Erotica Cover Watch

Why only women on the covers of erotic books?

Erotica Cover Watch: Asking for Trouble by Kristina Lloyd (German translation)

with 20 comments

41cqer1jeul_ss500_1Asking for Trouble by Kristina Lloyd (German translation), pub Taschenbuch

Watched by Kristina Lloyd

Truly, I get eye-bleed if I look at this cover for too long – eye-bleed and heartache, for the book is mine, my second novel and most treasured of my dirty darlings. And oh, Gott in himmel, that cover’s rotten!

As we’ve said before, authors and editors (freelance rather than in-house) are rarely consulted on cover design. We get what we’re given. And when I was given this cover, part of me thought it must be a joke, a parody, an ironic commentary on all those covers featuring headless women in unlikely underwear. Oh, you know the ones I mean. There are classy ones and crass ones but they follow the same basic pattern: eroticise the woman by focussing on her body; focus on her body by excluding her head.

Erotica, however, is not big on irony, and this cover is clearly someone’s sincere attempt to represent my book with this vile objectification of a woman (who I take to be my narrator, my central character, someone whose kinks are much like mine). You might think it doesn’t count because this book is in Foreign but sexism in erotica covers (as in life) doesn’t end with the English-speaking world. Women, not men, still provide the erotic/erotik/erotischer eye-candy while male models primarily get their pecs out for gay smut and romance. In fact, the only real difference I can discern between UK/US covers and those on the continent, is that the latter are often more explicit. So if your dirty book’s translated into, say German or Dutch, there’s a good chance your new cover will feature tits, arse or a full-on beaver-shot. Actually, I jest. Just tits and arse. Occasionally, the arse might even be a guy’s.

Now I’m not against objectification per se and it seems appropriate that sex (erotica in this instance) is sold or represented via sexy bodies. (Contrast the inappropriateness of using bodies, primarily female, to sell cameras or MP3 players or shampoo, and how this widespread objectification means our culture views women as having mainly a sexual meaning, and so ‘sexy’ is signified by women’s bodies, and on it goes, looping round and round.) Much of erotic desire is about flesh and skin, about wanting this sort of body or that body, about wanting to touch, taste, fuck, inhale, embrace, so using sexy bodies to represent this is fine by me. Sure, the erotic is about a thousand and one other things as well: the hinted at, the unseen, decaying lilies, seedy alleyways, and the catch in his voice when he says ‘Suck it, bitch.’ (Um, OK, so maybe that was too much of a dip into my psyche. But you get the gist, and I’m sure you have your own angle.)

Erotica covers would do well to recognise the more subtle, sensual and intangible aspects of sex. But far more pressing is the need for them to recognise that the desire to touch, taste, fuck, inhale, embrace is not specific to men. Women want too. Lots! And me, in my wanting, well I’m more than happy for men to be objectified. This isn’t some tit-for-tat revenge on the patriarchy for its ceaseless objectification of women. This is about wanting to see men for the sheer, knee-weakening sexiness of them.


It seems to me there’s a sliding scale in all of this. We start off with sexualisation, depicting people in ways which are hot by emphasising his or her body rather than, say, something which represents the unique and precious snowflakeness of an individual personality. Keep going in this direction and you end up objectifying someone by making their body, in particular the obviously sexy bits, the prime focus. Erotica frequently achieves this by decapitating its women.


Now, I’m not trying to insist that erotica covers feature heads, faces and personality. I can see the value in sometimes keeping these things off stage because if the face doesn’t float your boat, it can detract from the physique. Or if you’re one of those strange women content merely to identify, then if the cover model’s lippy is, like, so not your colour, you may struggle to slip into her skin. So, you know: heads. Over-rated.

However, erotica’s frequent and unimaginative chopping off a head by cropping an image, invariably of a woman, is really quite unpleasant. Again, keep going in this direction, keep removing parts of the female body that are surplus to requirements, and you end up with what looks like erotica’s logical conclusion, covers such as Gib’s Mir. (I’m told it translates as ‘Give it to me‘ or possibly (please, no) ‘Sock it to me‘.)

