What is the definition of M/M? It seems I’ve misunderstood.
I’ve been watching, and reading, the latest brouhaha in the M/M community for about the last week. I never realized there were ‘rules’ as to what qualified as M/M, or I guess I didn’t realize how strict the ‘rules’ were. I guess I misunderstood the definitions. Oh, I understand that M/M stands for Man/Man. I’m not a complete dunce. But I didn’t realize that meant Penis/Penis, only penises allowed.
I started thinking about all of this when I’d heard that a book I read, and loved, a few weeks ago wouldn’t be reviewed by some large M/M review blogs because a 3 page scene with a Bi male MC, a gender fluid (at least that's how I perceived him) MC and a woman disqualified the book from the ‘rules of pure M/M’. Seems I mistakenly thought that since the 2 MC’s being men and having sex w/each other, made it book fall into the M/M category.
Guess not. I’m confused.
The fact that a small ‘girl cooties’ scene in the series violated some kind of “pure” M/M genre thing irritates me, but that’s not really why I’m writing this post. Not wanting women in your M/M books is a personal preference I suppose. I personally don’t love them in mine, more because I hate the way women are portrayed in romance books than vaginas mess up my gay sex. But whatever. The whole thing annoyed me, but not enough to blog about it. I let others do that since they did it so well.
What has me up in arms today is a post I saw yesterday on Chicks & Dicks blog written by Jessewave. The post and the comments have me down right angry and disturbed.
Now, may I just say, I do agree that a blog should be able to review whatever they want. I do. To have someone try to tell me that I HAD to review a book I don’t want to read I’d probably fly the finger at them. However, that being said, I’m not some big review site for the genre, and I don’t claim to be contributing to the success of said genre. It seems to me that if that’s the site you have, you have a different responsibility than a small personal blog. Maybe that’s naive of me. I dunno. I suppose that if you don’t want to review M/M books with any F thrown in… fine. I tend to roll my eyes and think… whatevah.
To exclude trans books because you perceive it as something other than “pure” M/M is… is… full of WTFery to me. To not see how offensive that is adds to the WTFery.
How blind can one be?
Maybe it’s just me, but I don’t understand how books with trans men identifying as gay men is some kind of exclusion to the Man/Man Romance thing. A trans man is a man. If he loves another man, he is gay. Man.Man. M/M. Seems to fit perfectly, even under this M/M “purity” test. To say it doesn't is… is…
…making me snarl again.
The whole thing reminded me of that disaster last November I watched until I was sick. Who’s a real man, who isn’t a real man, who’s a he, who’s a she, who qualifies, SHOW ME YOUR PENIS! And then be shocked, outraged and cry when people got hurt and offended at the bigotry and ignorance of it all because the offenders have some personal claim to phony rainbow blur.
What a crock of…
*deep breath* I’m getting worked up again. I need to end this post before I start lose my slim hold on my control.
I guess I just wanted to say… sites can review whatever they want. So be it. But I wanted to also say that claiming to review books under rules of ‘pure’ Man/Man only and exclude trans books IS the same thing as saying that trans men aren’t ‘real’ men. It’s disgraceful, it’s transphobic, it’s… it’s… disturbing.
To say the least.
I also wanted to say, Hi, name is Amara Devonte. I love M/M books. I read them, I occasionally review them. I see no basis for excluding Trans* books or Trans* characters and classifying them as ‘other’ or ‘exception to the rule’. I find it insulting and wrong to do so. This behavior in a genre I thought was supposed to be about love, acceptance, tolerance and rainbows… saddens, upset and disturbs me.
Now that I’ve got myself all worked up again, I have to go now. Before bad things come out of my mouth.