Are romance novels "soft porn"?

[Sunstone]

In a health book written by two doctors, I came across a discussion of women's sexual response to passages taken from romance novels compared to men's sexual response to pictures taken from soft porn magazines (like Playboy). The authors mentioned studies done on undergraduates that suggested women could become more aroused by reading the passages from romance novels than men could become aroused by viewing the pictures of soft porn.

It seems to me that this raises the question of whether romance novels are properly categorized as "soft porn", since they result in sexual arousal.

But whether or not it properly raises that question, why do you think romance novels are more socially acceptable than male oriented soft porn? Is this a double standard? And if so, is there any justification for holding to this double standard? What do you think?

 

[Ardent Listener]

In a health book written by two doctors, I came across a discussion of women's sexual response to passages taken from romance novels compared to men's sexual response to pictures taken from soft porn magazines (like Playboy). The authors mentioned studies done on undergraduates that suggested women could become more aroused by reading the passages from romance novels than men could become aroused by viewing the pictures of soft porn.

It seems to me that this raises the question of whether romance novels are properly categorized as "soft porn", since they result in sexual arousal.

But whether or not it properly raises that question, why do you think romance novels are more socially acceptable than male oriented soft porn? Is this a double standard? And if so, is there any justification for holding to this double standard? What do you think?

Perhaps Its more socially acceptable because, except for their covers, romance novels do not contain pictures. What ever the reason, I wish my wife would go back to reading them again.

 

[The Conspirator]

well the definition of pornography is

http://dictionary.reference.com/search?q=Pornography.
1. Sexually explicit pictures, writing, or other material whose primary purpose is to cause sexual arousal.
2. The presentation or production of this material.
3. Lurid or sensational material: “Recent novels about the Holocaust have kept Hitler well offstage [so as] to avoid the... pornography of the era” (Morris Dickstein).

Which I agree with but it really depends on how you define porn.

 

[michel]

In a health book written by two doctors, I came across a discussion of women's sexual response to passages taken from romance novels compared to men's sexual response to pictures taken from soft porn magazines (like Playboy). The authors mentioned studies done on undergraduates that suggested women could become more aroused by reading the passages from romance novels than men could become aroused by viewing the pictures of soft porn.

It seems to me that this raises the question of whether romance novels are properly categorized as "soft porn", since they result in sexual arousal.

But whether or not it properly raises that question, why do you think romance novels are more socially acceptable than male oriented soft porn? Is this a double standard? And if so, is there any justification for holding to this double standard? What do you think?

Hehehe - that is quite a step..........

What is the level of sexual arousal (at a level which is considered 'O.K') O.K ?

I well remember my sons showing a surprising interest in my wife's clothing catalogues (you know, those massive things that come from every company, weigh a ton, and whose goods are overpriced to allow for 'payment over a time'). I have personally seen programmes on television 'pre watershed' (i.e 21.00 hours in England, before which time programmes with sexual content are not to be shown) which have made me feel (in the words of an author I love) 'all unnecessary', and have prompted me to go and sit next to my wife on the sofa (and that's all you are getting folks.........no voyeurism in the hiernaux household. :biglaugh:

So, what is arousal to one, may not be arousal to another.... (I actually believe that the more one is exposed to sexual content, the less the effect has on us) - in other words, there is a certain degree of 'acclimatization'.

It seems to me that this raises the question of whether romance novels are properly categorized as "soft porn", since they result in sexual arousal.

I suppose I agree with you (as regards to the results of the study); romance novels could be properly categorized as "soft porn".

But whether or not it properly raises that question, why do you think romance novels are more socially acceptable than male oriented soft porn? Is this a double standard? And if so, is there any justification for holding to this double standard? What do you think?

Somehow, there is an imagine of a 'clandestine' visit to buy 'men only' magazines; the magazines are quickly disposed of when a woman walks in the room (I am thinking of my days in the Bank).

When a woman reads a romance novel, I haven't yet met one who is 'surruptitious' about doing so. By implication, the men could therefore be seen as realizing that what they read in soft porn magazines is 'slightly?more than slightly?' offensive to female eyes, whereas the overt and unashamed way women read their fiction novels would indicate that they are less 'offensive'.

Perhaps there is another point, which has been missed from the study; men's porn magazines have a visual content; women's romance novels have no pictures. Does this class as another criterium ?

 

[Sunstone]

Perhaps there is another point, which has been missed from the study; men's porn magazines have a visual content; women's romance novels have no pictures. Does this class as another criterium ?

