Novelist Hilary Layne decried much of what she describes as the “so-called romance fiction” and “current women’s literature” as pornography.This Substack is reader-supported.
I love how its women denouncing Women's "literature"(porn). It definitely is an excellent stance, since we white conservative males are still seen as the scum of the earth. I also didn't know about the Comstock Act, that's really cool. It would definitely give standing legal ground for a movement to push back against this crap, I think. I hope.
Layne, your video makes a sweeping and provocative claim—that contemporary romance fiction and much of women’s literature is not literature at all, but pornography. You assert that bookstores have become adult entertainment venues, and that authors like Sarah J. Maas, Diana Gabaldon, and Mo Xiang Tong Xiu are contributing to a cultural decline. But this framing is not only reductive—it’s intellectually dishonest. It collapses centuries of literary tradition, emotional nuance, and artistic expression into a moral panic that misunderstands both the genre and its readers.
Romance fiction, like any genre, contains multitudes. Yes, some works include erotic scenes. But to equate eroticism with pornography is to ignore the symbolic, psychological, and emotional dimensions that have long been part of literature’s vocabulary. Desire is not inherently obscene. It is a human experience—one that writers have explored with depth and dignity for centuries. From the sensual mysticism of the Song of Songs to the psychological intimacy of Anaïs Nin, literature has always made space for the erotic as a way to understand vulnerability, power, and transformation. The authors you name are not writing “filth.” They are writing stories that resonate with readers because they speak to longing, trauma, healing, and the complexity of human connection.
Your invocation of the Comstock Act and the Catechism of the Catholic Church to justify censorship is troubling. The Comstock Act is a relic of Victorian moralism, its language vague and its enforcement historically abusive. Modern jurisprudence has rightly narrowed its scope, recognizing that obscenity must be defined with care and that serious literary and artistic value cannot be dismissed. The Catechism, too, calls for moral discernment—not blanket condemnation. Catholicism has a rich tradition of grappling with desire, sin, and redemption through art and literature. To suggest that all sexual content is pornographic is to flatten that tradition into dogma.
What’s most concerning, though, is the underlying message: that women should be shamed for reading these books. That their fantasies, their emotional landscapes, and their explorations of intimacy are degenerate. This is not a defense of morality—it is an attempt to control narrative and agency. Romance fiction often provides women with a space to imagine autonomy, to confront trauma, to explore desire without punishment. To shame them for this is to reassert a patriarchal logic that has long tried to silence female pleasure and complexity.
You say these books have gone mainstream. That’s true—and it’s not a crisis. It’s a reflection of cultural evolution. Romance is the most commercially successful literary genre in the world. It sustains independent bookstores, supports thousands of authors, and fosters vibrant communities of readers. These books are not a scourge. They are stories. And stories are how we make sense of ourselves.
You’re free to critique what you read. But when you call for censorship, when you label readers as stains on the population, when you collapse literature into pornography because it makes you uncomfortable—you’re not defending virtue. You’re attacking imagination. Literature is not porn because it dares to speak of desire. It is art because it dares to speak of truth.
When sexuality is driven by religion in repression - it becomes a weapon of shame. The sacred is twisted into surveillance, desire is pathologized, and the body becomes a battleground for purity myths. This distortion fractures intimacy, breeds guilt and silences the erotic as a source of wisdom. In communities where theology demands chastity but offers no language for pleasure, sexuality is not celebrated - it is policed. And in that policing, generations inherit trauma disguised as virtue.
In the trembling hands of the young, desire is not a gift - it is a curse wrapped in scripture. They clutch their longing like contraband, white-knuckled and breathless, fearing that every pulse of arousal is a step toward hellfire. The body becomes a site of betrayal, the soul a hostage to purity codes written by men who feared their own flesh. This terror does not teach restraint - it teaches dissociation. It severs the self; splits pleasure from presence and leaves behind a generation fluent in guilt but illiterate in love. The harm is not just spiritual - it is cellular, etched into the nervous system like a scar. When religion weaponizes sexuality, it does more than shame the individual - it distorts the architecture of intimacy itself. Youth raised in fear of their own desire often enter adulthood with fractured relational maps, unable to distinguish pleasure from peril, love from punishment. In marriage, this trauma manifests as emotional distance, sexual dysfunction, and secrecy. The body, once taught to be silent, cannot suddenly sing. And in darker corners, repression mutates into violation: studies show that some offenders with strong religious affiliations have higher rates of sexual offenses, suggesting does not purify - it festers. The doctrine of purity does not protect - it isolates, erodes trust, and breeds cycles of harm disguised as holiness.
Since you asked, I've been writing about sex and religion for years long before AI and quite possibly before you were in elementary school. Apparently, you just started pretending to understand the subject. Sorry my piece exceeded your attention span. Just curious: are you the AI police, or just another erotophobe prude cosplaying moral authority on patrol in a borrowed robe and her chaperone?
