Help A Bitch Out - SOLVED!

HaBO: Not So Much Fecundity Please

You did it! We figured this one out! It is a truth universally acknowledged (by me for certain) that the Bitchery pretty much knows everything, and really, it's true. Scroll down to see the solution for this HaBO - and many thanks!

One of the aspects of romance that some folks LOVE and some folks loathe is the emphasis on children upon children and pregnancy as part and parcel to the happy ever after. For some people, a romance novel isn’t complete without a baby, either in the plot, or in the future, or a secret in the plot to be revealed in the future. For others, babies in romance are distinctly not-romantic (especially when one is tired to the point of blindness from taking care of one at all hours of the night) or, in the case of those going through infertility treatments or facing the inability to conceive, terribly painful.

Reader C. has asked for romance recommendations that aren’t about babies, and may even involve infertility as part of the plot- preferably a known condition that isn’t magically healed with frequent and dedicated applications of the spooge of healing from the Wang of Mighty Lovin™.

I’m hoping for some book recommendations, but I am also fairly sure it’s
a lost cause. Also, I don’t want to start a shit storm.

What I would really like to find are some romances (preferably historical,
but contemporary, sci-fi/fantasy, etc. are all fine, too) where the story
does not make the hero/heroine’s reproductive abilities an integral part of
the plot/HEA. I’d like to find something that either lets the two main
characters just ride off into their heaving, purple sunset with no mention
at all of children or pregnancy, or I’d like to find something where
infertility is a real issue that is dealt with and accepted and the HEA
comes anyway. By that, I don’t mean one of these books where half of our
happy couple “just knows” that they can’t have kids, but then everything
is made all better via the magical uterus/invincible spermians.I also don’t
want any books where the infertility is legit, but everything’s okey-dokey
by the HEA thanks to some conveniently-placed orphans.

I understand that this whole issue can really set people off, but I’m not
trying to push anyone’s “kids vs. no kids” buttons. As someone who can’t
have children without divine intervention, I’d just like find a good
romance novel to read that didn’t hit me over the head with the, “you’re
not a REAL family until you have children” message. A lot of family trees
have branches that end in the words “no issue”. Those two words do not
automatically mean that there wasn’t some ragin’-hot lovin’ going on
anyway … I’m just hoping there are some books out there about it.

My first suggestion for C: Bet Me by Jennifer Crusie – not because infertility is a big issue, but because the heroine is very frank about the fact that she doesn’t want children. Sometimes it’s not the idea that children are a prerequisite, but the idea that electing not to have children is a valid and acceptable option that makes a romance refreshing – this one in particular is a great example.

So: which romances feature infertility in ways that you appreciated, and which books were not so wedded to the idea that a Happily Ever After cannot occur without babies?

Categorized:

Help a Bitch Out

Comments are Closed

  1. Nonny says:

    @ AGTigress:

    I only know about the attitudes in the US, and it’s pretty strong in some circles and areas. I personally have not gotten as much crap about my choices as other people have, but I think that might also be that between my sexuality, paganism, polyamory, and so forth! not having kids is pretty low on the list of things to freak out about. 😉

    Family is definitely important, but in a good HEA, I see that even if there’s no kid. Kids don’t represent family to me, really; they represent a headache 😉 Really, I’d rather just see the H/h obviously happy with each other, whether it be in an epilogue or a cameo in a later connected book.

  2. Adrian says:

    So glad the OP wrote in with this.  I struggled with infertility, and though I have kids now I well remember the pain and tears that I lived through.

    Good romance is about the union of two people – while certainly HEA for many people includes chlidren, as many have already stated that is not the only way to create a family.  As much as I love my kids and celebrate the family I have, at the core of my family is my relationship with my husband – and it is at that core that I want to see romance focus.  It drives me crazy to see romances where a baby magically changes things because this so rarely works out well IRL. 

    So, even though I have kids now, I agree with so many of you that I prefer to read romance that doesn’t solve fertility issues with magic wangs or imply that a pregnancy will bring instant family and instant happiness for all.

    Word: get57 Thank goodness I did not beget 57!  The ones I have are work and expense enough, thank you.

