Oh Dear

Sarah: “I’m taking my lust for unrequited love upstairs to bed.”

Hubby: “Why do you have lust and unrequited love?”

Sarah: “Because I’ve been reading romance novels nonstop for three or four months straight?”

Hubby: (to the cat) “Sarah’s been reading porn for women!”

Sarah: “IT IS NOT PORN!”

Hubby: “Yes, it is!”

Sarah: “No, it is not! Dismissing romance as women’s porn is supporting the idea that women’s sexuality is something that isn’t worthy of exploration and celebration!”

Hubby: (knows he’s in trouble but not sure how he got there) “But there’s nothing WRONG with porn!”

Sarah: “It is NOT porn! Romance novels are not porn for women!”

Hubby: “Ok, porn for women…and gay men?”

Sarah: “NO! IT IS NOT PORN!”

Hubby: “I don’t understand! It’s got turgid members and the occasional heaving bosom!”

Sarah: “It’s not like a porno movie where barely dressed people walk up, introduce themselves, and start bonking!”

Hubby: “Ok, it’s porn with a plot!”

Sarah: “NO IT IS NOT PORN! It’s romantic fiction, with a story about romance and attraction and love and there’s sex but it’s not always described.”

Hubby: (wishing I would stop screeching and that the conversation would end) “OK. FINE.”

Sarah: “Ok, goodnight.”

Hubby: “Enjoy your porn.”

Categorized:

Ranty McRant

Comments are Closed

  1. 1
    Meljean says:

    I’m giggling like mad—I can’t count how many times I’ve had this conversation. Except I don’t have stairs.

  2. 2
    Kristie says:

    Hilarious!  My husband thinks the same thing!  And some of those covers out there don’t help my cause.  I try and tell him it’s diferent – they’re about people who LOVE each other and they are about ROMANCE but he just doesn’t get it.

  3. 3
    Sam says:

    Hubby – “Well, what’s wrong with porn for woman? It makes more sense to call it porn for women than to call it literature.”
    Since I happily write porn for women, I can’t be bothered to argue with my husband who also thinks it’s useless to read any other part of the book except where there’s boinking.

  4. 4
    Kate says:

    people! [hair pull] it’s got PEOPLE! how often [slap, slap] do I have to tell [kick, *moan*] you people? [punch] Porn = sex body parts or figures with little personality [double slam off wall] erotica = sex [knee in groin . . .*oooff*] people. [eye gouge] [*faint*]

    next?

  5. 5

    of course that’s just my opinion. . .

  6. 6

    damn it, now the link’s real. I just wanna be one of the Big Bitches.

  7. 7
    Candy says:

    Heh heh. The Very Tall Husband has said many boneheaded things in his life, but accusing romance novels of being porn is not one of them.

    He doesn’t make fun of the romance novels I read because when I does, I give him a bad time about his love for Terry Goodkind and Raymond E. Feist.

  8. 8
    Candy says:

    WHEN I DOES? Good god. My kingdom for a comment edit button!

  9. 9
    yummy says:

    Did someone’s husband lose out on a good chance for some nooky? Not too bright.

    And you know what, hate me if you will, but I do think romance novels are porn for women – just a special kind of thoughtful porn.  The sex scenes are part of the reason I read them.  Maybe they are more like Skinamax rather than XXX.  So, can we agree that they are “Soft Porn”?

    Don’t hit me, Kate.

  10. 10
    Sarah says:

    I think the porn question might be better addressed as the turn-on question. Are romance novels prurient? Sometimes. Do they turn me on? Often! Does the Hubby enjoy the by-product of my readership? Heck yeah.

    So if one reads romance novels because the romance + attraction + fighting for happily ever after + sex turns you on, then perhaps they fill a need for sexual gratification that other people might address by using straight pornography.

    But does that make romance novels porn? I don’t think so. Porn is “just sex – get on with the nookie please” – like Kate said: body parts, bumpin’ uglies, no plot. I mean, there’s a reason Good Vibes has to have a special designation for their porn titles that contain “actual plot.” 

    Further, dismissing romance novels as porn is one more attempt to devalue romance novels as fiction and try to induce embarrassment on the part of the reader.