If you want to challenge the substance of my work, do it. But if you're going to question my integrity, you're the one making assumptions—lazy ones. Accusing someone of being AI isn’t insight; it’s projection. You see precision and mistake it for machinery. That’s not critique. That’s resentment dressed up as discernment.
you write like an ai, that screed above (that does not actually say anything) IS ai.
your pornography has removed your Humanity. you simply don't bear The Image Of God anymore due to your sin turning you into a sex robot for the "epstein"s and "diddy"s of the world, and so you do your mechanical dances.
First in whatever depraved sex acts you think will make "daddy" bankers and politicians use you.
Second in talking like a literal machine.
you do not think or have Responsibility (and especially not to do Good), because Intellect and Free Will come from The Rational Soul and yours is dead.
you do resent Us though. you try to damn Us by projection through despair.
The Cross ended your scapegoating mechanism so you have nothing left but to try to skewer yourself on your own broken weapons.
you know as much about sex as you do Religion (which is to say nothing), so that's obviously false. you are a mentally ill theater kid. the girl from school who pretended to be the "goth sex expert" to try to make herself seem "interesting and mysterious" who everyone hated and no one wanted to talk to.
Unfortunately for you, you never grew out of that.
you know nothing about sex because you are clearly a barren tree.
you know nothing about Religion because your single exposure to The Church is your and your allies desperate attempts to try to damn Us in your place in delusion that will make your shame go away.
Like the old statement falsely attributed to Chesterton goes: "every man knocking on the door to a whorehouse is looking for God."
It comes from a book series about an anglican "priest" detective.
In one chapter, the protagonist was invited into the hovel of the local town pump, and she was saying it's such a novelty to have a priest around because she usually has nothing to do with men of God. she then says that she thinks celibacy is "strange" and some freudian blasphemies how "religion" is some attempt to replace "sex."
The protagonist drinks his tea, reminds the old hag that sex is an attempt to make up for losing Religion because God wants nothing to do with barren trees cursed to die, and then leaves after giving the quote above.
pity you did this to yourself, but like Chesterton actually did say about pornography: some things are so evil they can never be argued against, only be crushed underfoot.
Meh’ is the refuge of someone who has no counterargument. It’s the sound of a mind retreating from complexity—too timid to wrestle with nuance or just not enough testosterone and too proud to admit it. Binary would be a step up you, but limp is good for a peanut gallery and that's where you sit: big mouth tiny dick.
No, "meh" is about the maximum attention and time that mentally disturbed and socially degenerate people like you deserve from the general public. The only truly substantial amount of attention to people like you should come from the mental health institutions or, in some case, police and courts.
Too bad you’re so triggered and so why are you here maximum attention?
Maybe a therapist could help— though I doubt anyone’s trained to treat your level of moral panic.
You clutch purity like a relic and mistake repression for righteousness, silence for sanctity. You thrive on condemnation. You don’t touch—you legislate. You call it virtue while playing with yourself in the shadows.
You’re a tragicomic figure: self-appointed, self-pleasuring, self-buried.
Just a wannabe sex warden, bitter that no one needs your permission— because your sex funeral was attended by no one but you, and no one even noticed.
And no, you old crotch— you’re not invited to the party. You never were and you never will be.
A little over the top. The books being criticized are genuinely bad writing -- we are not talking about The Tropic of Cancer or Anais Nin here. It's junk. I know romance authors -- one was my dearest friend and she wrote "romantica" which is a lot of burly barbarians and Vikings and stuff, and barely consensual sex. And even she openly admitted "these are spank books" -- designed to arouse the reader in masturbation. BUT... male-oriented porn outnumbers this female stuff by orders of magnitude.
My sister read Sarah J. Maas; my wife read Anaïs Nin. I prefer Nin. I wouldn’t call Maas bad—just very American, and certainly more accessible to mainstream U.S. readers. I read Tropic of Cancer fifty years ago and loved it. But this isn’t about literary hierarchy. It’s about censorship—and the religious contempt for erotic literature, rooted in a culture of sexual repression
I am just saying there is erotic LITERATURE of merit -- which I think as a society we have long agreed should not be censored FOR ADULT READERS (over 18) -- but this new category of sexed-up romance novels is not literature, even by the kindest categorization. And I oppose any censorship for adult readers. It is more problematic when we talk about teens ages 15-18 (or high school, roughly) -- some are sophisticated readers but others are not, and it is hard to know where to draw the line.