While I don’t want to bandy around words like ‘misogyny’, I fear we’re getting perilously close with my monstrous cover. Take a look: it’s not merely that her head has been cropped from the image, it’s that the design actually draws attention to the unimportance of her head (and so of her identity, her autonomy, her self). And it does so not once but twice. First off, her head’s been bagged so its ‘not-thereness’ is actually really rather ‘there’. And secondly, jesusfuckingchrist, did they do this with free software? Was the designer on lunch? On crack? Could they not find a compass or pen-knife to scratch out everything above shoulder level? Was it too much effort to create something that might actually look like a bit of BDSM kit?


So, head off (as cheaply and easily as possible, thanks) and tits out. And the tits here are neatly spotlit so we know exactly where to look, exactly what’s important about this woman. And, yup, she’s wearing a corset, universal signifier of the erotic. I don’t have a problem with explicitness. I am pro-porn (I just wish it was better) and I’m mighty happy looking at naked people (especially, but not exclusively, at men). So my problem with this book isn’t that her breasts are bared. I don’t find nipples controversial. I think it’s important to clarify this because it gets a teensy bit annoying when people respond to our feminist argument for more cock as if ours is the repressive, anti-sex voice of illiberalism insisting everyone get dressed. We want to see more sexy men on erotica covers which means (because this is how maths works) less of what currently dominates the covers: sexy women.

Gib’s Mir seems an exaggeration or encapsulation of what all those hot-babe covers are saying. It disregards female agency and desire. It blinds the woman; she is the looked at, never the one looking. It demeans, degrades and objectifies by reducing female sexuality to a pair of tits, to flesh to be ogled. It’s just awful.

aftBut here’s the rub: I kink for female submission. I get off on being demeaned, degraded and objectified. I like the thought of being used and de-humanised, treated as a piece of meat, a fucktoy, a mere body for his pleasure. (And, incidentally, in fantasy I’m often being used by some anonymous, swaggering brute who, in many ways, is as much a piece of meat as I am.) Having no control, no power, no responsibility rocks my sexual world. I like to play passive and be the one who is done to – but, of course, my desire isn’t actually passive because I know what it is and I’m perfectly capable of saying to him, ‘Hey, I like to play passive, will you help me fulfil that desire?’ I don’t write much ‘lifestyle’ smut so my characters aren’t usually as kink-aware and demanding articulate about their sexual needs as I am. However, they do know what they like (though they may be conflicted about communicating it or uncertain how to get it) and in the narrative they’ll say stuff like:

Go on, check out the goods. Objectify me to your heart’s content … Make me meat, merchandise, cunt for sale – a cunt so greedy I’ll do it for free.
I like being objectified. It takes the heat off having to be yourself.

But there’s a world of difference between a woman actively *choosing* to be objectified to get her sexual jollies and women (as a sex, as a whole) being objectified left, right and centre without their consent. Unfortunately, some people struggle with this concept. They think if my feminism is about striving for female empowerment and gender equality, I must be hot on cuffing him to the bed and making him suffer. But I don’t get off on that, so why would I? I want to be the one who is cuffed and suffering – me, me, me! And feminism is surely about allowing and enabling women to own their sexuality, whatever it is. (And as a corollary to this, I believe a guy can dom and degrade a woman and still have impeccable feminist credentials.)


So my sexuality entails some sort of playing out or mirroring of our society’s gender-based power imbalances. In short, he tops me in bed. And there it ends. I try hard in my writing to convey that women can have M/f sex without being blind or indifferent to the ideological and social structures which make for a world which favours men; that women can have kinky submissive sex without that reinforcing the status quo, without them being plagued by some misplaced feminist guilt; that women can actively participate in their own sexual subjugation and find it super-hot. Actually, I don’t try hard. This stuff is in my ink. I just try hard to make it sound less soapboxy and more complex than I did in this paragraph.

