It all started with a blog post on the blog Loose Change:

http://treva2007.livejournal.com/

Originally published on August 13, 2010. Deleted later that same

day:
Too Much Information, Or: Have you written a flaming gay hairdresser/fashion consultant
instead of the hero you wanted?

Whilst editing, I ran into a common problem, and decided it was time to try to explain why your
straight hero reads like he’s gay. So I asked my Darling Husband (DH), who produces our
Encounters, in addition to his many other endearing qualities, “If there was one thing you could
point to about our heroes that makes them unbelievable, what would it be?”

I expected some down time on that, and a studied response. Nope.

“No one’s ever average.”

OK, so that needed some prompting to get a better explanation.

“These guys are all ‘Heroes’ and ‘Hunks’ with great faces and weight lifter bodies. Any guy I’ve
ever met who looks like that knows it, and he’s a real asshole.”

True, but not where I was trying to go. However I was as intrigued by what it took to get the
explanation as I was by the explanation itself. Having pondered this conversation, I’ve come to
one general conclusion. Women written by men tend to talk too much, too fast, about the wrong
things.

1) Clothing -- men don't notice clothing details -- this one’s where I started, and I couldn't pry a
word about clothing out of the DH no matter how I tried. If your explanation of clothing from a
Male POV goes beyond “Red Dress” it’s TMI.

2) Bodies -- yup. Women have ‘em. Usually with curves. The curves make ‘em “not men,”
which is good (If he’s straight). He knows by looking what size she wears? TMI. He’s just met
her and he remembers what size she wears and goes shopping for her? Oh, yeah, he’s a gay
fashion designer.

3) Hair -- yup. Women have that too. Apparently it comes in colors -- red, blonde, and brown --
and two lengths. Long and short. Waves Vs Curls? Auburn? Sable? TMI.

4) “I love the way that burgundy dress brings out the color in your perfect oval face and your
hazel eyes. Great lines.” Oh, yeah. Gay fashion designer TMI.

5) Three pages of spoken dialogue about -- anything other than battlegrounds (Sports are
condensed battlegrounds) -- especially before, during, or after sex -- TMI. In fact, full sentences
during sex -- TMI (I'm way guilty of this one).

6) Explanations of anything involving past, present, or future emotions as they relate to one
another outside a shrink’s office? Way TMI.

And NO. Making him gay doesn't change all that much -- gay guys are still GUYS. Nothing
about the testosterone levels -- or the inherent male instincts to protect their territory -- changes
all that much. Most gay guys don't read Romance, don't wear pink, and would rather punch each
other than talk about emotions. If you don't want him to come across as a flaming hairdresser,
find a more believable way to let us know how they feel about one another.

Yes, we've got to compromise. Our men need to talk. In full sentences, even, upon occasion. But
sometimes our heroines need to work a little harder to get information out of them, and really big
things -- like “I love you” -- ARE really big, and probably need to be valued a lot more. Don't
throw that line away. For a guy, it’s a major, major deal. And it doesn't come with becauses, or
in spite ofs.

If a guys sees a gorgeous woman in a red dress with real curves, he doesn't give a shit about the
dress size or the size of her boobs or the span of her waist or the length of her perfectly coiffed
hair. He sees “Blond, Red dress.” Whatever it is that makes her gorgeous to him, he probably
can't tell you. Or her. But the most important thing he sees, we often overlook completely -- the
thing men see that makes a woman most attractive to them?

She’s/He's looking back at him.

Margaret Riley
Publisher, www.ChangelingPress.com

Reader comments:
There were several with the same general reaction, one from a well-known blogger
within the m/m romance and e-publishing industry, but because the posts were deleted,
only comments that were later reposted in a private forum are available:

Slavetopassion:

WTF?

I stopped reading this after you mentioned for the second time that any man who notices clothes
on a woman is a 'gay fashion designer.' Wow! How stereotypical can you get?

Also, women read these books, not men. And most want a man who notices things about
them...seriously!
I am as faggy as the next gay (meaning I take it up the ass since that is what being gay entails,
not noticing a woman's clothing) and I can tell you that I could care f-ing less what a woman
wears.

~smooches~
Jase

The post was then deleted. It was replaced with a new,

comment-free version of the post.