  3. AgTigress says:

    Are you being intentionally dense?

    No. Because, as I said, I don’t take it literally.  I see it as a SYMBOL.  Not literal, right?  As I have said, I never wanted children myself, and took care never to have any, but the ‘baby epilogues’ never irked me.

    I don’t think I am dense.  Maybe I am just insensitive?  I mean, these are fictional stories, full of stereotypes and such.  Why should I think they apply to my own life? 

    😀

  4. El says:

    This may well be the opposite of what the questioner wants, but the question reminded me of it.

    I’m thinking it’s by Karen Van Der Zee, a Harlequin from many years ago, and I just looked at titles—A Secret Sorrow sounds right. The heroine is recovering from a car accident and goes to stay with her brother. She hasn’t come to terms with the fact that she can’t have kids, and she can’t bring herself to talk about it; she promptly meets the man of her dreams. I cried buckets. (I generally adored Van Der Zee’s stuff.)

    Like I said, I’m NOT recommending this to the questioner, unless she thinks she wants to try it. It just stuck with me for decades—it was the first Harlequin I remember seeing that dealt with infertility.

    For that matter, another favorite from back then, Jane Donnelly, generally didn’t have kids in the picture that I recall.

  5. JamiSings says:

    JamiSings: Was that “Tapestry” by Karen Ranney?

    I think that’s it. I remember the cover showed him in a black leather mask, hiding behind a curtain, spying on her.

    But as a READER, I am delighted when I get away from the whole children are the only path to a happy future trope.

    I could totally hijack this blog but I’ll just end with this – as a reader, it totally doesn’t bug me. I read romances because men ignore me IRL and it’s the only romance I get. So if the writer wants to use it for wish fullfillment, let her or him.

    But that might change. I’m being tested and show all the signs for poly cystic ovary syndrome which can include infertility and at the least make getting pregnant darn hard I might find myself in your corner.

    That being said – one of Sherilyn Kenyon Dark-Hunter books also doesn’t end with a pregnancy. Because Rayven chooses to remain a Dark-Hunter and DHs are sterile.

  6. Nonny says:

    @JamiSings:

    *big hugs* from another PCOS-er. There are a lot of things that go along with it, and it sucks horribly.  🙁

  7. Harlequin says:

    Try Marian Keyes on for size. Miscarriage and not wanting to have children feature quite largely in Angels but there is a baby HEA at the very very end and her first book, Watermelon, starts with the heroine giving birth to a baby and her husband leaving her for another woman while she’s still in the hospital (!!!) but I don’t think any of her other ones have babies in them as part and parcel of the HEA. Definitely not in Lucy Sullivan Is Getting Married, Last Chance Saloon, Rachel’s Holiday, Anybody Out There? or This Charming Man anyway.

    The utterly wonderful author has no children herself (though she did want them, it just didn’t happen for her and her husband) so maybe that’s why they don’t feature much in her happy endings.

  8. Lindsay says:

    I’m currently in the planning stages of a historical with a copule who are CFBC. Being CFBC is a lot more difficult though when one is limited to historial birth control methods – I doubt I could get away with them never having penetrative sex.

    Er, nothing to offer on the recommendation front off the top of my head. Oddly enough, despite my utter lack of interest in children in real life, I enjoy them in fiction.

  9. Abby says:

    I am so glad the OP wrote in about this.

    I don’t like kids, I don’t want kids, and I think pregnancy is creepy.  THERE I SAID IT.  I acknowledge that it’s a good thing my mom didn’t feel that way, and I have no problem with the fact that people want to have kids, but it can be more than a little overwhelming to those of us who aren’t interested.

    Did I mention I had to attend a baby shower today?  Anyway…

    Suzanne Enoch’s An Invitation to Sin is a great historical with NO mention of children, and no stupid baby epilogue.  It’s got lots of sexy sex, as well, if you’re into that sort of thing. 

    I think I need to go write down all of the titles above- but just FYI, there is a magical baby at the end of the JQ’s When He Was Wicked… and I won’t get into my feelings on that!

  10. LadyRhian says:

    I remember another Harlequin Historical where the heroine was raised as if she was a boy, captures a knight, and he kinda freaks about being attracted to this very pretty boy.