Derrick Pierce of Sex and SubmissionAnd that’s why the cover of Gib’s Mir stings so badly. The English cover of Asking for Trouble (above) is fine. I got a guy because my publisher was marketing the book as erotic romance. (Heck, I’m surprised we haven’t been sued.) But Gib’s Mir turns the ideas I’m trying to express into their very opposite. It makes my sexuality part of the oppressive, disempowering structures I’m at pains to reject. It positions the book as just another in a long line of smut where man is the consumer, woman the consumed.

It’s extremely difficult to visually represent female submission as an active choice by using imagery of solo women. Images including men would do a lot to offset this. Better still, images of sexy dom men would show that wanting to submit is also, inevitably, about wanting to be dominated. No, really, it is. You can’t do it alone. And so for women, he matters in all of this; him with his big beautiful muscles, his hard hands, cruel eyes and that sadistic little sneer.

I want to communicate, in my writing, my belief that women can kink for dominant men while rejecting a male-dominated world; that we can embrace female submission without fearing we’re shoring up patriarchal notions of female passivity, of women as the ones who are ‘done to’ and desired, never the do-ers and desiring. Feminism is about equality, meaning women have the same rights as men to sexual pleasure. If there’s such a lumpen thing as a ‘message’ in my writing, it’s this: that women can be sexually submissive without reinforcing sexist constructions of men and women, without perpetuating gender inequality. The cover of Gib’s Mir, with its flagrant objectification and degradation of a woman for mass-market male consumption, tells us we can’t.

Erotica Cover Watch has been criticised in the past for hurting people’s feelings by holding their book covers up as examples of erotica publishing’s sexism. We’ve been accused of being negative and unsupportive of the erotica community. Asking for Trouble is mine. I’m proud of the contents but I utterly loathe this German cover. It’s ugly, sure, but far worse than that, it negates the politics which for me, and many others, are fundamental in reconciling female sexual submission with modern, aware feminism. And trust me, that negation, that massive misrepresentation, damages a lot more than my feelings.


Written by Kristina Lloyd

November 27, 2008 at 8:35 am

20 Responses

Subscribe to comments with RSS.

  1. My responses, as always, feel tangential, but…

    * Extraordinary notion, that I would have no trouble identifying with this but add a head on and I’d be like – woaaah! No way man! That is so not me! The process of identification is a leetle more complex than “That is/isn’t my face [delete as appropriate]”, or films wouldn’t work. (And let’s remember this theory of visual-identification-for-women objectification-for-men arose with films, where the women are rarely headless.)

    * That said, the covers in Foreign are even harder for me to identify with. Those are so not my tits. The whole “identification” notion is exposed for the nonsense it is. I sincerely hope that no-one attempts to seriously argue that staring at tits is of equal interest to both sexes. If they do, I will know that either a) they are in the pay of a grand consipiracy whose secret evil mission is to keep men off covers and they will stop at no absurd argument to do so, or b) political correctness has actually sent them mad. (Any woman who says with faux-naif coyness “But I quite like looking at tits” will have her head cut off and be stuck on an erotica cover. Sorry, I’m taking no prisoners today. No-one’s saying tits are ugly, but put a whole lotta pictures of tits in a newspaper or a magazine, and I think you’ll find the main market is men. Men. MEN. It’s mostly MEN who like looking at tits and EVERYONE KNOWS THIS.)

    * he matters in all of this ~ thank you, Kristina, for voicing what should be so clear. Owning one’s own desire is not an endless cycle of autoeroticism and narcissism, it is a desire FOR something, FOR someone. My fantasies. Heterosexual female desire is for MEN.

    Olivia Knight

    November 27, 2008 at 11:58 am

  2. Thanks Olivia. Totally agree that identification is more complex than faces. I think I’m trying to say that because erotica covers often feature bodies in not much clothing, there’s a sort of blankness there that has a potential broader appeal (both for those who want to leer and those who want to identify) which could be marred by something specific like a face or, yeah, terrible fetishwear, or a bodily position or, or … So much stuff.

