Are Women Realistic Enough to Read Romance Novels?

[Sunstone]

Now and then I hear someone point out that romance novels typically have male characters that are fundamentally unrealistic -- sometimes to the point of absurdity.

I once had nothing better to do for a few weeks than to take a friend's challenge to read a stack a yard high of romance novels. I couldn't stand them -- because the males were just so impossible! -- and I ended up merely skimming the books.

I've heard again and again that romance novels create in women unrealistic expectations about men. For instance, a heavy reader might be likely to think men are more romantically inclined than they typically are. She might even form the strong opinion that male and female sexuality is absolutely perfectly compatible! (By the way, if men and women had perfectly compatible sexualities, why would there be a demand for romance novels? Why would anyone want what is, essentially, escapist literature?)

I myself scoff at that! I mean, I think the average experienced, adult woman is realistic enough to know BS when she reads it. Some women might not (especially, perhaps, younger women and girls) but I have faith that most women do call BS when they read it.

What do you think, though? Am I just as right about this as I almost always am right about everything else?

Or, are most women suckers for the BS about men found in many -- maybe even most -- romance novels?

 

[Sha'irullah]

I was going to say the same thing you already expressed .

I personally believe that women are tricked into an expectation of men that is non existent and even with my sexuality and lack of romance it is evident that this nature that is abhorred by women in men is practically natural at default.

Look at the media being portrayed in your local cinema and see how the expectations go about. I prefer the real romances as seen in Chinese literature and cinematic productions. Romance is not a dual relationship of equality yet alone marriage.

The expectations we see now are actually relatively new if you take a look at history.

I believe that romance novels are the issue not women as women have the same if not more intelligence than a man has. The issue is that romance in media and literature portrays a wrong view about romance.

I always find the myths of Jubei to be satisfying in what nobility and romance are.
Look at the Turkish Sultants as well.

 

[Sunstone]

The expectations we see now are actually relatively new if you take a look at history.

Just in passing, I agree partly -- but not entirely -- with Joseph Campbell that romantic love got it's start in Arabic culture and spread to the West through Spain and the troubadours. Unlike Campbell, I think romantic love is based on neurochemicals and has always been with us. But I do agree with him in seeing the ideology -- not the neurochemistry, but the ideology -- of romantic love as having originated in Arabic culture.

 

[Falvlun]

I think woman are just as able to fall for fantasies or stereotypes or unrealistic expectations, just like men do. I think especially if you routinely expose yourself to such fantasies, like men watching a lot of porn, you could come to believe that they are reality-- or at least, set yourself up for unrealistic expectations.

But no, I doubt that your average reader of romance novels considers them to be an accurate depiction of reality. After all, that's half the fun of reading such.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Just in passing, I agree partly -- but not entirely -- with Joseph Campbell that romantic love got it's start in Arabic culture and spread to the West through Spain and the troubadours. Unlike Campbell, I think romantic love is based on neurochemicals and has always been with us. But I do agree with him in seeing the ideology -- not the neurochemistry, but the ideology -- of romantic love as having originated in Arabic culture.

I am only referring to the expectations in a society as a whole. Romance like all thing evolves slowly and a century or 2 is not relatively old when compared to the length of our existence.

 

[Sha'irullah]

I think woman are just as able to fall for fantasies or stereotypes or unrealistic expectations, just like men do. I think especially if you routinely expose yourself to such fantasies, like men watching a lot of porn, you could come to believe that they are reality-- or at least, set yourself up for unrealistic expectations.

But no, I doubt that your average reader of romance novels considers them to be an accurate depiction of reality. After all, that's half the fun of reading such.

It is not a matter of it is or is not reality. It is the issue of what expectations this gives a person.

With the recent mass accessibility to pornography for men and romantic literature and entertainment for women we now live in a society where the opposite genders expect entirely different things from each other.

The reality is the same as it always has been for people but the issue is the false expectations one expect to achieve from this reality. Our perceptions have been drastically altered over the last few decades alone

 

[Sunstone]

I think woman are just as able to fall for fantasies or stereotypes or unrealistic expectations, just like men do. I think especially if you routinely expose yourself to such fantasies, like men watching a lot of porn, you could come to believe that they are reality.

I seem to recall scientific studies that suggested heavy viewing of porn is associated with unrealistic views of women. Have you heard of any such studies?

But no, I doubt that your average reader of romance novels considers it to be an accurate depiction of reality.

You and I see eye to eye here.

After all, that's half the fun of reading such.

FUN! What's fun about romance novels? In my experience, they are nauseating. Even skimming them produces acute physical revulsion. I'm not exaggerating.

But I suppose many women feel acute physical revulsion watching "Bambi Bangs Dallas Texas". So, I guess it's all a wash in that sense.