    And she doesn’t have to worry about pregnancy because she was hit hard when jousting/learning to joust shortly after getting her first period and never got one again.

    Also, Mary Balogh’s “More Than a Mistress”- I don’t recall any mention of the heroine being preggers at the end, or even on her way to being so despite having hot Edwardian sex with the hero.

    And I will also give the nod to Amanda Quick’s “Slightly Shady”, “Don’t Look Back” and “Late to the Wedding”. As well as “Affair” and “Lie by Moonlight”.

    I also liked Patricia Briggs’ “Alpha and Omega” series, which so far hasn’t had any kind of talk about breeding, pups or litters, even though both characters are Werewolves. And I doubt there will be, because in her universe, female werewolves *must* change with the full moon. The baby can’t change, and is lost if the female is pregnant.

    Oh, and “Angel’s Blood” by Lilith Saintcrow. Sort of more fantasy than Romance, but no HEA with Baby. Come to think of it, her other series with Dante and Japhrimel didn’t have them breeding, either.

  11. Deb says:

    Many of the “old school” Regencies (Heyer, early Layton, early Balogh, etc.) do not involve pregnancy because they do not involve sex; the books usually end at the altar or just after.  I also remember a western romance (possibly from the 1980s and possibly written by Shirlee Busby) where the heroine had been involved in an accident that crushed her pelvis and knew she could not have children.  Perhaps someone here will HaBO and come up with that title.

    I know we don’t look for complete historical accuracy when we read historical romances, but it’s important to remember that before safe, effective birth control was generally available, most women did get pregnant and have babies once they started having sex—so I can certainly see where fertility would play a role in historicals.  In contemporaries, I often feel it’s somewhat lazy of the writer to have the heroine just “get” pregnant.  I mean, how hard would it be to write a scene where the heroine somehow does not have access to her birth control?

    Spam filter:  labor32.  I was in labor—but never for 32 hours.  To paraphrase Rita Rudner, I don’t even want to do something that feels good for 32 hours.

  12. Kaetrin says:

    It’s a bit of a challenge to try and remember a book for what it didn’t have/wasn’t’/i] about.  Such an interesting topic though – thanks OP & Sarah.

    The original book of JQ’s When He Was Wicked has no magical baby resolution, however pregnancy loss and inability to conceive again are issues in the book and may push some hot buttons. 

    Spoiler alert

    The babies appear in the 2nd epilogue though.  This is a separate, e-release.

    I’d recommend the In Death series because there’s not much danger of Eve & Roarke having a baby anytime soon (if ever).  Others in the series have, but it’s not what I’d call a major big deal.  Plus, (IMO), they’re great books!

    I keep thinking of a Lucy Monroe category novel “The Scorscellini Marriage Bargain (? spelling ?) – the main theme was infertility.  I really enjoyed the book because of the why the hero adored the heroine and was prepared to deal with “messy” but the epilogue was all – “oh look, we had ONE TRY at IVF and now – TRIPLETS!!”.  (I’d not recommend this book to the OP who wrote this though given the themes.)  I do remember thinking though that it was quite insulting to those of us who had spent tons of money and time and tears (of course, the money is really the least of it, even though it’s still a big deal) on IVF without getting an actual baby at the end – it is such a myth that a couple can just to to IVF and pop out a baby easily.  (did you know that IVF measure success as a pregnancy which shows a heartbeat when first scanned?  If you lose the baby after, on their records it’s still a “success” – on one level I get it, on the other, not so much…)

    As someone who is lucky enough to have a healthy son (after 2 years of trying and some medical intervention) but who foolishly tried to have another… well, 4 miscarriages and a number of medical interventions and a number of IVF cycles later – I do find it a hot button.

    Strangely, I don’t have an issue so much in romance novels when the babies come naturally.  I find it much more upsetting when a couple struggles and get a magical baby – perhaps because I didn’t get my magical (2nd) baby.

