“The above screenshot comes from an article of The Guardian, which was linked on Twitter. If you have anything to say about trigger warnings, now is your chance. But you might want to read the article first.”

Wow. This is one hell of a Wicked Wednesday prompt. Where, oh where do I start?

Firstly, by saying that I don’t believe in the censorship of books. Period.

Secondly, that I’m well aware that this liberal view of mine comes at a price. There’s no question that there are grotesque things out there in written form, things that I have no interest in reading. Ever. But I know that for freedom of expression to be truly ‘free’, then we must allow writing on all subjects, whether or not they offend us. When we start drawing lines, defining what is and isn’t okay from a personal viewpoint – and, ultimately, all censorship comes down to an individual (or individuals’) own set of judgements and beliefs – we risk getting ourselves into serious trouble: persecution, marginalisation, oppression.

The beauty of freewill is that we get to choose what we read. And what we don’t. You only have to look at the various books that have been banned over the years to see just what a blunt instrument censorship is. It doesn’t understand fine detail, it doesn’t make subtle distinctions. It is wrecking ball that smashes its direct target but also tends to take out everything else within a hundred-mile literary radius.

So, then. Trigger warnings. We’ve all seen them. In fact, it’s actually becoming increasingly difficult to purchase a book without being hit in the face with one. They run the gamut.

From the very simple:

To the incredibly detailed (A.K.A. ‘the entire book in a paragraph’):

To the vaguely humorous:

But if we accept that we’re not going to censor the written word, that we’re going to allow the publication of books of all kinds, regardless of whether we personally abhor or champion the content, shouldn’t we as readers expect to be explicitly warned about potentially distressing content (in the manner of the above) lest we encounter something we’re not prepared to deal with?

Well, no, actually.

Because giving a reader a pre-emptive Get Out of Feeling Free card has the ability to be more harmful than exposing them to potentially controversial content.

If we are only ever advised to read books that detail the safe and happy and benign, are warned away from texts that have the ability to shock, challenge and make us question our beliefs, our conduct – our morality – then are we not devaluing our humanity? Our ability to feel? Our ability to make our own informed choices?

The idea that reading should spare us tough or difficult emotions, that we should live in a perfect bubble where we pretend nothing bad ever happens, frankly, scares the living daylights out of me because it suggests that we could very easily become a society that doesn’t acknowledge or deal with anything difficult. An apathetic human race.

Just think about what that would look like for a second.

I’m personally guilty of using trigger warnings in my own work. Have employed them in the past to alert readers to content that I think they might not be expecting – pseudo non-consent in my short story Frostbite, for example. In writing this post, I’m actually starting to feel a little unsure as to whether I should have done so. My intention was to ‘protect’ readers who may have stumbled across my blog (and thought they were going to get something light and fluffy and ‘floral’) from an unwanted textual encounter. But in using trigger warnings, have I not made assumptions about their expectations? Censored their experience of my writing? Pushed them away and told them that I don’t believe that they’re capable of making a decision about a story’s content for themselves having read the first few lines?

The irony is that I pay little attention to trigger warnings when I’m deciding what I, personally, do and don’t want to read because I’m not prepared to rely on another person’s judgement of a text. I am my own barometer and I’m far, far more concerned with writing quality, an engaging story and an author’s ability to engage my head and my heart. My emotions.

It’s our reactions to books to books that count.

Hate.
Compassion
Distress.
Peace.
Anger.
Love.

These are normal human feelings. And we shouldn’t be warned away from them.

The post Wicked Wednesday: Pulling the trigger appeared first on Behind the Chintz Curtain.

Photo courtesy of Sex with Rose

Welcome to e[lust] - The only place where the smartest and hottest sex bloggers are featured under one roof every month. Whether you’re looking for sex journalism, erotic writing, relationship advice or kinky discussions it’ll be here at e[lust]. Want to be included in e[lust] #56? Start with the rules, come back March 1st to submit something and subscribe to the RSS feed for updates!

~ This Month’s Top Three Posts ~

Why I Post Nude Photos (and blog about sex)
Discovering Myself Through My Strap-On
Sex Toy Shaming and Bigoted Wise Cracks, FTW!