I've read of studies that suggest women are more verbally oriented than men, while men are more visually oriented than women when it comes to sexual arousal. For instance, many women might prefer erotic poetry to erotic pictures, while with many men, the opposite might be true. I think this difference in orientation accounts for why women's soft porn comes in the form of romance novels, while men's soft porn comes in the form of pictures.

It interests me that neither kind of porn realistically depicts the other sex. Women's romance novels are full of male characters that are significantly unlike real men, and men's pictures are full of women who are presented in unrealistic ways. Strange that the sexes are turned on by representations of the other sex that are unrealistic.

Lastly, I think there is a double standard. Men's soft porn is more frequently, and more harshly, condemned than women's soft porn. That double standard, in my opinion, is not justified.

 

[Kramer]

I don't know whether it is soft porn, but it is certainly an aphrodisiac (if that's spelled correctly). I would consider it in the realm of porn, though it takes a more subtle approach to the senses. Either way, harlequin novels seem immensly trashy to me.

 

[michel]

I've read of studies that suggest women are more verbally oriented than men, while men are more visually oriented than women when it comes to sexual arousal. For instance, many women might prefer erotic poetry to erotic pictures, while with many men, the opposite might be true. I think this difference in orientation accounts for why women's soft porn comes in the form of romance novels, while men's soft porn comes in the form of pictures.

It interests me that neither kind of porn realistically depicts the other sex. Women's romance novels are full of male characters that are significantly unlike real men, and men's pictures are full of women who are presented in unrealistic ways. Strange that the sexes are turned on by representations of the other sex that are unrealistic.

Lastly, I think there is a double standard. Men's soft porn is more frequently, and more harshly, condemned than women's soft porn. That double standard, in my opinion, is not justified.

Women's romance novels are full of male characters that are significantly unlike real men

I bow to your superior knowledge............errr, have you researched this personally ? :biglaugh:

Lastly, I think there is a double standard. Men's soft porn is more frequently, and more harshly, condemned than women's soft porn. That double standard, in my opinion, is not justified.

I suppose so.

Slighly off topic, during my Banking days, I was once a sole teller (for you Americans - for us, cashier) at a sub-branch. This would have been a very small branch where there would be only one Bank clerk (The teller); there would be a second employee (usually a retired policeman, who would act as 'guard').

The role and image of the guard was a token one; they were most certainly not armed, and their duties extended no further than offering to make cups of tea for the teller, and occasionally sweeping the floor. Dreadfully boring work. Oh, and sometimes answering the telephone should the Teller be busy with a customer at the time of the call.

In one such Branch, I was accompanied by a delightful local ex pliceman of some 70 odd years. This was in the very early 1970's.

The poor chap had never before seen a man's magazine with pictures of unclad women, and when he saw one (in the newsagent next door to the branch), he determined to buy himself one, to fill the lonely hours while he 'guarded me'.

I remember that he went out a few times (to the newsagent), and returned with a plethora of unwanted itens - newspapers he never read, boxes of unnecessary matches........etc.

One such morning, the newsagent came into the Branch to pay in that day's takings. The guard (Sam) went out into the poublic space of the branch, siddled up to the newsagent and said "You know.....er, them gardening magazines you have on the top shelf on the right?"

The newsagent looked at him a little confused .....

Sam looked aat him, slightly embarassed, and said conspiratorially "You know what I mean....the ... you know..GARDENING magazines - on the TOP shelf"

The newsagent finally understood, "Oh those magazines", he said "What about them ?"

Sam asked him if he could bring one in to deliver it to him on his next visit to the Branch. The newsagent came in, the next day, with "A gardening magazine" under his arm, handed it to Sam, who paid him for it, and scuttled immediately into the back room.

This went on for some time (there were many Gardening magazines purchased), but always requested to be delivered and always referred to as Gardening magazines.

One Day, Sam came into the Branch, at the usual time.

I noticed he seemd quiet............. I asked him if anything was wrong......

He told me "You know them Gardening magazines ?" I said, "yes"
he continued, "Well, I took some of them home, and put the on top of the wardrobe in our bedroom", he continued, looking abashed....."Well," he said,"My wife decided to have a spring clean, you see..........and when she saw them gardening magazines, she went Mad; she said to me "Sam, Sam, you are a dirty b----r, those magazines are the most filthy load of trash I have ever seen;I have put them in the dustbin. If I ever see anything like that again, ever, you will be out of this house before you have the chance to pack your case"..............................:biglaugh:

 

[Feathers in Hair]

Yuppers! Since men are more visually oriented, and women verbally so, as far as I can tell, reading a story or a novel is, for us, like watching a movie-of-negotiable-virtue for the males.

