Does Colleen Hoover Write Porn?
Simply because a Christian Nationalist brainwashfluencer says so? (Scroll to the end to listen)
Thanks to The Atlantic, I’ve decided the only way I can draw eyeballs this week if I don’t want to do a play-by-play of the Democratic National Convention is to talk about pornography.
Specifically, how their darling Christo-fascist brainwashfluencer Allie Beth Stuckey defines porn.
I’ve made much of how Christian Nationalists define pornography.
Project 2025 outlines their intentions. A Christo-fascist Republican government will outlaw the production and consumption of what they deem to be pornographic.
Allie Beth Stuckey took to The Atlantic to back up what I’ve said about the Christian Nationalist definition of porn. Which is this. Women in swimsuits make Christian Nationalist men think about sex. Especially bikinis.
And this. Mike Johnson is on the record calling homosexuality “pornography.”
And this. A Florida school banned books with a similar image as pornographic.
And this. Because it would make a twelve-year-old boy think about masturbating. Or fornicating.
And this. Because this picture COULD BE intercourse barely shielded by foaming waves. And we don’t even know whether they’re married while she writhes on his lap in that lewd, lascivious manner.
And apparently this. Because Allie Beth Stuckey says Colleen Hoover novels are “basically porn.”
I’ve never read a Colleen Hoover novel because I DID NOT THINK THEY WOULD BE SMUTTY ENOUGH. But I plan to change that. Here’s how.
I read A LOT of smut. As a fifty-five-year-old menopausal woman whose interest in sex has hormonally checked out, authors of smut write stories to help women like me keep our husbands happy. (Apologies to my male readers. I forgive you for covering eyes and ears while screeching PLEASE STOP. But this is reality in the female body, whether Fascist Republicans and others who think women like me no longer deserve to exist or enjoy sex like it or not.)
Thanks to Allie Beth Stuckey, I must now read this Colleen Hoover novel and decide for myself whether it is actually porn. AND watch the corresponding Blake Lively movie. AND write it off on my taxes because it is all research for this Substack. (Just like Mike Johnson and his son probably write off their porn tracking phone apps on Dad’s taxes. Being pure in the eyes of the Lord—and the broligarch overlords—would be Christo-fascist tax-deductible.)
I’m determined to finish both book and movie this week and report back. Does Colleen Hoover write pornography? Why does Christo-fascist brainwashfluencer Allie Beth Stuckey call her books “basically porn?” What sections are objectionable? How does this alleged pornography translate to the big screen?
I CANNOT WAIT TO SOLVE THIS CONUNDRUM FOR THE GOOD OF OUR COUNTRY. I’ve already bought the novel.
While this installment may come across as unserious, Romance is the most lucrative fiction genre in the United States. It has provided women, many of whom are mothers working from home, the ability to make money from their labor. Lots of these women didn’t start out to be successful writers; they were looking for something to do.
I read almost 200 books in 2023, many from this genre. I bought every one of them. I support their work so that they can pay their bills and keep giving me happy endings. That can’t happen without money.
This attack on Colleen Hoover is another way Fascist Republicans will force women into their “God-ordained” roles: By making their creations pornography that will be outlawed. I took a lighthearted approach in the body of this newsletter, but I’m very serious about the threat comments like Stuckey’s pose. Those threats are magnified by an outlet like The Atlantic running them without pushback. For the sake of free speech and expression, we cannot normalize people like Allie Beth Stuckey or allow legacy media to do their PR.
I grew up in this and we weren't allowed any books but the Bible, the Lexicon, and any encyclopedias that didn't have the word "sex" in them.
Which makes me wonder about how happy all of those male abusers were when Lot's daughters had sex with him. Avoiding the men's laps in church was exhausting for the little kids, both male and female. As children, we often talked about which men were the most dangerous and would warn and look out for the youngest ones.
Women and newborns died in agony at home giving birth because going to a doctor was to doubt God, and the untrained midwives who hadn't spent one minute in basic health class, were helpless in the face of the mildest problem.
Our church in Indiana is why laws were made in the 1980s to make withhold medical care for children illegal, although Republicans have been passing bills that have eroded those laws into toilet paper.
Facing what is almost a certain Mike Braun government, many of us will be selling family properties and moving out of the state where we've built our entire lives and raised our families away from the threat of reliving that horribly abusive childhood as adults.
Thank you for the work that you are doing.
Democrat leadership needs to learn this coded language that we grew up with before it's too late.
So I’m digressing from the topic of porn here, but The Atlantic profile of Stuckey is a prime example of the kind of infuriating article that seems to be spreading like a virulent rash through legacy media. The profiles don’t exactly champion the female footsoldiers of the patriarchy, often the tone is bemused, but they normalize them and mock those of us who find them dangerous. They allow these women to play the victim as though we are attacking them for their beliefs or the way they live their lives rather than the fact that they’re trying to impose their beliefs on all of us. The Atlantic article actually says Stuckey is “feminine” not “feminist” as though those things are in opposition and she is supporting women rather than endangering us. Too many writers who rightly condemn racism still treat sexism with sympathy when it’s dressed up as religious faith.