~ Featured Post (Molly’s Picks) ~

Aftercare and BDSM Play
Two worlds

~ Readers Choice from Sexbytes ~

*You really should consider adding your popular posts here too*

Erotic Fiction

Come Again
Undiluted
Shudder
Tattoo
And When I Take You…..
Ride on the Night bus
Superotica Valentine – Day 1
The spelling lesson

Thoughts & Advice on Sex & Relationships

Please let me just say “no.”
5 Easy Mistakes to Make While Flirting
SexyLittleIdeas – The Woman in the Dark Alley
Comparisons
Treasured Property
Supporting Love and Freedom
Predicting My Own Future
Let’s Go Down Again
How to eat my pussy
10 (non-sexual) ways to be intimate with your
Permission to be Human: Granted.
Squirting: What Science Says

Erotic Non-Fiction

Date with V. (N. Likes)
Luscious
Saving Movie Night
Wicked Wednesday: Nervous
The Painter
Stolen Moments Turn Into Treasured Memories
The Art of the Blow Job and Deepthroat
Stun Guns & Happiness
Fatal’s First Time (with a Hitachi)
First Session
Probation Officer #145: Bowre of blisse 9
Trust Games

Blogging

you will ask Me to fuck your ass
Fish & Chips
This is not an invitation
Men I Have Known
My Storyyy (Trigger Warning)

Thoughts & Advice on Kink & Fetish

More Than Whips and Chains
Being shouted at: kink or abuse?
Explaining violence and sex
Awww Yeah – Targeted Marketing!
Grass is always greener – swinging
Lazy Dog Sex Position

Sex News,Opinion, Interviews, Politics & Humor

Valentine’s Day Sex Toy Selections
Discovering My Sexuality
Pathologizing Male Aggression

Poetry

Sex is…

The post e[lust] #55 appeared first on Behind the Chintz Curtain.

Image: Maja desnuda censurata by Twice25 (via Wikimedia Commons)

Adult content. Pornography. Legal. Criminal. Consensual. Fantasy. Responsible parenting. Child abuse.

What do these words and terms mean to you? How do they make you feel? And if I asked you to separate them into ‘Good’ and ‘Bad’ buckets, what would you put where?

In the wake of the U.K. government’s plans to default censor pornography (David Cameron announced last week that all British households will be required to ‘opt in’ if they wish adult content to appear in search results), these questions will become more and more pertinent. Everyone, and I mean everyone, regardless of whether they feel they’re directly affected by these proposed changes, needs to be asking themselves ‘How do I feel about government imposed censorship?’ and ‘What value do I place on my right to discover legal content on the Internet?’

I’m willing to bet money on the fact that any normal, well-adjusted person reading this post will have put ‘criminal’ and ‘child abuse’ into the ‘Bad’ bucket and ‘legal’, ‘consensual’, ‘fantasy’ and ‘responsible parenting’ into the ‘Good’ bucket. But where did you put ‘adult content’? Where did you put ‘pornography’?

Up front and in a loud, shouty voice: I do not, for one minute, condone any pornographic content that is produced illegally, without the actors’ consent, or features children. Anyone who has any sort of involvement in that kind of sick sh*t needs to be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. Legally produced pornography, however, is another matter entirely. By definition, it is just that – legal – and it’s a dangerous and slippery road we travel down if we decide that governments have the right to automatically restrict our access to material that may make us uncomfortable but ultimately complies with the law.

I will be blunt: as far as titillation goes, visual pornography is not my thing. I come across it on my travels around the web and usually keep moving right along – I far prefer to explore sexual fantasy in text form. But the fact that legal pornography doesn’t work for me, that it is not a hot button in my particular case, in no way means that I have the right to tell another responsible adult that they cannot source and enjoy it. That would be projecting my own tastes and values on someone else and I have absolutely no right to do that. Do I see legal content on the Internet that offends me? All the time – and do you know what I do? I click away. The same way that I put a book down if the content is objectionable, switch off a television programme I dislike.

‘But isn’t this move about protecting children?’ I hear you say. ‘Won’t all this default censorship better shield them from the cocktail of sexual content lurking just a few key taps and mouse clicks away?’

For about five minutes. If we, as parents, think for one second that this move is going to absolve us from teaching out children about online safety, sex and sexual responsibility then we need our heads read. We live in a digital age and we need to get our heads around that. Fast. What happens when they go to another child’s house to play, those filters are switched off and they’re surfing the web unsupervised? What happens when they discover how to deactivate the filter on your home computer and have a good old poke around when you’re in the kitchen cooking supper? There is no substitute for age-appropriate discussions about sex and what is morally right and wrong. No substitute for providing a frank and thorough education about the online space and what they may or may not discover there. Frankly, I have more immediate concerns about the content on the various music video channels, which is readily available, at any time of day, via a digital T.V. box.