 

[Solon]

Would someone like to define a ' Romantic Novel' ? because there is a lot of difference between a romantic fiction with nothing overtly sexual within, or something from the genre of say the ' Black Lace' stable, which is loaded with Strong sexual content, and as Black Lace says, they are written by women for women, umm if you can believe that. I confess to reading some, and they are rather stimulating.

 

[Sunstone]

I bow to your superior knowledge............errr, have you researched this personally ? :biglaugh:

Yes. I was in my late 30's when I briefly turned to reading romance novels. I had suffered a setback in my life and was looking for something to occupy my time. The apartment complex where I was living at the time had a small library which was mostly stocked with romance novels. In fact, the only other books it had in it besides romance novels seemed to all have titles like, "The Snowflake: An In Depth Appreciation in One Volume". So, the romance novels were the best of a bad lot.

I don't know how many romance novels I read over six months (because I lost count). And I can't say that I even finished most of them (because most were so tedious that I couldn't bring myself to finish them). But I read a few of them. And I partly read even more than a few of them. One thing that consistantly struck me about them was the artificiality of the males in the novels. The stupid ways in which they were unlike any real males that I knew of.

 

[Sunstone]

Yuppers! Since men are more visually oriented, and women verbally so, as far as I can tell, reading a story or a novel is, for us, like watching a movie-of-negotiable-virtue for the males.

I would say you have precisely grasped the point, Feathers! The sexes have each their own porn. But why the double standard? Why is men's porn deemed more reprehensible than women's porn?

 

[Sunstone]

Why is men's porn deemed more reprehensible than women's porn?

Probably because it so often is.

 

[Penumbra]

Probably because it so often is.

Epic thread resurrection.

It seems to me that this raises the question of whether romance novels are properly categorized as "soft porn", since they result in sexual arousal.

But whether or not it properly raises that question, why do you think romance novels are more socially acceptable than male oriented soft porn? Is this a double standard? And if so, is there any justification for holding to this double standard? What do you think?

I'm not really sure what the definition of soft porn is. Porn without showing sex? Or does sex happen with less detail? How many men watch soft porn compared to hardcore porn, or is soft porn mostly a reference to sex scenes within non-porn movies and stuff?

What is the definition of a romance novel, for the purposes of this discussion? If a well-written novel has romance/sex in it but does not focus on it, is it a romance novel? I'm reading one where the three biggest aspects of it are a) political intrigue, b) action/adventure, and c) romance/sex, in that order, so would that count? Or would that just be a book that's balanced around multiple aspects of life?

One difference between a romance novel and any sort of live-action pornography is that with a novel, everything is fiction, described by the author through the editor to the reader. With live-action porn, there are people that have to have sex, and the viewer is watching real people have sex. Many that argue against the porn industry, are arguing against the exploitation and risks of people in porn films, and such arguments wouldn't apply to novels. So the only arguments left would be ones about the impact on the reader.

I don't know how many romance novels I read over six months (because I lost count). And I can't say that I even finished most of them (because most were so tedious that I couldn't bring myself to finish them). But I read a few of them. And I partly read even more than a few of them. One thing that consistantly struck me about them was the artificiality of the males in the novels. The stupid ways in which they were unlike any real males that I knew of.

Which ways were they unlike real males?

I would agree that unrealistic detailed sexual depictions of men or women can be harmful if people watch or read them on a regular basis, because they're essentially conditioning their mind to enjoy something that doesn't exist.

 

[dawny0826]

In a health book written by two doctors, I came across a discussion of women's sexual response to passages taken from romance novels compared to men's sexual response to pictures taken from soft porn magazines (like Playboy). The authors mentioned studies done on undergraduates that suggested women could become more aroused by reading the passages from romance novels than men could become aroused by viewing the pictures of soft porn.

There's less inhibition I think, when reading a romance novel. You're able to take the imagery provided and visualize it as you want/need to. That makes it even more exciting. It's less literal, less constructed and very private.

It seems to me that this raises the question of whether romance novels are properly categorized as "soft porn", since they result in sexual arousal.

Most are properly categorized as romance novels. Most romance novels I've read have the one or two sex steamy scenes, as do most romance movies. Some are more descriptive than others. Unlike a photograph in a Play Boy, a romance novel, is typically, more than a single "sex scene" or snapshot of a sexual image. You're being taken on a journey through a character's story.