 

[dawny0826]

Now and then I hear someone point out that romance novels typically have male characters that are fundamentally unrealistic -- sometimes to the point of absurdity.

I once had nothing better to do for a few weeks than to take a friend's challenge to read a stack a yard high of romance novels. I couldn't stand them -- because the males were just so impossible! -- and I ended up merely skimming the books.

I've heard again and again that romance novels create in women unrealistic expectations about men. For instance, a heavy reader might be likely to think men are more romantically inclined than they typically are. She might even form the strong opinion that male and female sexuality is absolutely perfectly compatible! (By the way, if men and women had perfectly compatible sexualities, why would there be a demand for romance novels? Why would anyone want what is, essentially, escapist literature?)

I myself scoff at that! I mean, I think the average mature, adult woman is smart enough to know BS when she reads it. Some women might not (especially, perhaps, younger women and girls) but I have faith that most women do call BS when they read it.

What do you think, though? Am I just as right about this as I almost always am right about everything else?

Or, are most women suckers for the BS about men found in many -- maybe even most -- romance novels?

I knew at 12, when I started reading romance novels, that the stuff in books was sensationalized. Romance novels have always been a pleasant escape - and I've always seen them as that - a literary escape. Through them, I've lived vicariously through the eyes of make believe people. It's fun and it keeps my creative juices flowing.

 

[Poeticus]

Now and then I hear someone point out that romance novels typically have male characters that are fundamentally unrealistic -- sometimes to the point of absurdity.

I once had nothing better to do for a few weeks than to take a friend's challenge to read a stack a yard high of romance novels. I couldn't stand them -- because the males were just so impossible! -- and I ended up merely skimming the books.

I've heard again and again that romance novels create in women unrealistic expectations about men. For instance, a heavy reader might be likely to think men are more romantically inclined than they typically are. She might even form the strong opinion that male and female sexuality is absolutely perfectly compatible! (By the way, if men and women had perfectly compatible sexualities, why would there be a demand for romance novels? Why would anyone want what is, essentially, escapist literature?)

I myself scoff at that! I mean, I think the average mature, adult woman is smart enough to know BS when she reads it. Some women might not (especially, perhaps, younger women and girls) but I have faith that most women do call BS when they read it.

What do you think, though? Am I just as right about this as I almost always am right about everything else?

Or, are most women suckers for the BS about men found in many -- maybe even most -- romance novels?

Meh. It's pretty much literary porn at certain times. I have read many Romance novels where more than five pages were about (detailed) sex scenes in bed. It made Playboy and Hustler look amateur. Hey, I'm not complaining, if that's what you are thinking. I was quite happy that the Romance novels I acquired were on sale for $2.00 each. Muahaha!

 

[Falvlun]

It is not a matter of it is or is not reality. It is the issue of what expectations this gives a person.

With the recent mass accessibility to pornography for men and romantic literature and entertainment for women we now live in a society where the opposite genders expect entirely different things from each other.

The reality is the same as it always has been for people but the issue is the false expectations one expect to achieve from this reality. Our perceptions have been drastically altered over the last few decades alone

That is a better way to put it.

I seem to recall scientific studies that suggested heavy viewing of porn is associated with unrealistic views of women. Have you heard of any such studies?

Only anecdotal, but it doesn't surprise me. I think we are inclined to believe things that we'd like to be true.

FUN! What's fun about romance novels? In my experience, they are nauseating. Even skimming them produces acute physical revulsion. I'm not exaggerating.

But I suppose many women feel acute physical revulsion watching "Bambi Bangs Dallas Texas". So, I guess it's all a wash in that sense.

Hehehe. This all reminds me of a childhood memory. My mom was an avid garage sale shopper, and there were inevitably large stacks of romance novels at them all. My sister and I took to calling them "yard sale books" and that's still how I think of them when I see someone reading one or on a shelf at a library. I've never read them, assuming that the writing would be poor, and that it would therefore distract me from any enjoyment.

But, to answer your question of what could be fun about them, well, it's the same thing that's fun about any sort of fantasy novel or entertainment. It transports you from the mundane world of predictable and boring and disappointing into a world of interest and unexpected and desired.

Additionally, if they are being used to make one *ahem* frisky, well, that's fun too.

 

[Sunstone]

But no, I doubt that your average reader of romance novels considers them to be an accurate depiction of reality.

Although you and I agree on this, I'd enjoy playing the Devil's Advocate for a moment.

There are days when I take a radically different view of people than I usually take. On those days, I can be put in mind of two things especially.

First, T.S. Eliot's words to the effect that the average human can stand at most 10 minutes of realism.

Second, something I noted on 9/11. After the attacks, the commentators on the TV stations I watched were all sober and realistic for several hours. There wasn't a word that I myself heard that was fantastic by any meaning.