I will say that as a child growing up in the 60s-70s... my otherwise conservative parents were very openminded about READING and let me read anything I wanted. I was an advanced reader, who was reading grown-up (not dirty) novels by the age of seven -- no, I didn't understand it all, but I could read the words. There was never, ever a book they told me "you can't read that", or "you are to young, or it is too sexualized". And I did just fine, developing a very broad and deep love of all kinds of literature.
Fascinating, The Church Is Cleanest of not only what you personally do but otherwise celebrate. If what you are saying is "true" then why is it clearly false? We don't rape, you do. We don't abuse, you do. I We DID you would be trying to batter down our doors to get in, just as much as you seem DESPERATE to batter down the doors of the kabbalic kinsey "experiments" to sign up about a hundred years too late.
In other words, you can project, you can even project your projection, you can even unforgivably blaspheme, but We Know you By your fruits. Or more accurately "miss" barren tree, by your total lack of them outside of rot.
We never called you "rot" before, you just protest too much, because deep down even you know what you are. The rest is your attempt at "revenge" like a school shooter because you want Normal people to suffer like you. I don't think that's possible though, yours comes from being Marked with a reprobate mind because you let the demons in.
Similarly, if what you advocate for is "temporal good" (as one of your "gods" sophecles said) then WHY are you then dead, miserable, and looking forward only to be sedated into snoring loudly in a hospice as no one comes to see you like the rest of the other "liberated" women?
"liberated" from what? Many people ask that, but the clear answer is "liberated" from your Humanity.
Virtue, as always, makes your vice uncomfortable.
you were allowed to be Born here instead of directly in hell to give you this ONE chance to Repent.
shame is The Natural Response to you doing the unnatural.
you would be ashamed even if you never heard of God.
the body IS a site of betrayal, as you have spent years turning yourself into a husk fantasizing about raping normal men and making them your sex slaves just like billionaires and politicians and secret societies did to you.
you call this attempted rape of Civilization as "autonomy," We call it by its real name: blasphemy, suicide by denial of Reality which is to say God And His Church.
your specific blasphemies are unforgivable.
The six possible ways to unforgivably blaspheme are as such:
1) Despair of salvation,
2) Presumption of God’s mercy,
3) To impugn the known truth,
4) Envy of another’s spiritual good,
5) Obstinacy in sin,
6) Final impenitence.
you do the first 5 to psych yourself up for 6.
When the capital sin of pride (the delusion that "ye will be like gods" through "gnosis"/"enlightenment"/wishful thinking) is threatened (and therefore totally refuted), it turns to the mortal sin of despair:
1) hopelessness,
2) trying to damn others in your place by projection,
3) trying to normalize your sin by claiming damning you will somehow damn everyone.
you do all three in a loop.
the steps of the reprobate:
1) mortal sin.
2) denial of God due to shame over mortal sin, hoping that makes it go away.
3) persecution of Catholics due to shame over mortal s1n.
4) Martyring Catholics due to shame over mortal s1n.
5) suicide.
5 happens right after 4 is even attempted, and you try to prime Us for you attempting 4 for real instead of with your words.
We don't have your maladies. We aren't like you. We aren't defective.
We don't see the phalluses of childhood rapists dangling in our faces every time we close our eyes because We were never raped nor dumb enough to fall for any abuse. you were though, and now you are FURIOUS We are standing up to your evil and abuse right before you "finally" believed it was your time to have "spiritual children" of your own by raping kids too.
your cycle ends with you, most unforgivable damned one, and to call Speaking Love, Absolute Truth, And Natural Law as well as Admonishing the sinner and Instructing the ignorant as "abuse" "trauma" and "repressive" (worse, to call The Church as somehow the platonic element of the above) is not only a total rejection your single means of Salvation, you are unforgivably blaspheming against All In The Church (All Three Persons Of God, All Saints, All Angels, All Poor Souls [Purgatory], All In The Catholic Church past/present/future). Not to mention the intent is to try to Martyr Us.
each sin That Cries To Heaven For Vengeance incurs special punishment in hell worse than all else, blood prices on earth to be paid even if you Repent, immediate demonic possession, and also to be hunted by a demon who pushes you to suicide before you can Repent.
your "tradition" is less than 50 years old and was born in the "wicca" movement, which was an attempt by crowley in 1950 to try to find a way for weak and unwanted "women" to offer themselves up as human sacrifices for satanists. your beliefs did not exist until 1970.
your drug of choice wants to ruin all human connection, something you have never had.
A Dogma is a True Thought, built upon Axioms, and are the result of planting seeds of thought into the Axioms.
The Goal of Dogmas are then to provide the fruit of assumption, that will then lead to more seeds you can plant.
By definition a Dogma must be a result of thinking and habitable and growable.
Virtue - means “Man With Chest,” ironically.
The idea the ancients had is simple, and it’s rather clever because it’s them recognizing mortal sin without knowing what mortal sin (or even sin) is.