There are some novels that are far less story-focused and perhaps they do deserve better categorization. Most that I've read over the years have been primarily character and plot focused. The other bits are a bonus.

But whether or not it properly raises that question, why do you think romance novels are more socially acceptable than male oriented soft porn? Is this a double standard? And if so, is there any justification for holding to this double standard? What do you think?

What type of "soft porn" are you talking about?

 

[Monk Of Reason]

Soft?

 

[Sunstone]

Epic thread resurrection.

I saw someone else responding to it, so I decided to respond to it myself. But then they quit without actually posting. So, I was left looking like my usual self. That's to say, a fool.

I'm not really sure what the definition of soft porn is. Porn without showing sex? Or does sex happen with less detail?

My impression is that soft porn is usually a term reserved for less explicit porn that does not, for instance, involve violence, explicit photos/shots of the female genitalia (such as no split leg photos), and if it shows sex, shows tends to avoid photos/shots of actual penetration, either anally or vaginally. It is also sometimes associated with soft focus photography.

How many men watch soft porn compared to hardcore porn, or is soft porn mostly a reference to sex scenes within non-porn movies and stuff?

Well, when I was growing up, soft porn was the only kind easily available without going to a porn shop. But that changed first with Larry Flint's Hustler Magazine, then, much later, and much more radically, with the internet. Hardcore porn is at least half of the porn on the net -- but that's only my impression.

What is the definition of a romance novel, for the purposes of this discussion? If a well-written novel has romance/sex in it but does not focus on it, is it a romance novel? I'm reading one where the three biggest aspects of it are a) political intrigue, b) action/adventure, and c) romance/sex, in that order, so would that count? Or would that just be a book that's balanced around multiple aspects of life?

That's almost like asking, "What is the definition of porn?" Even the Supreme Court has had trouble with that one. I'm inclined to answer, I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it. But maybe I can add to that, it's my impression that romance novels tend to depict men in certain more or less stereotypical ways, which I'll get into in a moment, but which are roughly analogous to the seeming fact that soft porn tends to depict women in certain more or less stereotypical ways.

One difference between a romance novel and any sort of live-action pornography is that with a novel, everything is fiction, described by the author through the editor to the reader. With live-action porn, there are people that have to have sex, and the viewer is watching real people have sex. Many that argue against the porn industry, are arguing against the exploitation and risks of people in porn films, and such arguments wouldn't apply to novels. So the only arguments left would be ones about the impact on the reader.

Good point.

Which ways were they unlike real males?

I'm not an expert on romance novels, but from the stack I once read several years ago, I seem to recall the differences were sometimes subtle, but to me, significant. It's been years, though, so I'm not sure how well I recall the details now. But I think I remember noticing the men were frequently much more sensitive to what women (or even other men) were thinking and feeling than had been my experience of most -- but not all -- men in real life. So I think it's kind of a statistical thing. A woman character in a romance novel has a much greater chance of meeting and being wooed by a rather hyper-sensitive man than a real woman in real life.

The problem is I read my stack of romance novels almost twenty years ago. I can still recall laughing and snorting at the improbable male characters, but I cannot any longer recall exactly what was so funny most of the time.

Something just came back to me. One of the things I didn't find enough of in the stack of romances I read were male characters who expected, demanded -- or at the very least, wished -- that women were more like men in terms of their sexuality. But in my experience of men, that's actually a relatively frequent "locker room" topic. It almost never gets said that way, but that's what it amounts to. A lot of men, especially younger men -- but I don't know whether it's a majority -- seem to me to be confused by and now and then even to resent women's sexuality. But so far as I know, they don't exactly go around expressing that opinion in mixed company -- as least not as fully as they might in same-sex company. I don't hear those views expressed so often by older men of my acquaintance, though, possibly because older men are all worn out with fighting a losing battle when it comes to changing women's sexuality. At any rate, I can now dimly recall noting I didn't see men express views like that too often in the romances I read.

I would agree that unrealistic detailed sexual depictions of men or women can be harmful if people watch or read them on a regular basis, because they're essentially conditioning their mind to enjoy something that doesn't exist.

Yeah, setting up unrealistic expectations. At one time I was of the opinion that mattered less than I now think it does. I used to think, though, that most men saw through soft porn and didn't expect real women to be that way, and that most women saw through romance novels and didn't expect real men to be that way. But now I'm not so sure that's the case with most people. I think today people might be like those doctors who believe themselves too smart to be influenced by the drug salespeople. That is, they're the first and worse to be fooled.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

"Soft porn"? The sex scene passages in romance novels are pretty graphic even though they use silly terms like "member" and "her sex".