    (I do, of course, realise that I had my magical baby – it’s just that I didn’t realise it at the time – I so wish I had known then what I know now..).  I’m not in anyway wanting to upset those who (and with justification) might think “well, you’ve got a child, what are you whining about?” (or words to that effect) but, and I think those who struggle can maybe relate – the desire for a child whether it is a first or subsequent child is a very powerful force.  When it is not realised, the grief is unbelievably painful.  When it is coupled with multiple miscarriages – well, the feelings of failure and inadequacy are huge.

    I’m lucky.  I have a son.  Many others don’t get that.  But, it doesn’t stop me feeling really crabby when romance novel (or any other genre for that matter) characters seem to get their magical baby/ies in such an unrealistic manner.  It’s a bit of a hot button for me.  I’d like to know there’s a story out there which deals with these issues and manages a believable HEA – I’m not sure I’d be able to read it though – too painful.  Or, I might if they could show how it’s done – it’s something I’m still working on – how to stop wanting something you can’t have but feels, at times, as powerful as the urge to breathe?  Come to think of it, maybe that’s why there might not be such a story.  I’ve come to believe that it is a gradual process over a long period of time and I think there might always be a sore spot – just that it doesn’t show up so often.  If that’s the case, I don’t think romance novel readers would be interested (I wouldn’t) – too – well, boring might not be the right word, but it’s the only one I can come up with for now.

  13. terri says:

    Jessa Slade’s new book Seduced by Shadows clearly states that the now immortal humans-possessed by repentant demons are all rendered infertile – so you can bet there will be no babies anywhere!  And even immortal – they really have some relationship issued to resolve because – they don’t have the LUXURY of death parting them!  LOL!

  14. Jess Granger says:

    I’m a writer where some of my pairs of characters will have kids, and that’s great, and some won’t, and that’s fine too.  To be hopelessly in love is my goal, so that is my only requirement for my HEA.

    Since you are looking for recommendations, the subject of babies never really comes up in my second book, Beyond the Shadows.  I have two characters dealing with war, babies had no place in it.

    If some readers who really like babies want to speculate on their own what happens in the future, that’s fine, but for this hero and heroine, they have bigger issues to deal with, and high expectations to live up to.  Personally as an author, I don’t think babies are in their grand plan.  Some good nookie is though.

    Some of my other books will deal with infertility, and since it is the problem, I’m going to help solve it, but it won’t happen magically.  That drives me nuts too.

  15. Both my sisters can only have children with either medical or divine intervention.

    My historical series have an ongoing hero and heroine who want children but she’s infertile.  (She’s very small and very underweight.)  He lost his entire family during Ireland’s Great Famine.

    KISSES LIKE A DEVIL, book 5 in the series, deals with the aftermath of multiple miscarriages and her wrecked health, including overprotective husband and sons.

    THE DEVIL SHE KNOWS, book 6 coming next year, deals with all the long years of attempts.  It was not nice writing it, even though this couple are secondary characters.

    Anyone going through this in their own life has my deepest sympathy.

    looking45 – now there’s a description of fruitlessly wishing and hoping!

  16. Cora says:

    Kansas City’s Bravest by Julie Miller, a Harlequin Intrigue from 2003, has a heroine who is and remains infertile. In the end, the hero and heroine adopt two kids from a home for abused children where the heroine sometimes volunteers.

    The book is part of a series about an extended family working in various branches of law enforcement. Another installment in the series, The Rookie, has a hero who falls in love with an older woman who is pregnant thanks to a sperm bank. The hero is perfectly okay with the fact that the kid is not his biological child. As far as I recall, they have no other children in later installments either.

    As a voluntarily single and childless woman, I can certainly sympathize with whoever complained about the abuse and accusations that are often hurled at voluntarily childless women. It’s not just relatives, neighbours and random stranger who feel the need to comment upon my life choices, it’s also that public figures like politicians, religious figures, etc… more or less openly state that childless people are selfish, egoistical, undeserving of social services we help to pay for, etc…

    I don’t dislike romance novels involving babies or pregnancies, I actually like quite a few of them, even though the lifestyle choices they depict aren’t mine. However, I prefer something along the lines of The Rookie, i.e. that the pregnancy/baby is actually a part of the plot and not just an epilogue prop.