It is my job as a mum, as a responsible parent, to make sure that I educate and supervise my kids, ensure to the best of my ability that they are not exposed to pornography, and not rely on the government to semi-babysit them at the expense of normal, law-abiding adults. Because what the government is basically saying with this proposed legislation is that we, as a nation, cannot be trusted to turn on a filter system on our own, and that porn and the people who engage with it are bad, lumping them in with all those who are truly criminal. Nice.

What I would like to know is how this censoring is going to stop child pornography, because that, to my mind, is the issue that needs urgent attention. Tell me, Mr Cameron: how is this default filter going to stop those who are putting it online and those who watch it? How will it help with prosecutions? What are you doing to teach young people about online safety in schools and (controversial suggestion ahead), at the appropriate age, about ‘good’ versus ‘bad’ porn? Are we giving children any tools to cope, teaching them what to do if they discover the latter? Do they know how to report it?

What has also become very clear from all the commentary out there is that many people are confusing legal and illegal content. Further, we don’t seem to be able to distinguish between fantasy and real life:

‘Possessing pornography that depicts simulated rape is to become a criminal offence in England and Wales to make Britain a place where there is a “sense of right and wrong”.’

– via The Independent

Remember that word I used at the beginning of this piece, ‘consensual’? It’s sitting in your ‘Good’ bucket, yes? Well, let’s for a moment attach it to the word ‘fantasy’, also on the ‘Good’ sheet. ‘Yes, yes, Jane,’ I hear you say, ‘That’s perfectly all right with me. Consensual fantasy. Totally acceptable.’ Okay, then. Now imagine that the fantasy involves consensual non-consent between adults – by which I mean that the participants willingly choose to play out a non-consent scenario. What is your stance now? Keep in mind that none of the elements in these fantasies can be attached to the two things we’ve placed in the ‘Bad’ bucket, ‘criminal’ (there’s consent) and ‘child abuse’ (only of age adults are involved). My point here is that this scenario may make you feel uncomfortable – it may make you squirm more than a little – but it is, nonetheless, a consensual fantasy, and one that the participants or observers have every right to engage with or in. (You can read a brilliant article about this very topic on Musing of Rose’s blog; she herself is a rape survivor, and she articulates the complexities of such a scenario far more eloquently than I ever could.) I am not saying for one minute that some people won’t find this particular proposition offensive or that rape is ever acceptable in real life – rather that we have the right to engage or not engage in consensual fantasies of this type. And I’m not the only one who thinks this; per the Twitter account of author and columnist Louise Mensch:

‘It is not for our government to police consensual simulation, between adults, of one of women’s most common fantasies. I would hope that any such law would be challenged in the courts and fail in the courts. It is inhuman. Rape and rape fantasy not the same.’

I have to wonder, if the government pursues this line of thought, are they  going to go after the Mills & Boon back catalogue, which throughout the 80s and 90s featured the awful ‘rape plot’ device? In my opinion, the messages in those books promoted a far more damaging idea (‘rape as romance’).

And this leads me on to my next point: copy.

I can’t help but notice that the media hoopla surrounding this whole pornography crackdown has focussed largely on the Big P in its visual form, that there has been very little said about text. Will these measures affect the written word? What about short stories, books and articles? Will these filtered by search engines, too?

According to David Cameron:

‘It will depend on how the filters work.’

– via The Independent

Well, that clears that up then. And who, may I ask, will be deciding what is pornographic? Who, pray tell, is going to become our moral compass? What exactly will be included on the hit list? Sex education blogs? Sexual health sites? Erotic romance bookstores? Sex toy retailers? Fetlife? Blogs just like this one? (I had a friend recently tell me she got a pop-up warning saying that Behind the Chintz Curtain was a ‘porn’ site. Wow. News to me.) Oh, and I read non-con erotica. Am I going to be prosecuted for having C.J. Roberts’ Captive in the Dark on my bookshelf?

Freedom of speech and expression are not always comfortable. But we cannot just choose to be liberal with the easy stuff. We’re very lucky that, up until now, we have automatically been given the opportunity to decide what we see when we search for material online. (At this moment in time, you can choose to visit this site, read this post, decide I am or I’m not talking complete rubbish, and stay or leave.) But if we let this type of default censorship become the norm, where does it stop? Per Molly Moore and Harper Eliot: First they came for the pornographers – but who’s next?