I don't know about there being much of a double standard when it comes to erotic fiction. My library carries books that are extremely graphic, sexually, as well as romance novels so it doesn't seem to be that big of a problem. Lol.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Soft porn? Romance novels are something far more insidious than that.

 

[Penumbra]

That's almost like asking, "What is the definition of porn?" Even the Supreme Court has had trouble with that one. I'm inclined to answer, I don't know how to define it, but I know it when I see it.

What I find interesting, is that a typical human day might involved work, play, and then some sex perhaps, and yet if a book shows a character in similar balance, it will be labeled romantic/erotic.

The one I'm reading now is considered romantic fantasy but like 5% of it is romance/erotic and the other 95% is action, war, adventure, spying, and politics.

Good point.

And in my opinion, a major difference.

But maybe I can add to that, it's my impression that romance novels tend to depict men in certain more or less stereotypical ways, which I'll get into in a moment, but which are roughly analogous to the seeming fact that soft porn tends to depict women in certain more or less stereotypical ways.

I'm not an expert on romance novels, but from the stack I once read several years ago, I seem to recall the differences were sometimes subtle, but to me, significant. It's been years, though, so I'm not sure how well I recall the details now. But I think I remember noticing the men were frequently much more sensitive to what women (or even other men) were thinking and feeling than had been my experience of most -- but not all -- men in real life. So I think it's kind of a statistical thing. A woman character in a romance novel has a much greater chance of meeting and being wooed by a rather hyper-sensitive man than a real woman in real life.

The problem is I read my stack of romance novels almost twenty years ago. I can still recall laughing and snorting at the improbable male characters, but I cannot any longer recall exactly what was so funny most of the time.

Interesting. I haven't read much romance.

In the one I'm reading now, the leading romantic duo is having a big fight due to sexual incompatibility and religious differences. About as mundane as one can get.

Something just came back to me. One of the things I didn't find enough of in the stack of romances I read were male characters who expected, demanded -- or at the very least, wished -- that women were more like men in terms of their sexuality. But in my experience of men, that's actually a relatively frequent "locker room" topic. It almost never gets said that way, but that's what it amounts to. A lot of men, especially younger men -- but I don't know whether it's a majority -- seem to me to be confused by and now and then even to resent women's sexuality. But so far as I know, they don't exactly go around expressing that opinion in mixed company -- as least not as fully as they might in same-sex company. I don't hear those views expressed so often by older men of my acquaintance, though, possibly because older men are all worn out with fighting a losing battle when it comes to changing women's sexuality. At any rate, I can now dimly recall noting I didn't see men express views like that too often in the romances I read.

I'm not sure what you mean here by men wanting women to be more like men in their sexuality. Well, I think I do, but I'm not sure exactly what characteristics you're talking about. Like, frequency?

Yeah, setting up unrealistic expectations. At one time I was of the opinion that mattered less than I now think it does. I used to think, though, that most men saw through soft porn and didn't expect real women to be that way, and that most women saw through romance novels and didn't expect real men to be that way. But now I'm not so sure that's the case with most people. I think today people might be like those doctors who believe themselves too smart to be influenced by the drug salespeople. That is, they're the first and worse to be fooled.

That's true of much of fiction, though. Movies, shows, books, video games, porn, etc. Characters aren't generally depicted going to the bathroom or waiting in line at the post office. Instead, it's a focus on highlights, generally with attractive people, in better-than-normal or worse-than-normal situations (war, adventure, action, romance, etc).

Most people should realize that they aren't going to be a spy that saves America from a hidden nuclear threat, aren't going to be a sorceress that saves the entire realm from an awakening ancient dark lord, and aren't going to have perfectly sensitive relationships with people of god-like beauty.

 

[tatygirl90]

A romance novel as defined by the RWA (Romance Writer's Association) is a novel that focuses on the developing relationship between two people (Generally a man and woman) and ends with a happy ending.

Are they porn? It depends? A lot of them have sex. The levels depend on the author writing them. There is a whole genre focused on Christian romance and there is no sex to be had.

Then there's erotica and erotic romance. These tend to be more hardcore and more explicit. The romance end concentrates on a developing relationship and does not shy away from sex.

Why is porn far more stigmatized? Seeing as how romance novels are regularly decried as trash and the people that read them are looked down upon I think romance novels are also stigmatized but in a different way than the straight porn is.

I am regular reader of the romance genre and I consider myself a fan so I'd could give answer any questions if any of you would like to ask.