  11. 11
    Yummy says:

    Gosh, do I dismiss romance novels as porn?  Do I devalue romance novels and try to ebarrass readers – no really, I’m thinking about this . . . I supposed my view is based on the fact that as a result of the spring fever I have, I pulled out a romance novel and skipped ahead to the sex scenes only the other night.  And as I was reading them and they went on and on, I was felt forced to admit that this was soft porn for me.  And I like my porn wrapped up in plot with some love thrown in there, which is why I like romance novels. 

    I think Romance novels are slightly ridiculous, as much as I love them, so I’m willing to laugh with my friends about them and how silly they can be.  I think this website shows this fact, too.  I’m just not very sensitive about my love of romance novels and don’t really care if someone calls it porn. 

    And to be sure, I don’t read them just for the sex – I read them for the heroes . . . and the sex.

  12. 12
    Yummy says:

    I have another question for myself- do I know how to type?  Everytime I post a message here, I find really stupid spelling/typoes.  Sorry gals, I do generally know how to type and speak well.

  13. 13
    Candy says:

    Different people turn to romance novels for different reasons. Personally, I occasionally use them as a stand-by for porn. This is because actual porn (the visual kind) doesn’t turn me on at all; ironically, a lot of times the only time I seek porn out is to make fun of it. Some types of romance novels are much easier to use pornographically—Emma Holly vs. Carla Kelly, for example. I would say that in general, most women don’t use most romance novels pornographically most of the time. But I think that women who enjoy really sexy romances and claim that they enjoy the spicy sex scenes ONLY because of character development are lying a little.

    So on one hand, what constitutes effective porn is in the eye of the beholder, which would make romance novels pornographic to some people some of the time. But most romance novels differ substantially from mainstream porn, if only because there are a lot of romance novels out there with few to no explicit sex scenes, and because the sex:story quotient is way, way off.

  14. 14
    Yummy says:

    Candy wrote: “But most romance novels differ substantially from mainstream porn, if only because there are a lot of romance novels out there with few to no explicit sex scenes, and because the sex:story quotient is way, way off. “

    Excellent point.

  15. 15
    Gail says:

    Candy wrote:
    “But I think that women who enjoy really sexy romances and claim that they enjoy the spicy sex scenes ONLY because of character development are lying a little.”

    And yet, I’ve found that if the spicy sex scenes don’t have SOME character development/ plot movement/Something, I wind up skipping them. Even if they’re really, really spicy. There has to be something else besides the sex. At least when we get to the seventh love scene by chapter 10. So really, they are more than just porn.

    Gail (who’s going to look up that Emma Holly book…)

  16. 16
    Sarah says:

    Gail, I am with you, because nothing makes me more annoyed with a romance than hot-n-heavy humpity hump without some development of the characters who are getting it on. Sometimes the lack of personal knowledge is part of the plot: boy meets girl at masquerate or Cyprian’s ball or somesuch nonsense, get to third base behind a ballroom curtain, never see each other again until years later, and one recognizes the other, etc. I’ve read a few variations on the theme, and their involvement with each other is based on sexual adventures with a person largely unknown to them.

    However, much like that stupid movie “Underworld,” throwing the attraction and “bumpy pumpy” in before there’s any good reason for it usually strikes a false note with me and leaves me cold. In “Underworld,” which was a horrid move that I refer to as “Underwear,” male and female get involved in all these paranormal goings on, and she ends up hiding him in a room and turns to him with this suddenly aware and wary expression on her face. Literally, people in the theatre groaned out loud. It’s kissy kissy time and we have no reason to believe that kissing is a response to some kind of tension between them because we never saw it.

    A lot of romance readers have a great deal to say about rakes who engage in casual sex suddenly chasing or chastely pursuing a heroine in complete contrast to their normal MO. Others have problems when those same rakes pursue a virginal heroine with the same base manner they would employ with a mistress. I don’t get worked up either way, but when the pursuer gives me no reason to accept that there’s a reason for pursuit and there’s no attraction that begs for ultimate defusing of that tension, I get annoyed.

    Sex scenes that don’t in some way address a build of tension don’t do it for me, and I look for that tension in the continuing and evolving interaction and development of the main characters.

Comments are closed.

↑ Back to Top