I’ll leave you with this map of world Internet censorship below; I suspect that the U.K. isn’t going to be green for much longer …

Image: via Wikimedia Commons

The post Sense, Sensibility and Censorship appeared first on Behind the Chintz Curtain.

Prepare yourselves. This could get a little messy.

—————————————————————-

Jane: Welcome, Ms Savill! It is an honour to have you here in my erotic Laura Ashley-stroke-Cath Kidston paradise. First of all, why don’t you give us a brief run down on YOU. Who is Sheri, really, and what is she about? What does she spread on her toast in the morning? Does she take milk in her coffee? Does she pay her electricity bill on time?

Sheri: Greetings Jane! And if I may, just a quick hello to the last of your readers as they rush for the doors. So glad to be here! At last! I’m Behind the Chintz Curtain. And may I say it is every bit as lovely as I had suspected it would be. The pictures do NOT do it justice. I expected nice, but this is really elegant. And thank you for setting out the cheesy poofs for me. A most thoughtful gesture.

Jane: Let’s begin our Bound for Disappointment discussion by talking a little bit about Tara Febreze, the book’s intrepid erotic author heroine. What – or who – inspired her creation and could you tell us a little more about the etymology of her name? It has a very French feel to it and I am curious as to whether you may have been influenced by the great Anne Desclos of Story of O fame.

Sheri: Very perceptive of you Jane, to notice the literary influences as to Tara’s name. Yes, the name conjures cheap French perfume and odour-masking aerosols. The name Tara … I was thinking of Scarlett O’Hara’s plantation and of course Scarlett wore corsets. See how it all connects so cleverly? So well-crafted, isn’t it? Or, maybe I just got up one morning and, before I’d had that first life-giving slug of espresso, let out a breathy sigh and said to myself, “Hmm. Name for character. Let’s see. How ’bout Tara? Febreze? Yeah, good a name as any. Clackety-clack.” Oh no! Trade secrets given away here on Chintz Curtain. Redact!

Jane: In the initial stages of the book, burritos and flip flops play a significant role in the storyline. Can you expand a little on your decision to include them in the text and perhaps explain their metaphorical significance?

Sheri: Burritos are terribly underused in most great literature, don’t you agree? And why is that? It got me to thinking. Kept me up at night. Then I hit upon it: the burrito is a perfect metaphor for BDSM. It’s got all these bits sort of bound up inside. Bondage. And flip flops, of course, can be removed quickly, and used to slap at things. Like if you wanted to kill a bug crawling along the floor. So, burritos and bondage, flip flops and slapping at things. BDSM. I thought it was pretty ham-handed and transparent of me, really. But readers should see these things through the prism of their own experience.

Jane: Tara comes across as a very emotional heroine. Do you think that sometimes her feelings get the better of her? Is, for example, the scene in which she demolishes a neighbour’s topiary with a chainsaw typical or atypical of her from a behavioural point-of-view?

Sheri: Tara is a bit … high-strung. She’s creative; has that artistic temperament. So of course she’s going to react to blatant hypocrisy with a chainsaw massacre. Who doesn’t? For readers who don’t know, I’ll tell you a little (without spoilers): In the story, when the big online retailer starts censoring smut books, Tara just loses her shit completely. Personally I would never do something like that. Say a big online retailer made me change a beautiful book cover of mine, and then the next day I saw sixty-three others that are much much much more provocative than mine ever was, and the retailer let all of those stand, and they’re still there as we speak. Would I grab a chainsaw and go on a rampage next door? No. I’d write a polite letter of inquiry to the retailer, and then delete it. And then I’d probably say, “Well, right then. I’m going to write some snarky shit about this, at least, and then sell it on their site, because I do enjoy a nice slice of irony now and then.”

Jane: Vageena Royale, Tara’s arch nemesis: is she as Voldemort is to Harry? As Iago is to Othello?

Sheri: Vageena is annoying, isn’t she? I actually based her on a character from school. Someone who hid library books we all needed for research papers. Very cutthroat shit, that was. I have to figure karma got her. So I learned from that … trust no one! Make fun of them twenty years later in a book. No, they won’t know you’ve done it. But you will. Petty? You bet. Oh! Random fact you must know: As I wrote BFD, I constantly typed “Vegeena” instead of “Vageena.” I didn’t say it was an interesting fact. Just a random one.

