards upon the rest of us. If anyone's in danger of being "censored" here, it's believers in "what comes naturally": one-man, one-woman romance. We in RWA owe it to ourselves not to let that happen. Jan W. Butler