Well it looks like the RWA sites I belong to will have to take my website link down in the VERY near future. Why you ask? Apparently if you have objectionable covers (I have one.) or risque excerpts (I have several.), they can no longer link to you. (By ‘they’ I mean ANY RWA site or its affiliates-local chapters & special interest chapters.) If they do, they risk losing their affiliation. To make it more fun, even if you don’t have objectionable covers or excerpts on your site, you can still lose ‘linking’ privileges by having a link to a publishing house who has objectionable covers or excerpts on their site.
Here is what was said and it comes straight from the horse’s mouth so to speak:
Our Website Director got back with our board for those who were not in on the conversation or heard Tara Taylor Quinn speak.
“Tara spoke a little at the meeting about the graphical standards to which RWA — and us as a chapter of RWA — must adhere. Evidently, by showing certain things on our sites or even linking to certain “erotica” sites, we are violating federal rules governing nonprofits and it threatens our status as well as leads to us being blocked by schools and libraries using the new federal standards for pornography. Here is the quote from RWA (you can find it by going to here and going to the Members Only pages, then on that main menu, click Graphical Standards):
‘With respect to all RWA programs and services, the following shall not be depicted or represented: exposed male and female genitalia, exposed female nipples, cunnilingus and fellatio, hands or mouth covering naked female breasts, naked or g-string-clad buttocks, and bestiality. The following words: c*ck, c*cksucker, c*nt, f*ck, motherf*cker, sh*t, and t*t, will not be displayed.’
After the meeting, we discussed the local chapter specifically with Tara. She said all chapters would be getting emails very soon discussing this very fact. She did confirm for us that indeed, if we wish to retain our charter with RWA, we will no longer be able to show jacket covers that don’t meet the standard and we can’t even link to the websites of those authors who might show their own covers, have excerpts that include certain language, or lead to the publisher’s website.”
Read that last part again and then think about the repercussions. F*CK!!! Oh, I forgot, I can’t use that ‘word’ on my site anymore.
Um . . .I don’t see anything objectionable about any of your book covers. I took another look a second ago in your ‘books’ section. What’s objectionable? Are they fucking serious?! I’ve seen more risque covers in the romance section of ANY bookstore! Including the book section in Walmart! Are they kidding?!
by Trace June 2nd, 2005 at 12:52 pmTrace, No they’re not kidding. The cover I’m referring to is Tears of Amun. It has a glimpse of the woman’s breast in the shadows on the cover. That is one of the new no-no’s.
by Jordan June 2nd, 2005 at 12:59 pmSounds like someone’s been doing double duty on the old crack pipe.
That’s shit…yeah I said it.
by Cece June 2nd, 2005 at 1:14 pmWow. Where did you hear about this? Is there somewhere on the RWA website that we can read about this?
by Suzanne June 2nd, 2005 at 1:15 pmWell fuck them, Jordan. I think erotic romance writers need to form ‘Erotic Romance Writers of America’. Just like ‘Mystery Writers of America’ or ‘International Thriller Writers, Inc.’, or any other writing organization. You need to form your own oranized group.
And damn it, I’m writing an erotic book next. A real hot, squirm in your seat sucker. I’m pulling out all the stops. No holds barred.
That’s what’s selling right now anyway. Have they missed the memo?
by Tracy June 2nd, 2005 at 1:16 pmSuzanne, Apparently, there is a small paragraph in the members section on the RWA site. TTQ spoke at a local chapter meeting and spelled out what wasn’t acceptable and said letters would be going out to the local chapters very soon.
by Jordan June 2nd, 2005 at 1:24 pmI hear you, Cece.
by Jordan June 2nd, 2005 at 1:25 pmTracy, I don’t think they’ve ‘missed’ anything.
by Jordan June 2nd, 2005 at 1:26 pmTracy…you forgot Sisters In Crime =) No one said an erotica writing group had to be a part of RWA that’s for damned sure…..but frankly, I think I’m done with the group thing. Group things apparently ain’t my thang. *pulling tongue out of cheek so I can go home and um yeah finish packing*
snicker
by Cece June 2nd, 2005 at 1:32 pmGood for you, Jordan. You don’t need their scraps of validation. I’m not in any group either. I have the International Thriller Writers, Inc. link on my blog but I haven’t joined. They have some good writing articles on their site, though.
by Trace June 2nd, 2005 at 1:37 pmI can’t believe what’s going on lately with romantica writers/publishers and the RWA. Have these ‘regulations’ always been in place? So what happens if (when) the publishers change their packaging so that the covers aren’t as explicit, and the authors edit the excerpts they post on their site? Talk about being treated like the ugly, red-headed step-child.
by Jaq June 2nd, 2005 at 3:02 pmYou have got to be f^cking kidding me.
