I've heard it argued that since "men" (in which we include the median-age-12 boy that is the typical consumer of SF) prefer to read about male characters, and "women" (and since girls statistically read more and more fluently earlier than boys, shall we guesstimate the median age of 10?) are willing to read about both male and female characters, the proper, game-theory-optimized response is for everyone to write about male characters if they want to be published.
I'm not buying it.
When I asked my 76-year-old Dad if he'd read Sue Grafton's alphabet mysteries (he being a mystery fan), he said he just didn't want to read about sex from a female point of view. Too icky.
And on the m/m fiction brought up by birdhousefrog: a (older, hetero male) colleague at work said that while he has no intellectual problem with people he knows choosing to have relationships with others of the same gender, the depiction in film (and presumably on stage or in life) of physical m/m closeness makes him feel slightly sick. It doesn't have to be overly erotic imagery, and he has a physiological response. He finds this curious, but is not interested in repeating it: it's uncomfortable. He'll just avoid the subject.
no subject
I'm not buying it.
When I asked my 76-year-old Dad if he'd read Sue Grafton's alphabet mysteries (he being a mystery fan), he said he just didn't want to read about sex from a female point of view. Too icky.
And on the m/m fiction brought up by birdhousefrog: a (older, hetero male) colleague at work said that while he has no intellectual problem with people he knows choosing to have relationships with others of the same gender, the depiction in film (and presumably on stage or in life) of physical m/m closeness makes him feel slightly sick. It doesn't have to be overly erotic imagery, and he has a physiological response. He finds this curious, but is not interested in repeating it: it's uncomfortable. He'll just avoid the subject.