Then it happened. A commentator on FOX stated we should respond by "nuking the Middle East". And there we were: Back in our usual fantasy land. We'd been shocked into sobriety, but our sobriety only lasted a few hours.

The human need for delusions seems to always reassert itself.

So, what are the chances that the average woman really is deluded by romance novels? Would something like this be more likely than not: The average woman reads her novels, then dances in and out of fantasy. Mostly she's deluded by them. But she has as many moments when she's not deluded as are necessary for her to convince herself that the novels have no real effect on her.

 

[Sunstone]

"yard sale books"

I love that phrase! "Yard sale books" Wit is priceless!

But, to answer your question of what could be fun about them, well, it's the same thing that's fun about any sort of fantasy novel or entertainment. It transports you from the mundane world of predictable and boring and disappointing into a world of interest and unexpected and desired.

That's a convincing description! Thanks!

 

[Sunstone]

...(detailed) sex scenes...

Fascinating! I missed such detailed sex scenes in the ones I read, which were mostly British or American works. Were the ones you've read mostly by Indian authors?

It used to bug me while skimming the novels that the sex scenes were so couched in vague, ambiguous, or euphemistic language. "She surrendered herself to him, body, mind, and soul." Stuff along those lines.

 

[Sunstone]

It is not a matter of it is or is not reality. It is the issue of what expectations this gives a person.

With the recent mass accessibility to pornography for men and romantic literature and entertainment for women we now live in a society where the opposite genders expect entirely different things from each other.

The reality is the same as it always has been for people but the issue is the false expectations one expect to achieve from this reality. Our perceptions have been drastically altered over the last few decades alone

I believe there is substantial truth to what you've said. However, I am much more reluctant than you seem to be to view things as new, just now developing, or of recent origin.

To me, basic human nature has always been the same, always will be the same.

And, specifically, it seems to me the sexes have forever had the same old false expectations of each other. The main difference between now and back then is most likely that nowadays those false expectations find much more support and encouragement, than they once found. Support and encouragement from the media, for instance.

 

[Sha'irullah]

Fascinating! I missed such detailed sex scenes in the ones I read, which were mostly British or American works. Were the ones you've read mostly by Indian authors?

It used to bug me while skimming the novels that the sex scenes were so couched in vague, ambiguous, or euphemistic language. "She surrendered herself to him, body, mind, and soul." Stuff along those lines.

Spoiler: Be Warning, Explicit

[youtube]5K1RcKJVbHA[/youtube]

You should really watch Gilbert Gottfried read 50 Shades of Grey :biglaugh:

 

[Sha'irullah]

I believe there is substantial truth to what you've said. However, I am much more reluctant than you seem to be to view things as new, just now developing, or of recent origin.

To me, basic human nature has always been the same, always will be the same.

And, specifically, it seems to me the sexes have forever had the same old false expectations of each other. The main difference between now and back then is most likely that nowadays those false expectations find much more support and encouragement, than they once found. Support and encouragement from the media, for instance.

Human nature is the same, "conquer and achieve what you wish by all means necessary no matter how futile"

 

[Sunstone]

It is not a matter of it is or is not reality. It is the issue of what expectations this gives a person.

I have a quibble with your juxtaposition of "realism" and "expectations". To me, the two things -- a lack of realism and a presence of false expectations -- should not be juxtaposed since a lack of realism, in my view, leads to false expectations.

Like I said, it's just a quibble. Nothing serious.

 

[Poeticus]

Were the ones you've read mostly by Indian authors?]

Nah, homie. I wish there was a Kamasutric twist to it all. But, the authors were American.

Just go to your local library and close your eyes and randomly pick a book from the Romance section. Or, you could give the following books a try:

To Wed a Stranger
The Rules of Seduction
The Unsung Hero
Coming Home
Bet Me

 

[Sunstone]

So, what are the chances that the average woman really is deluded by romance novels? Would something like this be more likely than not: The average woman reads her novels, then dances in and out of fantasy. Mostly she's deluded by them. But she has as many moments when she's not deluded as are necessary for her to convince herself that the novels have no real effect on her.

I'm thinking of changing my mind. Maybe even the average experienced woman (who is a heavy reader) spends most of her time deluded by the novels, and only wakes up from her delusions long enough to convince herself she is not deluded.

What do you think?

 

[Sunstone]

Nah, homie. I wish there was a Kamasutric twist to it all. But, the authors were American.

Interesting!

Just go to your local library and close your eyes and randomly pick a book from the Romance section. Or, you could give the following books a try:

To Wed a Stranger
The Rules of Seduction
The Unsung Hero
Coming Home
Bet Me

I'll take your word for it.