Jane: It’s very difficult to prevent at least some of who we are, as authors, from seeping into our writing. How heavily do you, Sheri Savill, feature in Bound for Disappointment?

Sheri: I’d say Tara is 100% me through and through. Not just with regard to my penchant for wearing corsets and thigh-highs while out on errands, but the way she deals with the bad reviews, and the way she fondled the burritos. All those little details. Very much me.

Jane: At one point, Tara is told to edit her writing to make it ‘less smutty’, more acceptable for mainstream distribution. What parallels can we draw from this incident with real life and, say, the move to censor adult content by governments and large multinationals?

Sheri: Seriously I could rant about this all day. Censorship just infuriates me. As Mark Twain said, “Censorship is telling a man he can’t have a steak just because a baby can’t chew it.” I don’t like babies either. Sorry. But censorship with no logic, and being applied unevenly, and without explanation? Infuriating. Dangerous. And some are saying we mustn’t talk about it because we might be banned “for good” from certain … places. That’s some self-censorship right there, eh?

Jane: Would you ever recommend looking for a Dom in the frozen foods aisle?

Sheri: Yes, by all means. Look for the black flip flops and other tell tale signs of Domliness. Really, I think Doms are hard to find these days. It’s all submissives now. They’re being hatched somewhere. Someone needs to spray, or set out bait traps. The big ones. Where HAVE all the Doms gone? Who has them? Is there a ransom note? How much do the kidnappers want? Can we raise the money, Jane!? Online petition? Why isn’t there a rent-a-Dom service? Why? I don’t want to buy one because they lose more than half their value the minute you get them off the showroom floor. My head swirls with questions like this pretty much all the time. You know how they say a creative mind is like a computer monitor with 2,853 windows all open in separate tabs, all at the same time? My mind is exactly like that, only there’s a 404 on every page.

Jane: Lastly, I’d like to ask you about the book’s title. Does it suggest an ill-fated ending for Ms Febreze, or is it perhaps more hopeful, hinting at disappointment only if she continues to pursue Tops by the name of DOM?

Sheri: Well, Bound for Disappointment sort of sums up my personal “journey”.  The glass is half full. The wheels have fallen off the wagon. Someone’s stuck a pin in the balloon. But I’m known as an optimist.

I don’t want to give away the ending because I spent a good three minutes – at least – plotting it. But I’ll hint. There may be sequels. Yes. Because I have – I mean Tara has – angst. She’s sensitive. She needs to vent when people leave inane reviews of her books. Me, I shrug and go about my business all cheerful-like. I don’t give it a second thought. Because I’m a professional. I can take harsh, poorly-written criticism from strangers who’ve never read erotica, much less BDSM erotica. “My that’s an interesting point you make. I’ll be sure to …” The chainsaw is gassed up and ready.

Excerpt:

‘When Tara reached home she opened her laptop and checked her email. There was one marked URGENT, from her editor, Deke:

“Hey, Tara. Our distributors are tightening up some categories for smutty BDSM books. There have been complaints that your stuff is too … hardcore. So we have to be a little more careful. No biggie, just means changing a little wording in your new books, here and there, to adapt. No more references to “cock” “pussy” “fucking” “tits” “ass” “holes” “come” “coming” “wet” “hard” “breathing” “licking” “sucking” “fingers” “smacking” “bruising” “blowing” “moaning” “hot” “touching” “thrusting” “whipping” “caning” “spanking” “toys” and “sex.” I’ll send the full list later.”

“What in the name of FUCK-ALL?!” Tara said aloud, to her pet goldfish Skippy, who was doing a backstroke in his bowl on her desk. Actually he was Skippy 17. She numbered the Skippys now, because she traveled a lot and, well, you know. When she returned from trips it was just a matter of a quick flushing and then on to the next Skippy. Tara knew that people with pets were generally happier and better adjusted overall. Dealing with a string of senseless fish deaths made her better able to handle the stresses of everyday life with grace and aplomb.

“Are these fucking prude-ass distributors on meth!? How am I going to write smut without cocks and pussies and assholes and come? MY STUFF IS TOO HARDCORE?! This is smut, for God’s sake! Smut is supposed to be … SMUTTY!”

