Bill - while I think yours is a reasoned response. Here's the thing: in no one's definition does romance = just kissing. NO ONE'S. That's why there is "sweet romance" which is a specific genre where there is nothing more than kissing.Bill Hiatt said:If they are treating different romances differently based not on the amount or nature of the sex, then that definitely seems discriminatory. Of course, this could be Crystal's mistake rather than the official position of D2D. Dan's earlier email suggested the organization as a whole couldn't look at the issue until after the holiday weekend.
The problem with Crystal may also be a misunderstanding of the boundaries for erotica. I'm not sure everyone on this forum would define the term in the same way. I'd certainly agree with you that a romance could go further than kissing without becoming erotica. For me, the boundary might depend upon how explicit the sex is, but I'm not sure everyone would feel the same way. (I don't write romance or erotica, so I haven't given the boundary issue much thought.)
Maybe my version of romance is steamier than another's. Fair enough. But I know what I just told you about romance in general is true.
And it is the hypocrisy I'm seeing that m/f books with far more than kissing sail through to Playster, but not gay or lesbian books that is really chapping my hide.