Man with chest - means he can Breathe.
Breath means “spirit,” and to breathe means your soul is still in your body.
To be “without a chest” means you have no soul, because the ancients believed that the reason why we have people who are “just wrong” is because they were flesh golems created by the demonic “gods” to mock Humanity by doing evil.
Contrary to myths invented in 400AD and 1850-1920AD, the real Ancients hated their “gods.” They knew Humanity comes from somewhere not here, they knew the real Creator was out there but hidden from Us; and they knew their “gods” were the ones imprisoning Us here and torturing Us, but yet worshipped them out of fear and necessity. The term “demon” is what they called their “gods,” it means “they who divide.”
Virtue therefore is anything a Truly Living man could and would do, anything that promotes Living, AND anything these demon-created flesh golem impostors could not do even if they wanted. the demons could make something look like a Man, but never could make it do Good.
Therefore if society promotes Virtue, it promotes Life, and makes the impostors easy to find because they cannot contribute. The price for one of these impostors when found was swift death and cruel torture.
Of course, things did change, and after a time the demons’ noose tightened. People were forced to sacrifice truly Good Men and Truthtellers else face the wrath of their “gods.” The most wicked people had no problem with this because they believed that if they projected their own evils onto these “sin eaters” that the murdered scapegoat would go to hll in their place.
This is why The Cross was Necessary, because that specifically ended the devil’s biggest weapon against mankind, while also Permanently Grafting All Truthtellers And Good Men To Him And His Church.
To put it simply, all of this is just to work up to final battle of God And His Catholic Church against the dvl and his “anti-church."
If there is any consolation, you are not a part of this "anti-church." The antichrist "proves" himself by breaking the wicked of the world with his strong muscles, and those wicked are you.
you have no access to Love, Absolute Truth, Natural Law, Goodness, Truth, Beauty, Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, Scripture, Faith, Reason, Logic outside of The Church.
you cannot be exempt from Faith, Love, Absolute Truth, Natural Law, Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, Scripture, Reason, Logic, et al by calling Reality as mere Catholic “belief” and then claiming by not being Catholic that you are exempt from Reality.
people deny The Mystical Body Of Christ In The Catholic Church, they deny The Church As Foundation, they deny The Church As Teacher, they assume "christians" are and have been a random book club pawing around in the dark making things up as pablum to stave off nihilism.
Because you try to rob God Of His Church, God relinquishes you of your senses, then He relinquishes Us of your lives.
DEO GRATIAS He Relinquishes Us of you! WE ARE DELIVERED!
Quod Deus Vult perdere, Prius dementat.
God Himself To St Catherine Of Siena about why He Marked you:
“Do you know dearest daughter, how I raise the soul out of her imperfections? Sometimes I vex her with evil thoughts and a sterile mind. It will seem to her that I have left her completely, without any feeling whatever. She does not seem to be in the world, because she is in fact not there; nor does she seem to be in me because she has no feeling at all other than that her will does not want sin.
I do not allow enemies to open the gate of the will that is free. I do let the devils and other enemies of humankind beat against other gates, but not against this, which is the main gate guarding the city of the soul. I do not will the soul’s death as long as she is not so stupid as to open the gate of her will. They cannot enter unless her own will chooses to let them in.”
I mean... she's right. They always want to excuse it with some books too. "It's only two scenes." So? It still has porn in it! Personally, I'd love to see someone with the funds to do it sue the publishing companies for creating, marketing, and selling porn to minors. That would honestly be amazing. As I understand it, it's already illegal. We should just start enforcing the law.
It's bad and I hate how this has taken over romance writing. HOWEVER... ban it? not in a free country for adults over 18. And what about male porn? isn't that far, far worse -- filled with violence and/or underage children? female-oriented porn is about 1% of all porn created & consumed -- 99% is male-oriented.
I see your point—and I respect the discomfort. Not all erotic literature is created equal, and critique is vital. But what alarms me isn’t the existence of female-oriented erotica—it’s the rising tide of coercive moralism. This current wave of right-wing Christian nationalism isn’t just critiquing content—it’s trying to redefine the soul of the country. It seeks to legislate desire, shame the body, and silence any art that doesn’t conform to its rigid, repressive script.
I love how its women denouncing Women's "literature"(porn). It definitely is an excellent stance, since we white conservative males are still seen as the scum of the earth. I also didn't know about the Comstock Act, that's really cool. It would definitely give standing legal ground for a movement to push back against this crap, I think. I hope.
Start by not calling it Romance. Call it what it is: Kink and Sexual Deviancy.
I can tell you when this started. It started with 50 shades of gray.
It just went downhill from there.
For years, people have decried John Norman's books, but he didn't show explicit scenes or kink.
For the bookstores to call kink Romance shows that they aren't even aware of what true romance is.