Those c@cksucking sonsabitches.
Yeah, it’s WAY past time for a new group to be formed. I’m not a groupie either, but dammit, think I’d join just to rub my naked female anatomy in their fellatio-ridden faces.
{{{Jordan}}}. But I don’t think you’re losing much.
by Dreamweaver June 2nd, 2005 at 5:25 pmGuys, I’m still not sure what I’m going to do in the end. It’s actually getting worse by the minute. Hopefully I’ll be able to verify a few things and fill you all in. Holy Hell!
by Jordan June 2nd, 2005 at 6:09 pmWell that just bites. And who gets to determine what it objectionable? Who drew the risque line in the sand?
by Lynn June 2nd, 2005 at 6:46 pmLynn, Obviously not a big chunk of the members.
by Jordan June 2nd, 2005 at 9:08 pmUm, wow. Just … wow.
by Jill June 2nd, 2005 at 9:18 pmThat is ridiculous to the extreme! And who gets to decide what’s “objectionable” and what’s not? What bullsh–, er, bullpooh. Have they assigned someone to examine every cover of every author they link to? Maybe they (RWA) should focus less on imposing their definition (however warped) of morality on us and concentrate on the things that are really important. For once.
by Nancy June 2nd, 2005 at 9:42 pmJill, Wow, is right!
by Jordan June 2nd, 2005 at 9:58 pmNancy, I have no idea.
by Jordan June 2nd, 2005 at 9:59 pmJaq, I have no idea if they’re old or new. I believe this is the first time they’ve been applied.
by Jordan June 2nd, 2005 at 10:00 pmI’m guessing that means Blaze Authors will also have to unlink since alot of Blaze, I would almost say ALL of them have Shit, and cock in them, and probably in their excerpts. This is rediculous. I really really wish I never paid for my trip to Reno…actually on second thought…I can’t wait to get to Reno and uhmmm have my say, in a very polite professional way. *snicker*
I’m done witht hem, erotica chapter or not..I’m done with anything to do with RWA…well, except said conference that I already paid for.
by Sasha June 3rd, 2005 at 1:27 amIt’s this sort of crap that is the precise reason that I’m not a member of RWA. SWFA does the same crap — so I’m not a member of SFWA, either.
My suggestion would be to drop your membership, tell RWA why you’re dropping your membership, and to encourage other writers who are members and who oppose this sort of censorship to drop their memberships, too. Vote with your dollars.
by Holly Lisle June 3rd, 2005 at 5:33 amExactly Holly. I’m doing just that. I’ve paid for Reno, and I’m canceling today. My career path doesn’t allow me time to wait for change in the organization.
by Alison June 3rd, 2005 at 6:21 amIt’s bullshit. The “new federal standards” they refer to is the Child Internet Pornography Act (CIPA) that says that schools and libraries have to have filters in place to block pornography. Another provision of the same act says that any individual can have the filtering turned off for his or her browsing session by signing a release.
What this means is that the weenies have taken over. God forbid you should take a chance that you might offend anybody. I guess we should all just quail and quiver in our houses for fear we might write a story that actually is worth a shit.
Thank God I’m not a romance writer. At least in my horror stories, I can say whatever I fucking please. For now.