    Thinking about it now, the female bodies on dirty books often have more going on around them than the male. Women get lingerie and make-up (if they have heads), guys are closer to naked. There is a lot more to dis-identify (?) with in images of women than there is to find a turn-off in images of men. I think.

    But too much about identification already. I want to look. And my taste is for guys with short hair so if the cover model hasn’t been to the barber’s for a while, I’d probably rather just see him from the waist down. Sorry, I mean shoulders down. It’s not headlessness and highlighting of bodies which bugs me – it’s how the models are made headless. This is pretty, this is nicely done, this is fucking gorgeous. This is rotten. Lack of legs doesn’t help.


    November 27, 2008 at 1:57 pm

  3. Sigh. Me too.

    Girl with a one track mind

    November 27, 2008 at 3:58 pm

  4. Yikes. Can’t look at anymore chunks of women – reminds me too much of CSI.

    Madeline Moore

    November 27, 2008 at 8:02 pm

  5. Oh no! Girl With a One Track Mind had her mind removed.

    And yeah, Maxim, your covers are awful. You must be doing something wrong. (Although to be fair, it is slightly different in your case because the headless models aren’t deemed to represent you or your sexuality, so it’s likely you don’t feel the pain in the neck quite as much as we do.)

    I’m glad you’re still following Cover Watch though.


    November 27, 2008 at 8:06 pm

  6. Ha, it is a bit, isn’t it, Madeline.

    Reminds me, I’ve been wondering if we should do this on ECW at some point. But jeepers, I’m really not sure where I’d begin or where I’d end. Except in tears.


    November 27, 2008 at 8:12 pm

  7. Hmmm…do that one and you really will be ‘Asking for Trouble,’ Kristina – although knowing you you’ll take this comment as a dare, not as a cautionary remark.

    Madeline Moore

    November 27, 2008 at 10:47 pm

  8. Erm – not sure what the correct cover for snuff porn would be, to be honest. (Janine? Any ideas? Your stuff’s practically snuff, sometimes – though snuff in a very meaningful mythical way, obviously.)

    Btw, this line: “the hinted at, the unseen, decaying lilies, seedy alleyways, and the catch in his voice when he says ‘Suck it, bitch.'” Incredible. For the first time I feel like I really get female submission, reading that.

    The photo of the man standing over the hint-of-woman also portrays it rather better than I’ve ever seen before. Seeing photos or covers of female submission, I’ve never understood it – but then those photos aren’t directed at me, are they? They’re what appeals to a dom man – presumably. The sentence, though, is what finally clocked it for me.

    Olivia Knight

    November 28, 2008 at 2:28 pm

  9. ::blushes::

    Thank you, Olivia. I’m thrilled.

    But I can completely understand why femsub might seem baffling because it’s so frequently represented by pics of women’s arses rather than by pics of hot, sneery fuckbrutes and beautiful perverts with massive muscles who look like they’d be really, really mean to you then do you good and hard.

    (Ten seconds till Photobucket delete that penultimate pic. Nine …)


    November 29, 2008 at 10:31 am

  10. RIGHT.


    Okay. So THAT’S what it’s about. It all makes sense now. Where does one go for these hot sneery fuckbrutes and beautiful perverts with massive muscles, then?

    Eight… seven… six… Wait! Olivia steps in to rescue the really mean man who’s doing Kristina good and hard and offers the perverted pair sanctuary on her webspace so she can quiz them in further detail. So… the tattoos, then. Are they statutory?