The rain pelted the windows. Thunder rolled, rattling the light fixture over her desk. Tara felt a furious bubbling froth of anger rising up from the pit of her stomach. She jumped up and headed to the backyard. She stopped at the shed and grabbed her perfectly-maintained gassed-up chainsaw. She pulled the cord. It started instantly and she charged over wet grass in her five-inch black patent heels in the darkness and heavy rain.

“I’ll show these motherfuckers! TOO HARDCORE?! MY STUFF IS TOO HARDCORE?!?! FUCKING ASSHOLES!” She thought again how having pets allowed her to channel her feelings in healthy ways.’

—————————————————————-

* Sheri Savill is a real-life submissive who “came out” about it back in the mid-90s, somewhat at least (went to dungeons, etc.). She knew she was submissive since she was a pre-teen, and there are still whips and chains in the house. She’s worked at damned near every sort of media outlet there is over the years – as a magazine editor, reporter, freelance writer, copy editor. Now she writes smut and does web development. When she’s working, she wears headphones and listens to soothing rainstorm sounds that promise to keep her centered and calm. It doesn’t work.

Bound for Disappointment tickle your fancy? Click on the following links to purchase a copy:

Amazon.co.uk

• Bound for Disappointment – Kindle

Amazon.com

• Bound for Disappointment – Kindle

Barnes & Noble

• Bound for Disappointment – Nook

The post Interview: Sheri Savill – Bound for Disappointment or untold fame and glory? appeared first on Behind the Chintz Curtain.

Amazon in the Book Banning Business
Source: Selena Kitt, The Self Publishing Revolution

Over the past month or so, a number of authors and readers I’m in contact with via various online book community groups have noticed that Amazon has begun to censor erotica texts. Yes, increasingly, the online retail giant is deciding which saucy books we can and can’t read.

Whilst Amazon’s Direct Publishing service is booming (everyone wants to be the new E.L. James) a growing number of erotica authors are finding that their books are being removed from the sale for violating ‘content guidelines’.

‘Well,’ I hear you say. ‘Stick to the guidelines and there won’t be a problem.’

If only it were that simple. Per the Amazon website:

Pornography

We don’t accept pornography or offensive depictions of graphic sexual acts.

 

Offensive Content

What we deem offensive is probably about what you would expect.

Wow. That’s really clear. You know how to define ‘pornography’ do you, Amazon? Know it when you see it, yes? And as far as ‘offensive content’ goes, I’m 100% certain our ‘expectations’ aren’t always going to match.

The above article by erotica author Selena Kitt gives an excellent overview of exactly what’s been going on, as does this thread, posted a day or so ago by author P.J. Fox whose work has just been ‘banned’. The latter has been trying to work out exactly why they’ve been kicked off the sales list so they can address the issue, only Amazon won’t specify what the problem is. Helpful.

It will be interesting to see how many erotica authors vote with their feet as a result of all this censorship hoo-ha. I’ve seen a fair few who have already stated their intent to move their titles over to Smashwords, which is generally seen to be far more author-friendly and has content guidelines that actually look like they were written by a lawyer.

Note to self: review more books published exclusively on Smashwords.

‘Fifty Shades of Grey’ Musical Heading to Off-Broadway
Source: Time

I soooo want to go and see this, primarily because I think the song titles are to die for. I’m not normally a fan of musicals (The Rocky Horror Picture Show being the notable exception) but who could pass up a production that features numbers such as ‘They Get Nasty, ‘I Don’t Make Love, I “F#*!”’ and ‘There’s a Hole Inside of Me’.

Please tell me there’s going to be an album?

Aristotle sex manual banned for 200 years to be auctioned
Source: The Telegraph

If you adore antique books (as I do) you may be interested in the forthcoming auction of this rare sex manual, which was first published in the 1600s.

Apparently banned until 1961 in Great Britain (sources differ on that point), it’s believed that the Compleat Master-Piece (incorrectly attributed to Aristotle) was used to provide guidance to ‘amateur midwives’ and ‘young married couples’.

Per the lot information on the Lyon & Turnbull website:

‘The work was certainly considered highly taboo and distasteful and any printers avoided including their names in the imprint, possibly for fear of prosecution.’

It’s hardly risqué by today’s standards but from a historical perspective this text sounds absolutely fascinating – not least because of the quirky illustrations and dire warnings about the consequences of ‘sin’.

The post Alert Me: Amazon becomes Mary Whitehouse, Fifty Shades on Broadway, and an antique sex manual appeared first on Behind the Chintz Curtain.