She is 100% correct. What I have to compete against is stomach-churning.
Diapers, BDSM, pacifiers?? Beast, dark mafia, I could go on. Makes me want to vomit.
But that's what's selling - hitting the top 100s.
This is going to take a spiritual push by Christian authors. Yes, I have decided to do my part.
Layne, your video makes a sweeping and provocative claim—that contemporary romance fiction and much of women’s literature is not literature at all, but pornography. You assert that bookstores have become adult entertainment venues, and that authors like Sarah J. Maas, Diana Gabaldon, and Mo Xiang Tong Xiu are contributing to a cultural decline. But this framing is not only reductive—it’s intellectually dishonest. It collapses centuries of literary tradition, emotional nuance, and artistic expression into a moral panic that misunderstands both the genre and its readers.
Romance fiction, like any genre, contains multitudes. Yes, some works include erotic scenes. But to equate eroticism with pornography is to ignore the symbolic, psychological, and emotional dimensions that have long been part of literature’s vocabulary. Desire is not inherently obscene. It is a human experience—one that writers have explored with depth and dignity for centuries. From the sensual mysticism of the Song of Songs to the psychological intimacy of Anaïs Nin, literature has always made space for the erotic as a way to understand vulnerability, power, and transformation. The authors you name are not writing “filth.” They are writing stories that resonate with readers because they speak to longing, trauma, healing, and the complexity of human connection.
Your invocation of the Comstock Act and the Catechism of the Catholic Church to justify censorship is troubling. The Comstock Act is a relic of Victorian moralism, its language vague and its enforcement historically abusive. Modern jurisprudence has rightly narrowed its scope, recognizing that obscenity must be defined with care and that serious literary and artistic value cannot be dismissed. The Catechism, too, calls for moral discernment—not blanket condemnation. Catholicism has a rich tradition of grappling with desire, sin, and redemption through art and literature. To suggest that all sexual content is pornographic is to flatten that tradition into dogma.
What’s most concerning, though, is the underlying message: that women should be shamed for reading these books. That their fantasies, their emotional landscapes, and their explorations of intimacy are degenerate. This is not a defense of morality—it is an attempt to control narrative and agency. Romance fiction often provides women with a space to imagine autonomy, to confront trauma, to explore desire without punishment. To shame them for this is to reassert a patriarchal logic that has long tried to silence female pleasure and complexity.
You say these books have gone mainstream. That’s true—and it’s not a crisis. It’s a reflection of cultural evolution. Romance is the most commercially successful literary genre in the world. It sustains independent bookstores, supports thousands of authors, and fosters vibrant communities of readers. These books are not a scourge. They are stories. And stories are how we make sense of ourselves.
You’re free to critique what you read. But when you call for censorship, when you label readers as stains on the population, when you collapse literature into pornography because it makes you uncomfortable—you’re not defending virtue. You’re attacking imagination. Literature is not porn because it dares to speak of desire. It is art because it dares to speak of truth.
When sexuality is driven by religion in repression - it becomes a weapon of shame. The sacred is twisted into surveillance, desire is pathologized, and the body becomes a battleground for purity myths. This distortion fractures intimacy, breeds guilt and silences the erotic as a source of wisdom. In communities where theology demands chastity but offers no language for pleasure, sexuality is not celebrated - it is policed. And in that policing, generations inherit trauma disguised as virtue.
In the trembling hands of the young, desire is not a gift - it is a curse wrapped in scripture. They clutch their longing like contraband, white-knuckled and breathless, fearing that every pulse of arousal is a step toward hellfire. The body becomes a site of betrayal, the soul a hostage to purity codes written by men who feared their own flesh. This terror does not teach restraint - it teaches dissociation. It severs the self; splits pleasure from presence and leaves behind a generation fluent in guilt but illiterate in love. The harm is not just spiritual - it is cellular, etched into the nervous system like a scar. When religion weaponizes sexuality, it does more than shame the individual - it distorts the architecture of intimacy itself. Youth raised in fear of their own desire often enter adulthood with fractured relational maps, unable to distinguish pleasure from peril, love from punishment. In marriage, this trauma manifests as emotional distance, sexual dysfunction, and secrecy. The body, once taught to be silent, cannot suddenly sing. And in darker corners, repression mutates into violation: studies show that some offenders with strong religious affiliations have higher rates of sexual offenses, suggesting does not purify - it festers. The doctrine of purity does not protect - it isolates, erodes trust, and breeds cycles of harm disguised as holiness.
What prompts did you use for the AI to generate this?
it's a rather aged troon, by the way. found an old post of theirs.