    I’m not a fan of romance epilogues in general. I once read somewhere: “For adults, the story of Cinderella is over as soon as the slipper fits, they don’t need to be told that the prince and Cinderella lived happily ever after.” Most romance readers are adults and I don’t think we need those epilogues, especially since the beautifully individual characters in the novel (whose version of a HEA may or may not involve marriage, children and white picket fences) are all too often hit with a “one size fits all” HEA of marriage and babies.

    As for the hero’s magic penis curing the heroine’s infertility, I really hate that plot device, because it is stupid and insulting to those that actually are infertile. I can somewhat understand it in historicals and older romances, because accurately diagnosing infertility was difficult until fairly recently. For instance, my Mom was told by her doctor that she was infertile, though she obviously wasn’t, and that was in the 1970s. However, the whole “one ride on the hero’s magic wang and you’re pregnant” thing is stupid and insulting, because people assumed infertile usually don’t get pregnant after a single try.

  17. Alex Ward says:

    Earthly Delights by Kerry Greenwood is a childfree romance – though primarily a mystery, the romance storyline is important and lovely, expecially as the heroine is plus-sized and recovering from a failed marriage to a prick.

    Stay away from Susan Elizabeth Phillips – her characters reproduce at the drop of a hat.

  18. Laurel says:

    Nonny and Abby:

    Good for you. Not having children because you don’t especially want them is no more selfish than having them because you do. That argument flies all over me every time I hear it. Why anyone would deliberately undertake the commitment of raising a child if they don’t care for children is beyond me. I have kids. I adore them. I do not expect other people to share my affection since I don’t really like other people’s kids and my own frequently drive me to the edge of reason.

    And speaking of selfish: Who is going to take care of you when you get older? WHAT?

    It shocks me that people still think it is socially acceptable to ask or pressure women who are childless for any reason when/what are they going to do about having a baby.

    As far as the magic wang plot device goes, I have to say it does seem particularly insensitive to the difficulties some couples face when trying for children. If the man just had better equipment it would all work out? Blech.

  19. I feel a little odd writing in – I’m usually a lurker – but the “might wang cures infertility” bit … I hadn’t realized that’s how people interpreted those books.

    I always completely assumed geezer hubby #1 was infertile, thus she never conceived due to male infertility, and as soon as she was with a different male – the hero – her body succeeded.  I chalked that plot twist up to “of course it’s the guy, but historically everyone blamed the woman.” I’m thinking specifically divorced-beheaded-died-divorced-beheaded-survived … not the wives’ faults. 

    Anyone out there a writer who has written this plot? Was that your intent, or was it to convey that the heroine herself was infertile until the wang came?

  20. Katie says:

    I’ve read a couple of books that would fall into this category, and naturally, I can’t remember the titles! One was a contemporary – she was a librarian, who found a stray cat in the carpark on a winter’s night (and actually the title may have been something along those lines) He was the vet who helped her look after it. He was younger than her by 5-10 years, and dreamed of having a large family, she was infertile (had had a hysterectomy from memory) She does attempt to leave him at least once so that he can have the chance to have children with someone else, but ultimately he would rather be with her than have children with someone else.
    The other is actually a historical trilogy. I’m have trouble remembering the exact details of this one as the basics are similar to a couple of others. There are three rather modern sisters, who each find the love of their life in one of the books. The oldest sister is first. From memory, her hero is a war veteran, and at one stage they chase after a younger sister who is trying to elope (and I think spend the night in a barn) In the other books when we meet these two again we discover that they are having trouble conceiving/carrying children, and we read about them consulting doctors/specialists. It is possible that they do manage to have a baby by the end of the third book, but only after much struggle.
    Hopefully someone here recognises these descriptions

  21. Sylvia says:

    The Alpha and Omega series by Patricia Briggs touches on this, since female werewolves always miscarry at the full moon.  When the heroine learns this, she’s a little saddened, because while she hadn’t planned on having children, she hadn’t planned on not having children either.  The hero is actually glad that she’s a long-lived, infertile werewolf instead of a short-lived, fertile human because he’d rather spend the rest of his life with his wife than make babies with her and then watch her grow old and die.  After that, babymaking is not mentioned again.  The two just work on making their relationship work out okay.