Holly’s right. Take your money elsewhere.
by Carter June 3rd, 2005 at 8:53 amSasha, I didn’t even know you were a member of RWA. I think it’s great that you’re going to the conference. The more numbers the better.
by Jordan June 3rd, 2005 at 11:09 amHolly, I agree. The only thing they’re going to listen to is money. If it walks, then they’ll listen. Right now several people within the newly forming Passionate Ink group plan to attend the general meeting. We’ll see what happens then. I’m truly up in the air about what I’m going to do. I am waiting for one more announcement to come out. (Well, bracing is more like it.) I’m truly disappointed in the organization. I guess I’m hanging on because I’ve gotten so many ‘good’ things out of being part of the group. It’s hard to give up my local chapter. Wimpy, but true.
by Jordan June 3rd, 2005 at 11:14 amAlison, Are you really? I’m not going to Nationals this year because I attended RT instead. I actually ended up networking for better there than I ever do at National. I was shocked.
by Jordan June 3rd, 2005 at 11:16 amCarter, You’re right. CIPA seems to be the unofficial reason behind the actions, but there may be more to it than that. I’m really not sure what they’re thinking, considering the changing face of romantic fiction. My guess is they aren’t. My local chapter is already in the process of taking down my info, along with a few others. Apparently, I do get an email link. Woo f*cking Hoo!
I’m scheduled to speak at a local chapter conference next year, so I am going to fulfill my obligation. After that…
by Jordan June 3rd, 2005 at 11:23 amWait: WHAT federal regulations concerning non-profits are they talking about? I’d like to see them produce a reference to something concrete and look at the wording of whatever sub-sub-sub section they’re talking about.
And Carter’s right about the Internet filters, by the way. The public libraries here in Portland allow you two choices once you log on to their computers: Filtered Session, or Unfiltered Session. People are free to choose one or the other.
And furthermore, the way I understand it is that the filtering/blocking occurs only on one level: the content of the website you’re trying to directly access. As far as I know, the filtering software doens’t bother crawling through all the links on the site and then block the website simply because it LINKS to websites that contain objectionable content.
For example: Say you’re on a Filtered session at the library. You go to PBW’s blog, which shouldn’t set off any of the filters. You then click on one of the links she provides, and this link leads to a website that DOES contain something that triggers the filter. Your access to this second website is blocked. However, your access ot PBW’s site isn’t, and shouldn’t ever be. So all the blather about how merely linking to objectionable content could lead to RWA websites being blocked by libraries and schools? Bull. Fucking. Shit.
Until somebody points out how I’m completely wrong about how filtering software works, of course.
by Candy June 3rd, 2005 at 11:23 amRWA members can give their proxy vote to someone who will be going to the meeting. Holy moly, I am so glad I’m staying home this year. But I’m hunting down another EC writer who will go to the big meeting so she can speak up in my name.
I’m not giving up on RWA yet–I think it has some value.
by Kate June 3rd, 2005 at 11:25 amGood point, Candy. That’s actually been brought up. I think they forgot that there may actually be a few attorneys who write spicier stuff. (wg) They’ve already contacted the RWA board for clarification and exact wording. Apparently, the link the board has made is tenuous.
by Jordan June 3rd, 2005 at 11:27 amKate, I believe Jaci and Chey are both attending RWA National this year.
by Jordan June 3rd, 2005 at 11:28 amOh, I did forget to mention that ALL the board positions are up for re-election in October of this year. So there is a possibility we can get a few of these people OUT.
by Jordan June 3rd, 2005 at 11:34 amAn update to my post will hopefully be coming down the pike. The board will state their ‘official’ stance/action *cough* back peddling soon. Excuse me I had something in my throat. (wg)
by Jordan June 3rd, 2005 at 1:31 pmYes, Jordn. I’ve been a member of RWA for just over a year. I joined last year to tryout a couple of contests…and this year I justjoined to go to Nationals. I really regret it. Right at this moment I’m tryingto decided if I’m going to cancel my mebr ship before nationals. and just goto Reno for a week holiday since I’ve already paid the hotel and everything.
by Sasha June 3rd, 2005 at 2:21 pmTher eis no chapter near me, and I personalyy haven;t gotten anythign from RWA that I don’t get with online firends such as you, Dream, Cece, Alsion and others that are always on top of whats going on in the industry.
I’m supposed to be packing *grr*
so where does this leave authors with bodice ripper covers on their websites…heaving bosoms…johanna linday’s naked Fabios etc?
and who wants my proxy vote? *VBESEG*
by Cece June 3rd, 2005 at 5:25 pmThe RWA may simply be trying to cover it’s legal butt and ensure that it doesn’t get banned from library web links. It may also be confused. I don’t know, not being familiar with the legislation.