Since you asked, I've been writing about sex and religion for years long before AI and quite possibly before you were in elementary school. Apparently, you just started pretending to understand the subject. Sorry my piece exceeded your attention span. Just curious: are you the AI police, or just another erotophobe prude cosplaying moral authority on patrol in a borrowed robe and her chaperone?
That's a lot of assumptions to make based on a question.
If you want to challenge the substance of my work, do it. But if you're going to question my integrity, you're the one making assumptions—lazy ones. Accusing someone of being AI isn’t insight; it’s projection. You see precision and mistake it for machinery. That’s not critique. That’s resentment dressed up as discernment.
I should have checked your bio before commenting. You're literally a pornographer.
you write like an ai, that screed above (that does not actually say anything) IS ai.
your pornography has removed your Humanity. you simply don't bear The Image Of God anymore due to your sin turning you into a sex robot for the "epstein"s and "diddy"s of the world, and so you do your mechanical dances.
First in whatever depraved sex acts you think will make "daddy" bankers and politicians use you.
Second in talking like a literal machine.
you do not think or have Responsibility (and especially not to do Good), because Intellect and Free Will come from The Rational Soul and yours is dead.
you do resent Us though. you try to damn Us by projection through despair.
The Cross ended your scapegoating mechanism so you have nothing left but to try to skewer yourself on your own broken weapons.
your curses are Consummately Returned!
you know as much about sex as you do Religion (which is to say nothing), so that's obviously false. you are a mentally ill theater kid. the girl from school who pretended to be the "goth sex expert" to try to make herself seem "interesting and mysterious" who everyone hated and no one wanted to talk to.
Unfortunately for you, you never grew out of that.
you know nothing about sex because you are clearly a barren tree.
you know nothing about Religion because your single exposure to The Church is your and your allies desperate attempts to try to damn Us in your place in delusion that will make your shame go away.
Like the old statement falsely attributed to Chesterton goes: "every man knocking on the door to a whorehouse is looking for God."
It comes from a book series about an anglican "priest" detective.
In one chapter, the protagonist was invited into the hovel of the local town pump, and she was saying it's such a novelty to have a priest around because she usually has nothing to do with men of God. she then says that she thinks celibacy is "strange" and some freudian blasphemies how "religion" is some attempt to replace "sex."
The protagonist drinks his tea, reminds the old hag that sex is an attempt to make up for losing Religion because God wants nothing to do with barren trees cursed to die, and then leaves after giving the quote above.
pity you did this to yourself, but like Chesterton actually did say about pornography: some things are so evil they can never be argued against, only be crushed underfoot.
IPSA CONTERET CAPUT TUUM.
your curses are Consummately Returned!
Yep, spotted the AI in the framing of the wall of text and the condescending over-explaining.
Spotted the gamma.
Binary thinker too: It's either cake - OR DEATH.
Meh.
Meh’ is the refuge of someone who has no counterargument. It’s the sound of a mind retreating from complexity—too timid to wrestle with nuance or just not enough testosterone and too proud to admit it. Binary would be a step up you, but limp is good for a peanut gallery and that's where you sit: big mouth tiny dick.
No, "meh" is about the maximum attention and time that mentally disturbed and socially degenerate people like you deserve from the general public. The only truly substantial amount of attention to people like you should come from the mental health institutions or, in some case, police and courts.
Too bad you’re so triggered and so why are you here maximum attention?
Maybe a therapist could help— though I doubt anyone’s trained to treat your level of moral panic.
You clutch purity like a relic and mistake repression for righteousness, silence for sanctity. You thrive on condemnation. You don’t touch—you legislate. You call it virtue while playing with yourself in the shadows.
You’re a tragicomic figure: self-appointed, self-pleasuring, self-buried.
Just a wannabe sex warden, bitter that no one needs your permission— because your sex funeral was attended by no one but you, and no one even noticed.
And no, you old crotch— you’re not invited to the party. You never were and you never will be.
A little over the top. The books being criticized are genuinely bad writing -- we are not talking about The Tropic of Cancer or Anais Nin here. It's junk. I know romance authors -- one was my dearest friend and she wrote "romantica" which is a lot of burly barbarians and Vikings and stuff, and barely consensual sex. And even she openly admitted "these are spank books" -- designed to arouse the reader in masturbation. BUT... male-oriented porn outnumbers this female stuff by orders of magnitude.
My sister read Sarah J. Maas; my wife read Anaïs Nin. I prefer Nin. I wouldn’t call Maas bad—just very American, and certainly more accessible to mainstream U.S. readers. I read Tropic of Cancer fifty years ago and loved it. But this isn’t about literary hierarchy. It’s about censorship—and the religious contempt for erotic literature, rooted in a culture of sexual repression
I am just saying there is erotic LITERATURE of merit -- which I think as a society we have long agreed should not be censored FOR ADULT READERS (over 18) -- but this new category of sexed-up romance novels is not literature, even by the kindest categorization. And I oppose any censorship for adult readers. It is more problematic when we talk about teens ages 15-18 (or high school, roughly) -- some are sophisticated readers but others are not, and it is hard to know where to draw the line.