    The Night Huntress books by Jeaniene Frost don’t mention babymaking, since vampires are sterile.  The heroine is only half vampire, so she might be fertile, but she’s dating a vampire and she really isn’t the maternal type anyway.  The HEA comes from the relationship itself.

    Finders Keepers and An Accidental Goddess by Linnea Sinclair both end with no mention of either fertility or infertility.  Two people meet, fall in love, and have their HEA without ever discussing reproduction.

    Then there’s the Women of the Otherworld series by Kelley Armstrong.  Out of ten books and five couples, three couples are childless. In the first one, the woman is in her early forties, and she and her lover are perfectly fine knowing that they won’t have the traditional family.  The next couple has discussed reproduction and neither one is interested in having children.  The last couple is happily married with no sign of babies in sight, although they did raise the heroine’s adopted teenaged sister together.

  22. willaful says:

    “I always completely assumed geezer hubby #1 was infertile, thus she never conceived due to male infertility, and as soon as she was with a different male – the hero – her body succeeded.  I chalked that plot twist up to “of course it’s the guy, but historically everyone blamed the woman.””

    I think the issue is that these kind of plots happen so often, to the point that in any conventional romance, you can virtually guarentee any women with a supposed infertility issue will wind up pregnant. So the magic wang is sarcasm, just as the magic hoo-ha (usually!) is.

  23. quizzabella says:

    If you like paranormal romance “Lover Eternal” by J R Ward has a heroine who can’t have children and in a weird way this actually results in her getting her happy ever after.

  24. Ros says:

    AgTigress, it doesn’t much matter to me how you interpret those epilogues when you read them.  But it does seem to me that both the tone and content of your comments is exceptionally insensitive to the reader who asked the question and all those here who have expressed similar feelings.  How did you think it was going to help to tell people that the problem isn’t the books, it’s them?

  25. Noite says:

    Karen Ranney’s Till Next We Meet does is a historical that doesn’t mention children as part of the HEA for the main couple.  Additionally, I don’t recall any of the books in Elizabeth Hoyt’s Four Soldiers series using magic babies as part of the HEA.

  26. AgTigress says:

    … it doesn’t much matter to me how you interpret those epilogues when you read them.  But it does seem to me that both the tone and content of your comments is exceptionally insensitive to the reader who asked the question and all those here who have expressed similar feelings.  How did you think it was going to help to tell people that the problem isn’t the books, it’s them?

    Ros, this is not the first time I have been accused of an unacceptably curt or brusque tone here.  Since it has never had any connection with my actual intention, I can only attribute it to the problems that sometimes plague written communication between speakers of different dialects, because the tone/expression/body-language cues are absent.  American English is often less direct and more euphemistic (and certainly more given to pc expressions) than British English, especially the latter as spoken by an elderly speaker.  I say what I mean, and mean what I say.  If I wanted to be ‘insensitive’ towards those who are made unhappy by being infertile, I assure you I would find an unequivocal, blunt way of saying so, and it would not be wrapped up in a comment about the symbolic nature of certain fictional tropes.

    I can only assure everyone (yet again) that I had no intention whatever of being hurtful or offensive.  I do sympathise with those who want children and cannot have them, as I do with anyone who is unable, though no fault of their own, to achieve what they see as important goals in their lives.  I just don’t see what that has to do with reading a fictional tale.  Why the hell would I WANT to be ‘insensitive’ towards women who are dealing with real-life problems?  Does it not occur to anyone here to assume innocence until guilt is proved?

    I also find it strange, in the circumstances, that those who actually expressed powerful objections to the very thought of having children have NOT been accused of insensitivity. 

    As for ” How did you think it was going to help to tell people that the problem isn’t the books, it’s them? “, I don’t see that as a relevant question.  We were debating a particular modern romance-novel trope, not the problem of infertility per se.  I wasn’t trying to help those who are distressed by this condition any more than I was trying to offend them, but only to point out that the ‘HEA baby’ is no more and no less than a short-hand device signifying long-term commitment and the establishment of a new order, which is part of the basic romance template.  And the fact that a baby is used as a symbol of HEA does not necessarily signify that the absence of a baby contradicts the possibility of a HEA.