Available reader comments on repost:

Slavetopassion:

Curious

Is this blog or the Editor for Changeling Press going to make any response to the post she
deleted? I for one, along with many members of the m/m romance group on goodreads would
like to know how someone who signs their post with their official title could offend so many and
then not respond at all. This has changed my view of Changeling Press and is coloring my view
of Loose ID. Are the two publishers affiliated?

Chris:

Like slavetopassion, I am curious about the post that was deleted without any explanation or
apology. Although it's been deleted here, it's going to live on, cached in Google Reader and other
places. Trying to pretend it was never posted is disingenuous and does not leave me with positive
feelings about Changeling Press or Loose Id.

Next, the post was again removed and replaced with the
following:
Writing Believable Straight Male Characters

Yes, Treva pulled my original article, with my permission. No, I did not read the comments first.
I have no desire to now. The article was written as a humorous attempt to help female writers
who often have difficulty writing believable straight male characters.

Changeling and Loose were two of the first houses to accept M/M Erotica on an equal footing
with Het and Ménage Erotica, back at a time when other houses, like EC, wouldn’t take any
M/M submissions. I take offense at anyone questioning my dedication to the genre.
This site provides information for writers who are attempting to improving their writing skills.
Any other comments will be deleted.

Available reader comments:

Carvedwood:

Re: Writing Believable Straight Male Characters

They don't want a flame war, they just want an apology for a very failed attempt at humor.
It sounds reasonable to me. If a huge number of your readers (and free advertisers) were, say,
disabled people, do you think they'd appreciate it if you wrote an article that said, "Ladies, you
don't want your normal heros to seem like 'tards and deetdedees, do you?"

That wouldn't have been very nice.

Likewise, telling your authors how to write their heros so that they don't seem like one of those
those silly faggots, also didn't come across as being very funny.

Post deleted, replaced with the following:

Writing Believable Straight Male Characters

Apparently my original article, which was written as a humorous attempt to help female writers
who often have difficulty writing believable straight male characters, offended some people who
are new to our site. Such was not my intent.

Changeling and Loose Id were two of the first houses to accept M/M Erotica on an equal footing
with Het and Ménage Erotica, back at a time when other houses wouldn’t take any M/M
submissions. We remain dedicated to the genre.

This site provides information for writers who are attempting to improving their writing skills.
Any attempt to introduce flame wars to this site will not be tolerated.

Post deleted, replaced with the following:

What’s Wrong With Your Hero? (http://treva2007.livejournal.com/36565.html)

Long ago I remember Margaret and I having a discussion about one of my heroes. She
complained bitterly about him and I said, “But that’s what guys do.”
She said, “Yes, but a—holes are not heroes of a romance.”

I never learn. I had another story where I had the guy think—just think, I swear—about
someone else and my critique partner said, “He has to think he wouldn’t ever want anyone else,
not even in his imagination.”

I said, “What guy ever thinks that?”

She said, “Treva. This is a romance. Remember?” Oh! Right.

And there is a romance author’s problem. On one hand you may work to do guy think and make
a guy tip the scales toward completely unlikeable if you don't get the nuances right. It doesn’t
matter that you know there are those kind of guys out there. You wouldn’t want anyone to ever
go out with them, much less star in your romantic fantasies.

On the other hand, you may create a perfect man. But he's completely unrealistic, so that all he
is would be a romantic fantasy. You don’t believe in him. You don’t even believe he’s a guy.
He’s too much of a female fantasy (or male fantasy – can’t answer for that one) without enough
realism to make you think you could find this guy walking down the street one day.

Sadly, most men do not try to pick up on your every thought, to look at every nuance of your
body language and dress and try to understand you and what you want. Come to think of it, if
they did that in real life, they might be either creepy or pathetic.

So what do you do to make a guy that feels real but is just enough "more than" to make you fall
in love with that hero?

Some suggestions—

He may not get it right all the time or even most of the time, but he’s aware enough of his love
interest to try. He may get frustrated by the response he gets in return, but he doesn’t leave.
He does more. He may not be able to do it perfectly, but he wants to. He works harder,
probably harder than he would for anyone else, for this other person. He changes, he transforms,
he becomes – despite flaws and faults – better than he was to start.

I don’t think most readers want perfection. They want a hero who is real enough to fail but big
enough to want to do better for his mate. They want someone who takes a real risk to make
himself into a hero.

