Letter from a Porn-Brained Monster Smut Lady
If this is brain rot, keep the cure away from me.
Y’all, I just read one of the funniest articles on the internet.
If you’ve never heard of Evie Magazine, it is my sincere dishonor to inform you that it’s an alt-right lifestyle site whose mission is to “help women harness their feminine energy” (but really wants women to “shut up and submit.”)
Recently, Evie dropped a little pearl-clutcher titled “The Porn-Brained Women of Monster Smut” by Ivy Lipton. It’s a hit piece aimed at the rising popularity of monster erotica (yes, it’s increasingly popular, and thank you for noticing!).
But hark, dear readers! Lipton wants you to know you’re being morally corrupted. According to her, monster smut is rewiring the tender female brain, debasing both sex and female agency in the name of empowerment.
She writes:
“I’m going to put my head on the chopping block and say this isn’t just escapism. This is sexual conditioning dressed up in pretty covers and marketed as empowerment. And it’s wreaking havoc on women’s brains and sex lives.”
To which I say: weird flex. But sure, go off with your moral panic and straw-grasping. Usually, I wouldn’t waste time responding point-by-point to something so shallowly reasoned by someone desperately needing a lesson on “how to love yourself.” But my country is in the shitter and facing war, in part because of alt-right women like her. So here I am. Petty AF.
TL;DR: Evie Magazine published a pearl-clutching screed against monster romance, claiming it’s “rewiring” women’s brains. I go point by point, calling out the bad faith arguments, lack of evidence, and deeply sexist assumptions with a heavy dose of my personal kind of snark.
“Rewiring Female Desire”
Right out of the gate, Lipton seems to think humans only started having monstrous sexual fantasies post-TikTok. Also, that monster smut is somehow rewiring our brains.
Someone please tell this self-proclaimed doctoral candidate in human sexuality about Hokusai’s Dream of the Fisherman’s Wife and the millennia of folklore teeming with horny non-human entities. This is not new. This is not TikTok. This is just human beings being weird and enjoying themselves.
“Bulls can’t be milked, only cows… omg.”
Yes, she panics about minotaurs.
Lipton repeatedly implies that readers are fantasizing about literally milking bulls. But fun fact: Books like Morning Glory Milking Farm (whose success Lipton could only dream of) depict sapient, consenting beings.
So, no. We’re not talking bovine abuse therapy. We’re talking consensual relationships with fantasy characters.
“Can we not ‘normalize’ this?” Lipton pleads. Well, I’d rather we not normalize stripping reproductive healthcare from anyone with a uterus in the US. So I guess neither of us are getting what we want.
“Claimed, Conquered, and Subdued”
I mean, if you’re into that.
But seriously, there are two significant issues here. One, the tired unrealistic claim that men’s porn is “visual” and women’s is “emotional.” Two, Lipton keeps equating monster romance with bestiality.
Once again for the folks in the back: monster romance is about romance between sentient, consenting beings. Bestiality involves a non-sentient creature that cannot consent. That is the actual problem. Consent is the core of every sex crime. And if Lipton doesn’t understand that, she’s not qualified to be talking about sexuality at all.
ACOTAR
I’ve read Maas’s books. They’re enjoyable. Not my first fandom of choice, but I respect the impact.
So imagine my surprise when I suddenly feel like grabbing a digital pitchfork to defend the fairy smut girlies. Lipton’s attack on ACOTAR is lazy and mean-spirited. She accuses it of corrupting female readers based on nothing.
Also? “Perhaps men aren’t the problem,” she muses.
Lady. I adore some men, individually. But systemically? Yes. Men are the goddamn problem. And so are you.
‘It’s simple psychology.”
Oh, it’s simple, all right. Simply dumb.
Lipton claims monster domination is a “safe loophole” where women act out submissive fantasies. And somehow… this is a problem?
She’s accidentally tiptoeing toward an actual point. Many women do have real fears about sex, and the romance community has long created space for healing those fears.
I have countless accounts from readers and authors of Romance, especially Monster Romance, who attest that these stories can create resilience by letting us confront our fears in a safe, fictional environment.
Domination in these books is an illusion. The reader holds the power.
“Neuroplasticity at Its Darkest”
Lipton throws around phrases like “erotic conditioning” to make herself sound sciencey. However, neuroscience hasn’t shown statistically significant data proving that media “rewires” brains in the moral panic way she implies.
Even Plato worried that the invention of writing would rot people’s brains. If you believe every new storytelling form is doomsday fuel, congrats: you’re in a long line of people who thought novels, radio, and video games would doom us all.
Shame!
Here’s a part I find extrafascinating: Lipton wants to be seen as sexually open, but just within the bounds of particular, patriarchal approval.
You can be sexually empowered… but only if it’s within marriage. Only if it’s straight. Oh! And only if it’s cis. Anything else? Deviant.
And when someone critiques that? She leaps straight to “What’s next? Incest? Bestiality? Pedophilia?”
But also, she now claims she knows monster smut isn’t those things. Ignore that she used it interchangeably with bestiality like two paragraphs ago. Let’s not let facts get in the way of moral panic vibes. Got it.
“I don’t think all smut is harmful.”
Lipton tries to sound reasonable here, but what she wants is for us to know that her fantasies are fine and yours are perverse.
She offers no examples of the kind of “healthy” smut she’d recommend. No authors. No titles. Just a vague implication that there’s a proper, approved way to be turned on, whatever that is.
That’s the real sham.
"Girl, are you terrified or turned on?"
Lipton takes a weird swing at The Handmaid’s Tale fans, implying dystopian narratives turn on readers.
I feel weird that I must say it plainly: engaging with literary fiction is not the same as getting off to it.
Some of us read Margaret Atwood and monster smut. They scratch different itches. And no one here is confused about which is which. Why are you?
“‘Conservative’ Women are Statistically Happier”
Are the statistics in the room with us?
Lipton ends by insisting that conservative women are happier because they’ve surrendered to patriarchal structure. That’s… a choice.
Meanwhile, real-world data on abuse rates in the U.S. paints a very different picture. (Source: NIH data)
True empowerment isn’t about rigid roles. It’s about choice (which might include reading whatever smut you want).
Final Thoughts
I don't honestly expect Lipton, Evie, or anyone in the alt-right community to know or care about this takedown. Frankly, this isn't really for them. This is more like a purposefully entertaining love letter to every reader whose desires don’t fit the mold of conservative ideals. Let yourself be rewired. Let yourself be weird, vulnerable, and evolving. That’s the point of living.
Housekeeping
For more information about this newsletter’s spice and star system, check out this newsletter’s About Me page.
Affiliate Disclosure
Some of the links in this newsletter are affiliate links. This means that if you click on the link and make a purchase, I may receive a commission at no additional cost to you. I only recommend products or services that I believe will add value to my readers. Your support through these links helps me to continue providing quality content.
Wild that fictional monster smut is what broke their brains.
Not the patriarchy. Not the purity cult.
Just women getting off and choosing their own monsters.
god (small g intentional!) I love your writing. Cackled the whole way through it. I mean, I want to cry too because the incursion of this mindset in communities is stripping libraries of diverse content. And frankly, they'll pry my alien smutty romances from my cold dead hands.