    I am thoroughly tired of false accusations, so I suppose I had better refrain in future from joining in the discussions here, interesting though many of them are.

  27. I know we don’t look for complete historical accuracy when we read historical romances, but it’s important to remember that before safe, effective birth control was generally available, most women did get pregnant and have babies once they started having sex

    I look for as complete historical accuracy as can be achieved when I read a historical novel, whether it be mainstream or romance.

    Anyway, it is possible, especially after the 1750’s. The condom wasn’t used by ‘respectable’ women (they were reusable, you washed them out after use – major yuck) but other methods were, especially the sponge and the lemon techniques, both used by the female rather than the male.
    However, the social urge was to have babies and the reason for marriage, especially in the moneyed classes was to provide heirs. So not to have babies would have been considered a failure by most.

  28. An afterthought – I just want my hero and heroine to make a life for each other and with each other before they go on to make babies. Babies can be a huge disruption to a relationship, or at least change it profoundly.

  29. Deb says:

    Full disclosure:  I’m married, have three children, no fertility problems; so obviously I am not looking at the “pregnancy/children = HEA” romance ending in the same way as a woman who wants a child but has been unable to get pregnant would.  That being said, I want to expand a little upon my earlier point—and that is that without effective birth control, most women throughout history did get pregnant once they started having sex.  I have less issues with that ending in historicals than I do with either contemporary or historical romances in which the heroine (or hero) use no birth control what-so-ever and yet an unplanned pregnancy never occurs.

    Yes, Lynne, I agree that for some classes some forms of birth control were available as early as the 1750s, but they weren’t always reliable and, many times, weren’t always legal and/or easy to (pardon the pun) come by.  (Groan!)

    Also, it’s easy to forget that until about 50 years ago, to have a baby out-of-wedlock was one of the crushing shames of a woman’s life.  My mother had a cousin who got pregnant and even though she married the father of her child, her family was so shamed they actually moved from the town where they lived.  It was the shame of having an illegitimate child along with the lack of reliable birth control that kept most women chaste until their weddings.  Then they started having sex and babies.

    Anyway, I realize this is a bit of a digression, but to sum it up: Historicals with “epilogue babies” are less of a bother to me than birth-control-less contemporaries or pregnancy-less historicals.

  30. Gail says:

    There’s always a list somewhere… All About Romance has a list for books featuring Childless and Infertile couples http://www.likesbooks.com/childless.html

  31. caligi says:

    Look at it this way, Ag.

    Say you were disabled, and every book you picked up that featured a disabled protagonist involved a miracle cure in the epilogue or book ending. Would you think it unreasonable still for that reader to be miffed that books find disability and eternal happiness mutually exclusive?

  32. Nadia says:

    Katie:  the historical trilogy you are thinking of might be Sabrina Jeffries’ “A Notorious Love” “A Dangerous Love” and “After the Abduction”  First one is middle sister who falls for ex-smuggler turned wealthy gent.  Second book is oldest sister and ex-smuggler’s partner who are on the chase after youngest sister who purportedly eloped.  Third book is youngest sister and guy who tricked her into faked failed elopement.  In the third book, there is a secondary plotline of marital stress with the first couple due to inability to conceive.  But with the help and advice of a gypsy healer, it’s well on it’s way to resolution (can’t remember if they did actually conceive by end of book).  Dunno how “magical’ it all was, but at least part of her advice is something you’d hear today: getting the husband to stop with scalding hot baths ‘cause he’s boiling his boys.

  33. Nonny says:

    Historicals are a different beast than contemporary/fantasy for me since no, there wasn’t “effective” birth control and even then, it was frequently necessary that the couple have a child.

    But, well. Hm. I think there’s a difference between a historical where pregnancy happens as a part of the plot, and what happens in many contemporaries… where there is frequently a “magic pregnancy” or epilogue depicting the happy family, regardless of the heroine’s stated wishes. (I remember reading a few contemporaries several years back where the heroine said in the book she didn’t want kids, then in the epilogue she had them and was euphoric. WTF?)