Rather than boycotting conference, why not ASK the RWA to provide more information? Check the constitution and find out how to put members’ motions on the agenda of the AGM. Write to Board members to express your concern about this issue. Make sure they know the concerns of the people they represent - you and me.
I’m not a conspiracy theorist. I tend to believe that most people really are trying to do what they see to be the right thing. However, Board members are ordinary people like you and me (not all-knowing Goddesses), and they can get things wrong. It’s up to us as members to provide our concerns and feedback to them.
(Having said that, though, I am puzzled as to why the minutes for the March meeting at which the graphic policy was adopted record that the Board moved into executive (confidential) session for three minutes, and then moved out and adopted the policy 14 votes to 1. I’m not sure what is confidential about a graphics policy. Perhaps discussion included the ‘banned’ words and therefore they felt that it couldn’t be minuted on a public site.)
by Bron June 3rd, 2005 at 5:51 pmOops - read my last post in the tone of ‘pondering thoughts’ rather than of criticism of anyone. It’s still morning here, and my brain isn’t really awake. I wasn’t intending to come across as pompous!
by Bron June 3rd, 2005 at 6:09 pmI hope that this stance doesn’t stand. And there has been a wrong interpretation of it somewhere. Cause I just think this is wrong.
by Mechele Armstrong June 3rd, 2005 at 6:16 pmSasha, Go to the conference and try to enjoy yourself. Soak up all the information offered. Then, if you want to call it quits with the organization, end it, but don’t let them drive you away from a conference you’ve already paid for.
by Jordan June 3rd, 2005 at 9:26 pmBron, No worries on the post.
The things you suggested are being done as we speak. We’ll see what happens from here. I did not know that the last meeting has three minutes of a confidential session included. Interesting…
by Jordan June 3rd, 2005 at 9:28 pmMechele, Fingers crossed it doesn’t stand. IMO I think the board is shocked by the response they’ve received from this move. We’ll see if they’re shocked enough to retract it.
by Jordan June 3rd, 2005 at 9:29 pmI think a whole new orgainization is needed. Why graft the erotic romance onto RWA if it doesn’t want it? A new org wold be stronger - not underminded by members from within. JMO
by jennifer June 4th, 2005 at 1:45 amGreat writeup, Jordan.
I’m still an RWA member, and I’m still going to Reno this year. In fact, I’m giving a workshop (that THEY approved) on writing erotic romance. Go figure *g*. I hope we pack that room with attendees!
And I’m going to the AGM so I’ll be happy to take anyone’s proxy with me that wants to turn it over to me. Shoot me an email and I’ll give folks my RWA # and my address.
Jaci
by Jaci June 4th, 2005 at 8:53 amWhat I don’t understand is… if you object to the graphical standards, why did you bleep out the words?’With respect to all RWA programs and services, the following shall not be depicted or represented: exposed male and female genitalia, exposed female nipples, cunnilingus and fellatio, hands or mouth covering naked female breasts, naked or g-string-clad buttocks, and bestiality. The following words: c*ck, c*cksucker, c*nt, f*ck, motherf*cker, sh*t, and t*t, will not be displayed.’They were not bleeped out on the graphical standards page. I don’t agree with them, but I am puzzled by the double standard you seemingly portray here.
by Arwen June 4th, 2005 at 12:23 pmJennifer, I’m sure ‘eventually’ the new group would be strong, but it would take time. RWA didn’t start out with the funds it now currently wields. They grew to that strength. It will take a while for a burgeoning organization to develop a strong membership. There is still a large majority who want to work from the inside, not take on the daunting task of starting over.
by Jordan June 4th, 2005 at 12:29 pmThanks Jaci! Sorry I kind of volunteered you without asking. (blush)
by Jordan June 4th, 2005 at 12:31 pmArwen, I suppose blanking out the words could be interpreted as a double standard. I chose to blank those words out because I have various family members who visit my blog. Yes, they know what I write. I do not hide that from anyone. BUT, I do respect them enough to know that having those words glaring them in the face the second my homepage appears ‘may’ make some of them uncomfortable. My family, my choice.
by Jordan June 4th, 2005 at 12:39 pmLMFAO@backpeddaling
by Cece June 6th, 2005 at 8:43 am