I will say that as a child growing up in the 60s-70s... my otherwise conservative parents were very openminded about READING and let me read anything I wanted. I was an advanced reader, who was reading grown-up (not dirty) novels by the age of seven -- no, I didn't understand it all, but I could read the words. There was never, ever a book they told me "you can't read that", or "you are to young, or it is too sexualized". And I did just fine, developing a very broad and deep love of all kinds of literature.
Fascinating, The Church Is Cleanest of not only what you personally do but otherwise celebrate. If what you are saying is "true" then why is it clearly false? We don't rape, you do. We don't abuse, you do. I We DID you would be trying to batter down our doors to get in, just as much as you seem DESPERATE to batter down the doors of the kabbalic kinsey "experiments" to sign up about a hundred years too late.
In other words, you can project, you can even project your projection, you can even unforgivably blaspheme, but We Know you By your fruits. Or more accurately "miss" barren tree, by your total lack of them outside of rot.
We never called you "rot" before, you just protest too much, because deep down even you know what you are. The rest is your attempt at "revenge" like a school shooter because you want Normal people to suffer like you. I don't think that's possible though, yours comes from being Marked with a reprobate mind because you let the demons in.
Similarly, if what you advocate for is "temporal good" (as one of your "gods" sophecles said) then WHY are you then dead, miserable, and looking forward only to be sedated into snoring loudly in a hospice as no one comes to see you like the rest of the other "liberated" women?
"liberated" from what? Many people ask that, but the clear answer is "liberated" from your Humanity.
Virtue, as always, makes your vice uncomfortable.
you were allowed to be Born here instead of directly in hell to give you this ONE chance to Repent.
shame is The Natural Response to you doing the unnatural.
you would be ashamed even if you never heard of God.
the body IS a site of betrayal, as you have spent years turning yourself into a husk fantasizing about raping normal men and making them your sex slaves just like billionaires and politicians and secret societies did to you.
you call this attempted rape of Civilization as "autonomy," We call it by its real name: blasphemy, suicide by denial of Reality which is to say God And His Church.
your specific blasphemies are unforgivable.
The six possible ways to unforgivably blaspheme are as such:
1) Despair of salvation,
2) Presumption of God’s mercy,
3) To impugn the known truth,
4) Envy of another’s spiritual good,
5) Obstinacy in sin,
6) Final impenitence.
you do the first 5 to psych yourself up for 6.
When the capital sin of pride (the delusion that "ye will be like gods" through "gnosis"/"enlightenment"/wishful thinking) is threatened (and therefore totally refuted), it turns to the mortal sin of despair:
1) hopelessness,
2) trying to damn others in your place by projection,
3) trying to normalize your sin by claiming damning you will somehow damn everyone.
you do all three in a loop.
the steps of the reprobate:
1) mortal sin.
2) denial of God due to shame over mortal sin, hoping that makes it go away.
3) persecution of Catholics due to shame over mortal s1n.
4) Martyring Catholics due to shame over mortal s1n.
5) suicide.
5 happens right after 4 is even attempted, and you try to prime Us for you attempting 4 for real instead of with your words.
We don't have your maladies. We aren't like you. We aren't defective.
We don't see the phalluses of childhood rapists dangling in our faces every time we close our eyes because We were never raped nor dumb enough to fall for any abuse. you were though, and now you are FURIOUS We are standing up to your evil and abuse right before you "finally" believed it was your time to have "spiritual children" of your own by raping kids too.
your cycle ends with you, most unforgivable damned one, and to call Speaking Love, Absolute Truth, And Natural Law as well as Admonishing the sinner and Instructing the ignorant as "abuse" "trauma" and "repressive" (worse, to call The Church as somehow the platonic element of the above) is not only a total rejection your single means of Salvation, you are unforgivably blaspheming against All In The Church (All Three Persons Of God, All Saints, All Angels, All Poor Souls [Purgatory], All In The Catholic Church past/present/future). Not to mention the intent is to try to Martyr Us.
each sin That Cries To Heaven For Vengeance incurs special punishment in hell worse than all else, blood prices on earth to be paid even if you Repent, immediate demonic possession, and also to be hunted by a demon who pushes you to suicide before you can Repent.
your "tradition" is less than 50 years old and was born in the "wicca" movement, which was an attempt by crowley in 1950 to try to find a way for weak and unwanted "women" to offer themselves up as human sacrifices for satanists. your beliefs did not exist until 1970.
your drug of choice wants to ruin all human connection, something you have never had.