    I haven’t seen this in many historicals, because usually there is a reason for the pregnancy that’s involved in the story.

  34. sandra says:

    Lynne Connolly:  I know what ‘the sponge’ is, but what is ‘the lemon’ ‘?

  35. Sandra – a lemon. Take a lemon, halve it, and roughly scoop out the flesh, deliberately leaving a bit. Use the juice as a spermicide and use the half lemon as a diaphragm. I’m told it works quite well and it’s a technique that may have been used as far back as the Middle Ages.
    Look at all the jokes about lemons and fish. Fish being sperm. Lots of double entendres there!

  36. henofthewoods says:

    Most of the books that I could think of are already on the list, but I think the newer Nalini Singh series will stay childless. The Changeling/Psy/Forgotten books have had a few pregnancies but the Angel/Vampire seem unlikely to do so, as there are no baby angels or baby vampires.
    Is this the real reason why M/M romance is so popular with women? No inconvenient pregnancies, no twins in the epilogue unless they hired surrogates, hmm.

  37. lunarocket says:

    I do wonder whether pressure to breed is particularly strong in the USA, because nobody ever dared mention it to me!

    Oh yeah, it can be, especially if you have sisters-in-laws with children who love to say things like “you’d be a great mom”, or see your DH being nice to other children and telling you “he’d make a great dad.” Not believing we can possibly NOT want children, that’s just too “strange” to them.

    Now that we’re both past the half century mark they’ve finally shut up about it. Only thing we were lucky in was that we lived 2000 miles away when we were younger so mostly got subjected to the barrage only during holiday visits. I must say I like being the eccentric aunt. Now if I only had the money to be the really cool eccentric aunt like in those romance novels!

    (I know I hit submit over an hour ago, but it’s not there!)

  38. Abby says:

    Oh, and I just finished another Suzanne Enoch- Before the Scandal.  Another historical blissfully free of babies or the urge to procreate!

    Here’s the thing, if it’s part of the plot, whatever, I get it.  But I have to say that it is tremendously refreshing to read historicals where the whole baby thing just doesn’t even come up.  If you want to assume they later went on to have six million children, then bully for you!  But if you’re like me, you get to read a nice story about two people falling in love and having hot sexx with a ridiculous plot.

    True story: the first time I read a romance novel that did not involve babies, I couldn’t stop smiling for the rest of the day.  I felt free, relieved that HEA doesn’t have to mean baby times.  Maybe it’s a bit silly, but I really did feel like maybe I wasn’t just some weirdo who didn’t want to birth babies.

    I’m not saying that babies don’t have a place in romance novels- they’re pretty much the logical outcome of all that condom-free Edwardian sex- but I do think that it would be alright if more authors could step outside of the baby box and just… leave them out.  Don’t even talk about it.  It doesn’t have to be a thing.

    PS:
    Dear Actual Romance Novelists,
    Please stop with the baby-in-the-epilogue thing.  If it wasn’t in the plot, it’s probably unnecessary.  You’re killing me, Smalls!
    Kisses,
    Abby

  39. shadowedge says:

    Well, it may not meet your criteria, but Tempting, by Susan Malory has a who subplot about a wife who can’t have children (and chooses to adopt. Then, her husband’s bastard daughter shows up as an adult, and throws everything into chaos. I thought is was a pretty honest look at the issue, and it’s a good book to. But as I said, it may not help.

  40. Ros says:

    AgTigress, I think the reason why your comments came across that way was because of the question being asked in the post.  It wasn’t ‘what are your thoughts about babies in romance novels’, in which case it would have been fine to say what you did.  It was specifically a request for help by someone struggling with infertility who did not want to read about babies in happy endings:

    …which romances feature infertility in ways that you appreciated, and which books were not so wedded to the idea that a Happily Ever After cannot occur without babies?

    Your comments, taken as an answer to the question in the original post, did seem very dismissive of the reader who asking for such recommendations, and the reasons she gave for wanting them.

Comments are closed.

By posting a comment, you consent to have your personally identifiable information collected and used in accordance with our privacy policy.

↑ Back to Top