    Olivia Knight

    November 29, 2008 at 12:53 pm

  11. Where can I find one of these hot sneery fuckbrutes? I want one. Now.

    Girl with a one track mind

    November 30, 2008 at 2:41 pm

  12. There are a couple more on Lust Bites’s final Coming Attractions, Girl… I’m converted too.

    Olivia Knight

    November 30, 2008 at 2:53 pm

  13. Thanks for giving my fuckbrutes a safehouse, Olivia.

    And yes, about the tattoos…

    Five… four…


    November 30, 2008 at 3:06 pm

  14. The cover here is a study in a crap cut and paste job, shit software editing, something.

    However, a cover displaying a naked sweating man does no more justice to your artistic vision than a photo of a naked woman. The idea, I think, is sex is cerebral. Therefore, any cover presenting naked or semi-naked bodies, male or female, simply perpetuates a fixation on tits and ass or dicks and ass, when in fact, what you really want is to encourage readers to identify with your characters as thinking and feeling human beings.


    November 30, 2008 at 7:17 pm

  15. Thanks for dropping by, Alana.

    And yeah, I think everyone agrees that this cover is rotten. Glad you agree. However, I’m afraid I don’t buy into this idea that sex is mainly cerebral. Sure, the psychological aspect is crucial but I’m wary of prioritising that at the expense of the physical. Doing so leads far too easily into distaste for flesh, into a rejection of the crude and messy business of sex. After all, it’s not my brain that gets wet and swollen. It’s not his artistic vision I want to deep throat.

    I’m quite happy to call myself a pornographer. I don’t think that means my work lacks sensitivity, nuance, intelligence, or aesthetic or artistic merit etc. But ultimately the writing fails if it doesn’t get people off.

    I don’t feel any shame in wanting to write something that does this. So while my characters are thinking, feeling human beings they are also sexual, desiring human beings. And given I write dirty books, that’s the bit I’m focussing on, that’s the bit that drives the narrative. It seems perfectly appropriate to have semi-nekkids on the cover to represent that.

    And some semi-nekkid men would be nice.


    November 30, 2008 at 8:08 pm

  16. Sometimes, the covers can get really frustrating. I really like full body images, when I like images. And I like at least something a bit nice when you write a story. For my novel, I nearly cried when I saw a dry statue for the front cover (hence the reason for the new cover).

    But, I think some of your observations are right on. I just don’t agree with the people who made that decision. Give me eyes any day, I want to see the lips and fingertips, I want to see a bit more than a tits (I can see those just as fine when I roll over).


    November 30, 2008 at 9:43 pm

  17. Just finished reading another chick-lit book (research.)
    I feel grubby and abused.

    I had to quit reading romance (research.) because when I got to the part where the couple kissed and misunderstood the kiss, and knew that I had to read 300+ pages of lousy writing to get to the part where they admit to each other that they’re in love, I started feeling depressed.

    I write erotica. It’s fantasy (like chick lit and romance) but the writing is better and the story is more interesting, and the emotions it evokes are hopefully good ones that a woman can take care of all by herself, if need be. At least when they kiss, it don’t take ’em another three hundred pages to get down to it! Goddam…

    Yeah, so if the inside is dirty, why can’t the outside say so? Hmmm, altho maybe it’s a good idea to give erotica ‘chick lit’ or ‘romance’ covers…we could get those poor gals who’re reading that stuff to read our stuff, BY MISTAKE. Perhaps BICEPS has uncovered a conspiracy?

    Madeline Moore

    December 1, 2008 at 6:14 pm

  18. Thank you so much for this amazing articulation of being into dominant men and not a male dominated world. And whoa, that cover. I would FREAK! It sort of makes me feel uncomfortable to look at it. The picture of the fellow that you supply there would make a nice cover. I’m shocked your publisher isn’t giving you a little cover power, what with this blog.

    Really though, this is such a thoughtful essay.

    Carolyn Jean

    December 1, 2008 at 11:03 pm

  19. […] I have a story in the forthcoming BWE 2010 which was then selected from the last five+ years of the series to be included in Best of Best. This was the first time I’d ever subbed a story to Violet Blue so I was thrilled with the double hit. And not so thrilled when I saw the covers. If you’re an author you may know how horrible it feels when work you’re proud of gets packaged in a cover which insults your writing. […]

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: