Romances, According to Susan Quilliam, Don’t Have Enough Condoms, Do Have Too Much Fantasy

Good morning! Everyone ready to point and laugh? Get your finger ready – no, not THAT one, the OTHER one – to mock with abandon specious research and shoddy statistics pointing out a supposed flaw in our love of romance novels.

Ahoy! What steaming pile of crap through yonder website breaks! Women still in grip of idealised love and sex, purveyed by romantic fiction.

Oh, no, are you ok? Surely you didn’t hurt yourself pointing and laughing already because there’s a LOT MORE COMING.

Susan Quilliam, who is not a scientist but instead a “broadcaster and agony aunt” ( the hell does that mean?!) and relationship psychologist who recently authored “The New Joy of Sex,” contributed this article to the Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care.

Mmmm. Irony. The author of a book about positive sexuality for men and women mocking and lambasting a genre that is also about… positive sexuality for men and women.

The summary of the article has the standard smacks of the genre: that sex and relationships are idealized, that women readers are too influenced by the genre and need to “put down the books – and pick up reality.”

Standard operating procedure – we can’t tell the difference between fiction and reality, and we’re more comfortable living in a fantasy world than dealing with our own problems. Bollocks rubbish horsecrap, all of it.

But this part really raised my brows:

“Above all we teach that sex may be wonderful and relationships loving, but neither are ever perfect and that idealising them is the short way to heartbreak,” she writes.

“And while romance may be the wonderful foundation for a novel, it’s not in itself a sufficiently strong foundation for running a lifelong relationship,” she says.

And there’s another more “worrying difference” between sexual health professionals and the producers of romantic fiction, says Ms Quilliam. “To be blunt, we like condoms – for protection and for contraception – and they don’t.”

She points to a recent survey of romantic fiction titles in which only one in 10 mentioned condom use, with most scenarios depicting the heroine typically rejecting their use on the grounds that she wanted “no barrier” between her and the hero.

The romance readers who responded to the survey understood that they were reading fictional accounts and that spontaneous sexual encounters were never risk free, but there was a clear correlation between the frequency of romance reading and negative attitudes to condom use, she says.

Point, laugh, and be baffled with me, won’t you?

I’m immediately suspicious of anything referencing “a recent survey,” because there are no sources cited. Who did the survey? Who participated? Four out of five dentists? What was this “survey” mentioned in the summary? What “research” or “Fresh hell” is this?

A longer article is available for those who seek it out – which someone did! Jonathan Allen, one of many scholars studying the genre at present, found the full article and reported that the “Survey” was as follows:

86 romance novels were surveyed, 8 excluded, sample determined by 78 published b/w 1981 and 1996; 46 authors 21 pubs.

No, no, don’t break things. Point and laugh, point and laugh. A survey of 78 novels from 1981-1996. Books that are 15 years old or more. That’s the “contemporary” portrayal of sexuality being discussed in this article.

As Angela James pointed out, “86 romance novels isn’t even one month of Harlequin releases!”

While we’re pointing and laughing at the idiocy of using a 15-20 year old book to judge what the genre is saying right now, let me just make sure to point out that YES CONDOMS are used in romance novels. They’re used frequently, in fact!

Even though, as Marina Braverman cited, condoms are the choice of only 16.1% of American women according to the 2006-2008 Guttmacher Institute study of women who practice contraception, they make a very frequent appearance in romance fiction.

Why? Because romance readers like to believe that romance heroes and heroines aren’t dumb. A sex scene in a contemporary-set romance without a condom or discussion of contraception means that the reader ultimately doubts the intelligence of both parties. Moreover, authors have been known to groan about writing the condom into the scene, even though it is expected, because the physical act of using a condom is somewhat awkward and not really that sexy. Sex scenes with contraception are tricky but expected by readers.

I’m more apt to notice if there is NOT a discussion or mention of condoms, and specifically condoms, because it’s not in the least romantic to read about people who are having sex with one another for the first time who do not think about pregnancy and STDs. Condoms take care of both issues in the mind of the reader without having to interrupt a sensual scene with a, “By the way, you got any diseases?” conversation appearing in the midst.

This entire article is factually wrong, poorly sampled, and based on outdated, specious research. There have been considerable sexual health and contraception method advancements since 1997. The same is true of the romance genre.

You know what makes me extra more pointy and stabby – sorry, laugh-y? This is a journal about a subject of which I think very highly. The study of family planning and reproductive health is, in a word, important. Crucial, even. Romance novels depict female sexuality in a frequently positive and empowering manner, and are one of the few forms of popular culture entertainment that does so.

So to have the sexuality judged on a very limited and outdated sample is disappointing enough that I’m thinking of using that OTHER finger. But I won’t.

Instead I’ll imagine judging the scientific research and work of every other individual who has contributed to the Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care based on the shoddy supporting research and crap thesis of this one article. I can totally judge the entire journal’s history and the credentials of every person who has written for it based on one article, right? Of course I can. It’s the Quilliam method! About as effective as the rhythm method!

More than anything, I wish that Susan Quilliam had a better and more recent understanding of the complex and positive portrayal of female sexuality in romance novels. By using an outdated sample, she’s maligned the genre, and judging by her credentials and expertise in women’s sexual health, she’d be a wonderful asset to our side of the argument in support of romance fiction.

Ms. Quilliam, if I can recommend novels that contradict the research you used, novels which feature positive portrayals of female sexuality, contraceptive use beyond mere condoms, and healthy sexual and emotional relationships, please do let me know. There are thousands.

Got one to recommend? Please feel free – I know you’ve probably got a suggestion list of ten in your mind already!

Categorized:

Ranty McRant

Comments are Closed

  1. Kim says:

    Write to the journal and express your opinion.  They need to know that someone isn’t doing their job.

  2. Mireya says:

    Another thing that puzzles me is that a lot of these people attacking romance, don’t seem to grasp the concept that we are reading romance for ENTERTAINMENT.  What the hell is wrong with that?  *scratches her head*

  3. J.S .Wayne says:

    I just got finished writing a VERY sharply worded retort to the Guardian about the content of the original article. I’ll be curious to see how long it takes for them to pull it…

  4. DreadPirateRachel says:

    Leaving aside all the other significant problems with this “study,” I want to know why those eight novels were discarded. Did they not fit the definition of “romance,” or did they not support the thesis the researchers were trying to prove?

  5. Erin Griggs says:

    Sarah, that was an excellent response to the piece, and ITA agree with the points you made.

    Citing research on 86 novels from 20 years ago is making me grind my teeth really, REALLY hard right now.

    But what makes me really furious—and it’s a irk that happens, oh, almost every time an article on romance is published, is the implicit assumption that romance readers have the collective intellect and emotional maturity of a box of inbred kittens.

    Um. That’s patently untrue, and it’s blazingly obvious to anyone who actually, you know, IS a romance reader (and keeps current—I would no more base my perceptions of a genre wholly on stuff that I read in my teens than I would fry bacon naked) and who interacted with romance readers and authors.

    GRR. This is all swirling around in my head, and conflating with the YA debate; I’m been framing irritated responses in my head for the last day to the last caller in the Johnson/Gurdon debate on NPR yesterday—Erik, from Santa Monica, who mentioned his novel title 3 TIMES in 4 minutes, and who arrogantly babbled about how YA needs to lose fantasy, because it doesn’t help children deal with reality, or some such idiotic nonsense. (I’m pulling the quote from memory, and my irk may be making me a bit less than objective).

    Also? “…a cup of STFU?”  BWAH! Does anyone know where I can buy a tin of THAT tea? !

  6. Nikki says:

    I remember when I started noticing authors mentioning condoms in books.  Readers in different groups that I participated in had some extensive discussions.  They felt the intrusion of a condom was too close to real life, others felt that with the world we were living in that you could not have a book without mentioning condoms.  I have always been of the use it no matter what and feel that when the author transitions the couple to not using them, it is a sign of a committed relationship. 

    Anyway I really don’t understand this article because it doesn’t particularly make sense.  While the BMJ is a peer reviewed journal, it is also the journal that published the autism studies despite the proof and science being flimsy.  Peer reviewed, sadly, does not always mean valid.  The problem is that even when it is fluffy crap, because it is a medical journal and presumably true, it gets far more attention that it deserves.

  7. Julie says:

    The ONLY “contemporary” I’ve read in the past fifteen years that did NOT feature the use of condoms/birth control during sexual activity between hero and heroine was written by one of the featured speakers at RWA National. This year.

    It was all I could do not to show up at her workshop and demand to know why her heroine, a virgin in her thirties, was allowing the hero to perform various and sundry high-risk acts on her (up to and including the buttsecks,) without protection.

    I write contemporaries. It is offensive to me that anyone currently publishing would not encourage the use of birth control/condoms via their characters.

