Nerdology 101: The “Smut” Convo
This blog post is not recommended for anyone under the age of 18. If you’re a minor, please check with a parent or guardian before proceeding.
We’reeee backkkk! Welcome to Nerdology 101. I’m your host, Maria Levato. This week we’re going to talk about the word smut. I’m not going to waste any time getting into it because this is already going to be a rant. So, let’s get into some Nerdology!
If you read this blog, my books, or my social media content, it’s probably no suprise to you that I love smutty books. I love reading them, writing for them, and today I love advocating for them because by now we’ve all seen the shift start to happen.
I’m going to say this loud and fucking clear: There’s nothing wrong with sex. Sex is normal. It’s healthy. It’s enjoyable. Therefore, there is nothing unclean, shameful, embarrassing, or wrong about reading smut. It’s a book. The fact that sex happens in a book doesn’t reflect whatsoever on its literary value or relavance. In fact, it adds value in the sense that it highlights ideas that push forward social movements such as sex positivity, feminism, and LGBTQIA+ rights—all of which I stand by firmly.
The word smut, in this context, is one the bookish community used to refer to these books when BookTok, Bookstagram, and other bookish social media tags started becoming more popular. It was used primarily as an inside joke that brought joy to the community. Anyone who has actually read these books is unlikely to see them as simply being pornography. Recently, however, we’ve started to see a rise in people who are using the word smut to diminish the books, the people who read them, and the people who write them. As such, the language has started to change. I’ve seen more and more people beginning to avoid the word smut altogether. In leiu of it, they’re leaning towards softer, less direct options like spice—which has been used for a while, but not in the way that it’s happening now where it’s being used to avoid stigmatization. With that being the case, many have begun to debate which words should and should not be used. In this post, I’m going to give my thoughts on why we shouldn’t let go of the word smut or otherwise soften our language.
What message are we sending?
When we communicate, word choice matters. That’s why an author will some times spend hours searching for that perfect word. When I stop and ask myself what message we are sending with our word choices regarding sexual content in books, here’s what comes to my mind (I cannot speak for everyone. I’m giving my perspective and that’s all.):
“I read smutty books.” - I confidently read sexual material with the critical engagement necessary to understand that books containing it often offer great stories, diverse voices, powerful social commentary, and that the act of reading it is a form of empowerment that affirms for me that my pleasure, autonomy, and needs matter both in and outside of the bed.
“I read spicy books.” - This does NOT automatically imply that the person speaking doesn’t feel the same way as the one who says they read smut. It does however require more thought. In the bookish community, I’ve never seen anyone use a smut scale because of the implications behind the word, but spice scales are frequently used. The translations of these scales often vary widely. For one reader, Fourth Wing may be the spiciest book they’ve ever read. For another reader, it could be a one or a two on a scale of one to five. I think that matters because it means using the word spice allows a massive amount of interpretation that can lead to some misunderstandings. So, by using the word, you’re allowing the other person to judge your meaning based on their scale. Because of this broadness, the message you’re sending with your word choice is less clear. I can’t tell based on the sentence alone if this person is quietly capitulating to purity culture or if they are loudly and intentionally rebelling against it in their own way. Thus, I have to assume someone who loudly and intentionally perpetuates purity culture would be pleased by this because it leaves room for them to twist things in a way that may or may not align with the intention of the person saying it. I can see people using this type of soft language to make it seem like “Oh, so this is something you know you should be ashamed of” even though that argument is easily dismantled by anyone with a critical thinking skills. The danger of it, though, is that not everyone has critical thinking skills. Moreover, the crazies would rather not think critically if what’s being said inflates their false sense of superiority and makes them look justified in their oppression.
Infantilization
We’re fucking adults. It is insane to me that a bunch of adults cannot speak about sexual content in a direct way. The softening of the language is reminiscent of arguing on a playground about who has cooties. This probably has a lot to do with censorship on social media platforms as well, but it has a real impact. This soft language and avoidance reaffirms stereotypes (particularly when it comes to women). It allows people to imply shame, lack of assertiveness, indecisiveness, innocence and corruption in accordance with whatever arbitrary standard they so choose, and other harmful ideas that make it sound like we’re unable to think and act of our own free will. Men talk about sex amoungst themselves. The fact that its considered problematic for women to do the same in regards to books often written with women in mind is a symptom of misogyny and the infantilization that comes with it.
Content
Changing the language we use to discuss content could result in a change the content itself. I love these smutty books and a lot of you do too. So, let’s talk about how erasure of the word smut could lead to erasure of the content. Censorship is a tricky thing. It usually doesn’t start by saying “this type of language is banned”. Outright attacks on words like that are more likely to meet resistance. Convincing people to self-censor is a much easier thing to do, especially on social media platforms because it rewards self-censorship with reach, which leads to engagement, and to sales that a lot of bookish accounts might be depending on for their income. While I acknowledge how difficult it might be for people to cope with this loss of income, I’d argue that the benefit outweighs the cost. If we will self-censor on social media, we’ll eventually self-censor in other ways when that push for it expands. Bookstores and readers may eventually start to move away from carrying smut, which will push publishers away from publishing it, then agents away from representing it, and in the end push writers away from writing it. Even self-published authors have to consider the market and what will sell, it could even result in less smut being available from us too. The issue is bigger than one word. If we allow that word to be erased, we invite them to push for more.
The impact of it could substantially setback conversations around sex positivity and feminism as I’ve addressed, but it could also setback conversations around LGBTQIA+ rights. I know recently there’s been a lot of conversation around straight women writing MM, but that’s the point—There’s conversation. Representation leads to conversation. Conversation leads to increased understanding of the communities perspective. Increased understanding leads to better representation. I read a fair amount of LGBTQIA+ books written by LGBTQIA+ authors, but I never would have found most of them if I hadn’t been reading smutty MM written by straight women that were already popularized. While I do agree that books by LGBTQIA+ authors should be the priority in LGBTQIA+ genres AND that staight people who write LGBTQIA+ stories need to do better, I think the point stands that without popular smut, I would know less LGBTQIA+ authors and that these conversations about what good representation and allyship look like wouldn’t be happening.
With all of that being said, I will continue to use the word smut because I think the benefits of it are worth protecting. That’s my two cents on this discourse and I hope it helps readers and writers alike think more about the language we’re using and decide for themselves what language they want to use.
Let me know in the comments what your thoughts are! See you back next week for the next segment of Nerdology 101. Until then, have a nerdy week!