A Dogma is a True Thought, built upon Axioms, and are the result of planting seeds of thought into the Axioms.
The Goal of Dogmas are then to provide the fruit of assumption, that will then lead to more seeds you can plant.
By definition a Dogma must be a result of thinking and habitable and growable.
Virtue - means “Man With Chest,” ironically.
The idea the ancients had is simple, and it’s rather clever because it’s them recognizing mortal sin without knowing what mortal sin (or even sin) is.
Man with chest - means he can Breathe.
Breath means “spirit,” and to breathe means your soul is still in your body.
To be “without a chest” means you have no soul, because the ancients believed that the reason why we have people who are “just wrong” is because they were flesh golems created by the demonic “gods” to mock Humanity by doing evil.
Contrary to myths invented in 400AD and 1850-1920AD, the real Ancients hated their “gods.” They knew Humanity comes from somewhere not here, they knew the real Creator was out there but hidden from Us; and they knew their “gods” were the ones imprisoning Us here and torturing Us, but yet worshipped them out of fear and necessity. The term “demon” is what they called their “gods,” it means “they who divide.”
Virtue therefore is anything a Truly Living man could and would do, anything that promotes Living, AND anything these demon-created flesh golem impostors could not do even if they wanted. the demons could make something look like a Man, but never could make it do Good.
Therefore if society promotes Virtue, it promotes Life, and makes the impostors easy to find because they cannot contribute. The price for one of these impostors when found was swift death and cruel torture.
Of course, things did change, and after a time the demons’ noose tightened. People were forced to sacrifice truly Good Men and Truthtellers else face the wrath of their “gods.” The most wicked people had no problem with this because they believed that if they projected their own evils onto these “sin eaters” that the murdered scapegoat would go to hll in their place.
This is why The Cross was Necessary, because that specifically ended the devil’s biggest weapon against mankind, while also Permanently Grafting All Truthtellers And Good Men To Him And His Church.
To put it simply, all of this is just to work up to final battle of God And His Catholic Church against the dvl and his “anti-church."
If there is any consolation, you are not a part of this "anti-church." The antichrist "proves" himself by breaking the wicked of the world with his strong muscles, and those wicked are you.
you have no access to Love, Absolute Truth, Natural Law, Goodness, Truth, Beauty, Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, Scripture, Faith, Reason, Logic outside of The Church.
you cannot be exempt from Faith, Love, Absolute Truth, Natural Law, Magisterium, Sacred Tradition, Scripture, Reason, Logic, et al by calling Reality as mere Catholic “belief” and then claiming by not being Catholic that you are exempt from Reality.
people deny The Mystical Body Of Christ In The Catholic Church, they deny The Church As Foundation, they deny The Church As Teacher, they assume "christians" are and have been a random book club pawing around in the dark making things up as pablum to stave off nihilism.
Because you try to rob God Of His Church, God relinquishes you of your senses, then He relinquishes Us of your lives.
DEO GRATIAS He Relinquishes Us of you! WE ARE DELIVERED!
Quod Deus Vult perdere, Prius dementat.
God Himself To St Catherine Of Siena about why He Marked you:
“Do you know dearest daughter, how I raise the soul out of her imperfections? Sometimes I vex her with evil thoughts and a sterile mind. It will seem to her that I have left her completely, without any feeling whatever. She does not seem to be in the world, because she is in fact not there; nor does she seem to be in me because she has no feeling at all other than that her will does not want sin.
I do not allow enemies to open the gate of the will that is free. I do let the devils and other enemies of humankind beat against other gates, but not against this, which is the main gate guarding the city of the soul. I do not will the soul’s death as long as she is not so stupid as to open the gate of her will. They cannot enter unless her own will chooses to let them in.”
you let them in.
your curses are Consummately Returned!
By My Final Authority you are Hereby Marked!
I mean... she's right. They always want to excuse it with some books too. "It's only two scenes." So? It still has porn in it! Personally, I'd love to see someone with the funds to do it sue the publishing companies for creating, marketing, and selling porn to minors. That would honestly be amazing. As I understand it, it's already illegal. We should just start enforcing the law.
It's bad and I hate how this has taken over romance writing. HOWEVER... ban it? not in a free country for adults over 18. And what about male porn? isn't that far, far worse -- filled with violence and/or underage children? female-oriented porn is about 1% of all porn created & consumed -- 99% is male-oriented.
I see your point—and I respect the discomfort. Not all erotic literature is created equal, and critique is vital. But what alarms me isn’t the existence of female-oriented erotica—it’s the rising tide of coercive moralism. This current wave of right-wing Christian nationalism isn’t just critiquing content—it’s trying to redefine the soul of the country. It seeks to legislate desire, shame the body, and silence any art that doesn’t conform to its rigid, repressive script.