Treva Harte
www.Loose-Id.com
Comment from Margaret Riley, the author of the original offending
article:

Writing Believable Male Characters

Apparently my original article, which was written as a humorous attempt to help female writers
who often have difficulty writing believable straight male characters, offended some people who
are new to our site. Such was not my intent, and I apologize.

Changeling and Loose Id were two of the first houses to accept M/M Erotica on an equal footing
with Het and Ménage Erotica, back at a time when other houses wouldn’t take any M/M
submissions. We remain dedicated to the genre.

Members of the Goodreads M/M Romance Reading Group, to

which several of the commenters belong, were not satisfied with
the apology. So, they created the following petition:
http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/apologize_loose_change/

Dear Changeling Press and Loose Id,

We are loyal customers writing to express our outrage over the disrespectful and offensive article
published on the joint Changeling and Loose Id blog, Loose Change, on August 13, 2010,
entitled “Too Much Information, Or: Have you written a flaming gay hairdresser/ fashion
consultant instead of the hero you wanted?” as well as the subsequent inadequate response to our
expressed concerns.

This article relied on the most banal, base and narrow-minded stereotypes of gay men in order to
assert 1) that straight men are nothing more than drooling Neanderthals incapable of carrying on
an intelligent conversation or caring about anything other than sports and sex, and 2) that
readers, female, male, gay and straight, only want to read about one dimensional, stereotypical
characters and relationships in their romance and erotica.

When several of the members of the Goodreads M/M Romance Reading Group expressed
concern over the article, the entire article and comments were deleted. Rather than receiving an
apology for the derogatory ideas the article expressed, the commenters were accused of trying to
start a flame war. Several iterations of a response were posted on the blog, one of which
contained a belated apology that failed to address the issues raised by the commenters in a
meaningful way. Instead it argued, illogically, that the publishing houses’ history of publishing
M/M romance and erotica automatically precludes them from expressing bigoted views. The
apology also asserted that the commenters were not long time or loyal readers of the blog
because they have not commented before. This claim dismisses the seriousness of the offence by
attempting to diminish the value of the commenters’ opinions. Besides, the apology was later
deleted, thereby keeping it out of the public eye.

We recognize that both Changeling and Loose Id have been leaders in the publishing of M/M
romance and erotica. We also recognize that although a person or company may express a
homophobic idea, that does not make them as people or as entities homophobic. However, these
facts do not change the reality that the article itself was vulgar and contemptible. Moreover,
whether or not the article was supposed to be humorous, humor does not excuse or disguise the
expression of hate.

We would like a sincere, public apology—one that remains published—for both the initial article
and the handling of this issue as it developed. We hope that you take our concerns seriously and
prove that both Changeling and Loose Id truly embrace readers, writers and characters from all
walks of life, with a multiplicity of points of view.

Sincerely,
Members of the Goodreads M/M Romance Reading Group and Other Loyal Customers

When the petition had collected 50 signatures, both the link and a
hardcopy were sent both publishers.

This is the email in which the link was sent:

Dear Changeling and Loose-Id,

I am sending you a link to a letter written by members of the Goodreads M/M Romance Reading
Group addressing the post on the Loose Change blog on August 13, 2010 entitled “Too Much
Information, Or: Have you written a flaming gay hairdresser/ fashion consultant instead of the
hero you wanted?” This letter also addresses the follow up posts that responded to concerns
raised by members of our groups. The letter is signed by members of the group and other loyal
customers of both Changeling and Loose-Id. It asks for an apology for the views expressed in
the initial article, as well as the way in which the response to complaints was handled. We hope
that you read it and seriously address our concerns.

A hardcopy of the letter and its signatures is in the mail and your offices should receive it in a
few days. We've sent this email to the customer service email for Changeling because that is the
only contact email available on the Changeling website.

http://www.ipetitions.com/petition/apologize_loose_change/
Sincerely,

Alaina Pincus
Member, Goodread M/M Romance Reading Group

The petition provoked the following responses:

Loose Change Policy:

http://treva2007.livejournal.com/36863.html

This post may be long overdue although I hadn’t seen the need to spell things out before.
Margaret and I are separate people with separate opinions. Sometimes we agree, sometimes we
don’t. You’ll know who is responsible for each post because we’ll sign our names.

I am one of the owners of Loose Id and the Editor in Chief. However the opinions I express –
unless I explicitly state it is Loose Id policy – are my own.

I did recently delete a post and put up another that reflected my views. I was later told that was
bad form. I am sorry about that. But that is the extent of my involvement in anything that has
gone on in the last few days regarding Loose Change.

Treva Harte

The next blog post was created following an email exchange

between me, a representative of the reading group, and Margaret
Riley, the owner of Changeling Press. Copies of the emails follow
the blog post:

Opinions:
http://treva2007.livejournal.com/36897.html

I have my own, as does Treva. We rarely agree -- as a result we've worked well together through
the years as your stereotypical straight man and funny guy comedy team. We've taken this show
on the road from time to time, attempting to help new authors by answering their questions on
what it takes to become a published author, and how to survive in this industry.

Back in 2007 Treva and I took that act to the web. We've worked hard through the years to
attempt to share what we know, and help new authors understand the business of writing.

My opinions, as always, are my own, and not necessarily shared by my long time friend, critique
partner, and business competitor, Treva. Our approaches to the business of publishing differ as
much as our sense of humor does. One thing I think we can agree on -- we're both commitment
to publishing quality Women's Erotic Romance.

To those who find my sense of humor offensive, I can only apologize, and assure you I'm no
more politically correct in real life than I am on the web.

Margaret Riley

Email Exchange:
I’ve left the font as is because I feel it lends to the issue of professionalism of the
exchange

from: Changelingpress@aol.com
to: apincus2@gmail.com
cc: omellain@starpower.net, service@changelingpress.com
date: Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 10:14 AM
subject: Re: fw: Request for apology for Loose Change's bigoted remarks

Your apology went up on the blog within a few minutes of your request.

Please note that all blog content, like any other work by any writer, is copyright.
Your blog repost is in violation of our US and International Copyright, as no
permission to repost was requested.

It should be noted that the repost in question is a repost of the

article for the purposes of criticism on a private discussion forum.

from: apincus2@gmail.com (I’m speaking here as a representative of the group. This

email was sent with group permission)
to: Changelingpress@aol.com
date: Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 9:06 PM
subject: Re: fw: Request for apology for Loose Change's bigoted remarks

Thank you for your response. However, if the apology you refer to is the comment on
the replacement blog post of August 14, entitled "What’s Wrong With Your Hero?," this
is the same apology that we refer to in our letter as unacceptable, largely because it
attempts to diminish the severity of the offense by devaluing the commenters' opinions
with the claim that they're new readers because they've never commented before. The
apology also defends what was said in the original article with the claim that because
Changeling and Loose Id have long published m/m romance, that they are somehow
exempt of the expression of bigoted ideas. We do not accept this logic, although we do
acknowledge that the expression of a bigoted idea does not mean that the person or
company expressing them actually holds those ideas to be true. Besides, that comment
has been on the post since the 14th, so it did not "go up within a few minutes of [our]
request". There is no other apology from Changeling or from Margaret Riley anywhere
on the blog.

Regarding the question of copyright infringement, we find that because we are not
profiting from the reproduction of some or all of the blog post, as well as we are citing
the source of the post, that fair use applies. Furthermore, the issue of copyright is
rather beside the point, since it again attempts to distract from the issue at hand by
accusing critics of wrongdoing so as to intimidate them into silence. This action is
indicative of the lack of respect that Changeling has for its customers, whom it expects
to profit from but to whom it believes it owes nothing.

I, for one, will never again even consider purchasing any product from such a company.

Sincerely,

Alaina Pincus
Member, Goodread M/M Romance Reading Group

from: Changelingpress@aol.com
to: apincus2@gmail.com
cc: omellain@starpower.net, service@changelingpress.com
date: Wed, Aug 18, 2010 at 9:16 PM
subject: Re: fw: Request for apology for Loose Change's bigoted remarks

You have your right to your opinions, certainly. You have the right to not buy from
us. Whether or not you choose to accept my apology is your choice as well. Fair
Use, however, does not extend beyond a very small percentage of any article,
published or unpublished, whether you are a for profit group or not, and you are in
direct violation of my copyright.

Had you bothered to ask, I might have granted permission, but you did not.