    While I’m in rant mode, it’s unfortunate that those who use novels written in 1996 for “current” research get the time of day from a paper I previously thought was somewhat credible.

  8. Michelle C. says:

    Perhaps a better question to have researched is ‘WHY’ romance book sales account for $1.3+ billion dollars in annual sales. What is absent in modern culture that women seek and respond to in these novels which perpetuates the genre?
    Insufficient warm lemonade and stale cakes?

    No. I don’t believe I’m going to time-travel, with a lusty, arrogant, priapic, cleanly-shaven werewolf into the 14th century. Even if it was written in 1993. BTW, where is my Hogwarts letter, it’s a trifle late.

  9. Maddie Grove says:

    I wonder if there are any articles about the dangers of middle-aged male accountants reading spy novels that cause them to be dissatisfied with their mundane careers and monogamous relationships with their wives. I think it’d be pretty easy to rig up a few studies to back that up; we could call it Walter Mitty Syndrome and everything.

    Seriously, though, what a sorry excuse for a study. How did they even think it was acceptable to draw conclusions about today based on 15-20-year-old data?

  10. LG says:

    I don’t usually notice when condoms are not mentioned in romance. I am reading fiction, and I recognize this – I will not “monkey see, monkey do,” I don’t expect my fiction to be realistic in every detail, and I also don’t think explicitly mentioned condom use would “fit” in every romance (for instance, the lower the heat level of the sex scenes, the less I expect an explicit mention of condom use).

    When a book does mention condoms, if the author has decided to include that aspect of realism in their book, then I expect condom usage to be mentioned every time they would be needed in real life. If they then aren’t used, there had better be a good reason, or some recognition of the fact that something stupid has been done. I think I’ve read one recent book where condoms were used, but then, while the hero and heroine were still strangers having what they thought would be a quick fling, there was an oral sex scene. That, plus several other things in the book, had me cocking a brow in disbelief. This kind of thing doesn’t result in an automatic “throw the book against a wall” reaction from me, but I do consider it a mark against the book.

  11. Helena says:

    All I could think while reading this is that condoms don’t need bad publicity to be disliked. The fact is condoms do suck and do make sex significantly less enjoyable, even without the ‘non-sexy’ contraceptive conversation. I have never spoken to anyone who thought otherwise.

    I can be the first. :). My partner and I use condoms as our primary form of bc, and we’ve found a couple of brands we both like that don’t make sex significantly less enjoyable. (if anyone is curious, we use Durex ultra thin or Lifestyles Skyn) The newer thin kinds don’t feel as intrusive as the old-fashioned regular thick kind, and we treat putting it on as a part of foreplay, not as an interruption.

    Ok, that was totally TMI. But still, condom technology has come a long way in the last 10 years. They’re just not as bad as they used to be.

  12. liz talley says:

    Again, I scratch my head and wonder what the true motive for reporting on 15 year old books might be.  I agree, this could have been a piece of evidence citing the sexual impowerment of women through reading romance books. Instead, the author relied on stereotypical and misleading concepts of waht romantic fiction is. Disappointing.

    In regards to condom/contraceptive use, I have made it a point to use condoms in each ex scene written in all of my books. Why? Not because I care about what someone does in the privacy of their bedroom, but because I feel the need for my characters to model responsible behavior. Ironically, in the book I just finished, I’ve written my first sex scene with no condom, and as a result, both my hero and heroine freak out. Know what’s not sexy after having sex under the tiki bar at the Holiday Inn? Having to figure out the heroine’s cycle and probability of getting preggers. Oh, but it’s realistic and an appropriate response for getting carried away and not thinking about the reprecussions of no condom.

    Thanks for the report.

  13. henofthewoods says:

    Donna

    As in lying, cheating & stealing for the $8.99 for the latest Nalini Singh?

    Well, I would totally lie, cheat and steal to get a new Nalini Singh psy-changeling. I wouldn’t torture kittens for it, but pretty much anything up to that point.

    Good thing I still manage to hold down a job so I can just use cash.

  14. liz talley says:

    Oops, I misspelled empowerment. Damn it. Totally ruined the point. 🙂

  15. As a Mills & Boon (Harlequin) writer, I wake up every morning and trot off to my computer with unabashed glee at the idea I’m about to ruin the lives of women with my little fantasies.  I relish writing all this stuff that preys on weak female minds.  I feel so powerful knowing I’m creating unrealistic expectations and destroying marriages.  I simply can’t see myself ever doing anything else.  Yes, I am a Super Villain!  Mwahahaha!

