Who, you may ask is Katie Copstick? She is the new owner of Britain's Erotic Review, an "erotic writer", the woman in the picture, and apparently a misogynist as well.
Britain's Erotic Review, known primarily for erotic writing, will not even consider a female editor and does not want "too many women writers" because the new owner believes "Women are not passionate enough about sex and concentrate too much on feelings to be able to write raunchy stories."
WTF?
The year is 2009 and Ms. Copstick, the new owner of the Review is telling other women that they are not passionate enough to write about sex. The fact that a woman is selling this load of BS is absolutely ridiculous. Even more ridiculous is her line that she does not want the magazine to be "drowned in estrogen". Although the image of being drowned in estrogen doesn't nearly paint as ugly of a picture as 'drowned in testosterone', it is perhaps one of the more negative things I've heard a woman say about her fellow sisters.
There is one woman she believes can write well enough about sex- herself. Ms. Copstick believes that she herself is well-versed enough in sex to be able to write about it despite her gender primarily because "she loves sex." To me, this implies that other women do not love sex, which must come as a surprise to women who love sex as well.
Whether she actually believes her own statements or is just trying to generate publicity for the magazine is questionable. An erotic writer herself with a long list of credits including such opuses as "Girl on Girl" and "Porn Week", it is extremely difficult for me to believe that she sincerely feels that not only is she at the top of game for her division, but that she is really the only woman who can compete. (Has she really never read nor heard of Susie Sexpert?)
Perhaps she has read one too many Harlequin Romances in her day with lines such as "my body yearned for his manhood" or perhaps she is getting her opinions solely from erotic literature designed "for women by women". I highly doubt she is getting her opinions from "M/M fiction: gay romance written by straight women, for straight women" as written about in a highly entertaining fashion in the Seattle's Stranger, but I could be wrong.
Fortunately, according to the first-referenced article, Ms. Copstick's ludicrous assertions are not going unchallenged in her native Britain either. A former female writer for the Review has gone on the BBC to take her on.
Printer-friendly version
