The Lost Pornographic Era of the Dinosaurs

by Kiersten Hallie Krum

Oh yeah, you read that right. Dinosaur porn.

Elizabeth hat tipped the dino porn scuttlebutt in her Sexy Saturday Roundup, but let’s take a more in-depth look at it, shall we?

Fair warning: Make sure you have a strong stomach before clicking the below links or reading excerpts.

dino porn
Tiny hands. Tiny…

First announced by Geekologie on Monday, I discovered the dino porn “rage” via The Twitter on Tuesday. On Wednesday, The Huffington Post online had a profile on “Tyrannosaurus sex”. By Thursday, NY Magazine online had a Q&A with the authors. Behold the power of social media. Again.

Two Texas college students are currently making buck hand over fist writing “dinosaur erotica” that features dinosaurs and the women who bang them. In the Q&A, the co-writers of such titles as Taken by the T-Rex, Taken by the Pterodactyl, and Taken at the Dinosaur Museum (I’m sensing a theme here) discuss how they cornered this unexplored sub genre of lizard lascivity in the erotica publishing market . Excuse me while I take a moment to hurl.

For crying out loud, leave it unexplored! Look, there are some sub, sub, sub-genres that should remain platform-free and I think prehistoric bestiality is one of them. I wouldn’t read a shifter novel where there was sex between the human and the shifted shifter (say that ten times fast), I sure as hell am not going to read coitus between a woman and a twelve-foot lizard right before it eats her for breakfast. I mean, those small hands alone! Ew.

But, much like Miley Cyrus’ newest absurd antics, books like these get press coverage and media exposure due to the shock impact and the point-and-look-at-the-train-wreck shared horror. I’m writing about it here out of pure disgust, but I’m still writing about it, thus being (again) the object of my own scorn. But there is enough prejudice and patronization against the romance genre and its many sub-genres as it is. We don’t have to create fodder for such discrimination by appealing to the lowest common denominator of porn and calling it erotic fiction!

This, I think, is one of the consequences still playing out from the Fifty Shades infection. While it continues to allow legitimate writers of erotic fiction and erotica (like some of the my fellow Lady Smut authors) the opportunity to capitalize on the mainstream recognition of their sub-genre, dino porn exhibits the long-term effects of the popularity of that poorly written, derivative, border-line plagiarized nonsense. While originally popularized by Twi-hards jonesing for the sex Stephanie Myers failed to provide through most of her original opus, Fifty Shades garnered huge media coverage based on the titillation of (mild) BDSM being read and enjoyed by suburban Moms and other “normal” women readers. Now, every perverse (I think it’s more than safe to call dino porn perverse) new iteration is more ammunition for romance novels to be derided as merely “porn” for women.  Technically speaking, these particular books are actually porn for dinosaurs and since the Jurassic Age has gone the way of the dodo (likely long before there was a dodo), so should its porn!

Does dino porn hit your limit of erotic fiction wannabes? Or do you think any and every corner of the genre should be written if there’s an audience who will read and buy it…no matter how disgusting the subject matter?

Tagged with: , , , , , , ,


  • Post authorC. Margery Kempe

    I don’t think there’s anything wrong with porn for women. We’re stigmatised for being sex-positive and excoriated for not being ever-ready for sex. Women do everything wrong, it seems.


    That said, I think it’ say clever idea along the lines of Pet Rocks, which is to say you bet it came about because of a late night conversation…

    Reply to C. Margery Kempe
  • Post authorLizEverly

    Nothing wrong with porn for women…but to call it erotic fiction is kind of bate and switchy. But then again the lines between a lot of the sub-genres are blurring. The whole sex with animal thing–including dinosaurs–is not something I want to read or write in my erotic fiction. I don’t care if it’s popular. Nor for me. Great, thought-provoking post!

    Reply to LizEverly
  • Post authorMadeline Iva

    What a great, funny post Kiersten!

    I know not about porn for women. I mean, there’s the ‘lesbian porn’ created by men and for men, but that’s just porn. I have big problems with porn for men–the visual kind with real women. Big problems. Like I think it’s exploitative and even the successful big stars in porn are pretty tragic. Savannah, Linda Lovelace, Jenna Jameson. Watching it makes me feel sad and icky for the women doing it.

    While there’s certainly a blurry line out there in terms of what people are writing, I think there is a significant difference between porn for men and erotic romance. i.e. One is not women friendly and one is. I don’t feel porn is body friendly for women. But I know others disagree.

    Dino porn meanwhile — blerg!

    Reply to Madeline Iva
  • Post authorElizabeth Shore

    I wrote a post last year about porn for women that included the Cosmopolitan statistic stating 66% of women watch porn. How reliable that stat is I can’t say, but it was an interesting number in how high it is. And there are female directors making porn films for women that focus more on feelings and emotion than a standard porn aimed at male viewers.

    But dino porn? No thanks. It’s a weird juxtaposition that harkens to mind those book mashups of a few years ago like Pride and Prejudice and Zombies, Sense and Sensibility and Sea Monsters, etc. A curious fad that ultimately went the way of the dinosaurs, which is just where dino porn ought to go, too.

    Reply to Elizabeth Shore
    • Post authorC. Margery Kempe

      That’s a good analogy, too. I saw people talking about the “dino porn” all over FB so you know it worked until the joke loses steam.

      Reply to C. Margery Kempe
  • Post authorKiersten Hallie Krum (@kierstenkrum)

    By all means, bring on the porn for women! My problem is when that terminology is used as a slur against romance novels in general, usually invoked by a man with a lascivious sneer. Romance is so much more and it bugs me when people capitalize on the gross factor to make money and by doing so merely confirmed these stereotypes for the naysayers.

    Reply to Kiersten Hallie Krum (@kierstenkrum)
  • Post authorEC Sheedy

    Dinosaur porn?

    Thought for a moment, tried to open mind yet another tiny crack…

    Gray, hidebound, scaly (often horny–literally speaking) no abs to speak of. Couldn’t form any workable image of genitalia.

    Conclusion? Yuck.

    Reply to EC Sheedy
    • Post authorMadeline Iva

      Someone thought: What do people like? I know…they like dinosaurs. And porn…HEY — I may be onto something here.

      Reply to Madeline Iva
  • Post authorAlexa Day

    I’ve heard the whole “porn for women” crack too many times. Usually, I respond by telling the detractor that romance is not porn for women because porn for women is a whole separate thing. I was at a conference a couple of years ago when someone (I swear it was Eloisa James) said that equating romance with porn for women actually devalues *both* genres. I wanted to give her a hug.

    I’m in favor of women’s use of porn, and I hope to live long enough to see the porn stigma lifted. In fact, I’d almost rather wait until I’m the doddering old lady in the rocking chair, so that I can make a scene for my niece and her kids.

    But I can’t get behind this dinosaur porn, if indeed it is porn. Porn’s for people.

    Reply to Alexa Day
    • Post authorMadeline Iva

      Okay then. Thanks for commenting Rich!

      Reply to Madeline Iva
  • Pingback: Christmas Cheer From Lady Smut | Lady Smut (Edit)

  • Pingback: Tapped Out | Lady Smut (Edit)

  • Pingback: F*cking Outside the Lines: Erotic Romance’s Squicks and Surprises | Lady Smut (Edit)

  • Pingback: Bear-Billionaire & Other Whack Trends in Romance | Lady Smut (Edit)

Comments & Reviews

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.