    Aside from that, I do always try to include birth control—condoms or conversations about—in my little 50,000 word subversive texts.  Which can be tricky since Secret Baby plots are all the rage in my particular line of business.  I usually get by that with Super Sperm. 😉

    /sarcasm

  16. My best friend is a therapist and sometimes recommends romance novels to her clients (male and female) when they are having sexual problems in their marriages. Not because she’s a great romance reader, but because other clients have described how romance reading has helped them with intimacy issues. Maybe this woman should talk to some professional couples therapists before making wild, unsubstantiated generalizations.

  17. Erin Griggs says:

    “Which can be tricky since Secret Baby plots are all the rage in my particular line of business. ”

    I totally misread that as “Santa Baby plots” and flinched back from the laptop so hard I rolled across the room.

    Hazy images of silky sheiks dressed as Santa secretly sperminating sexy spinsters are scrolling through my cerebrum…

    Undo it! Undo it!

  18. Linda Hilton says:

    No pointing, no laughing.  This shit makes me angry. 

    I’m tired of the stupidity, the misogyny, the research so bad it wouldn’t pass an Intro to Soc class.  There seems to be no bottom to the well of apparent self-loathing of these women (I notice one is described as “Christian” in the article) who see evil and disease in anything that promotes love and caring and kindnes and life, that depicts women as intelligent beings equal in value to men, blah blah blah.  These same people (?) see absofuckinglutely nothing wrong with science fiction, horror, mystery, westerns, spy thrillers, action adventure—all genre fictions traditionally written by, for, and about men.  The only genre they have a problem with is romance. 

    I’m tired of anything that’s centered on women as being bad, evil, stupid, worthless. 

    Maybe it’s time I tell the day job to go pleasure itself so I can go back to writing full time.

    spamcatcher come79—oh, don’t tempt me.

  19. Rose says:

    I’m in academia, and have co-authored articles in the field of public health – and I must say, our methodology is much better. Not that it’s particularly difficult to improve upon Ms. Quilliam’s efforts.

    If anything, condom use seems at times to be overrepresented in what I read, at least compared to my experience. Most people I know think of condoms as the best option for preventing STDs, but for contraception, it’s usually the pill. So I sometimes find myself a bit confused when sexually active heroines aren’t on it and are relying solely on condoms to avoid pregnancy, which is often the case in the romance novels.

    @Mireya

    It puzzles me how the romance genre keeps on being targeted as some sort of insidious threat to women, and of course, by people that wouldn’t touch one themselves with a 10 foot pole.

    Exactly! You’d think all romance readers are morons easily swayed by those dangerous trashy books. There’s a lot of very lazy analysis being done instead of actually informed criticism.

  20. Minnie says:

    I know! Maybe the study cites 15-30 year old books because it’s taken 15 years to find a journal to publish this crap (er, cough, scientific research)

    /more sarcasm

  21. Tessa Dare says:

    The “research” here is laughable, and good on Sarah for dismantling it handily. But as others have expressed already, it’s the very existence of these articles that gets me facepalming every time.

    Why oh why must we examine what grown women are “learning” from romance novels in the first place?  I’ve yet to see the therapists fretting over what male readers “learn” from spy thrillers.  The whole discussion is premised on this offensive notion that women (at least the ones who read romance) are easily suggestible, incapable of separating fiction from reality, undiscerning readers, and so forth.

    If there’s any lesson to be “learned” from romance, why can’t it simply be that women have the right to spend their money, time, and imagination on books they enjoy—without making excuses to anyone.

  22. jeccabee says:

    “A confirmed novel-reader is almost as difficult to reform as a confirmed inebriate or opium-eater. The influence upon the mind is most damaging and pernicious. It not only destroys the love for solid, useful reading, but excites the emotions, and in many cases keeps the passions in a perfect fever of excitement. The confessions of young women who were to all appearance the most circumspect in every particular, and whom no one mistrusted to be capable of vile thoughts, have convinced us that this evil is more prevalent than many, even of those who are quite well informed, would be willing to admit.” – ‘Plain Facts for Young and Old’ John Harvey Kellogg

    Haters gonna hate.

  23. Jennifer Armintrout says:

    Even ten year old books would be out of date for that kind of study. I remember I went through a glut of Blaze and Temptation books 2003-2006 and a lot of them had the hero and heroine discuss the idea of protection, which almost universally ended with either “I’m on the pill” or ‘I’ve been tested,” followed by unprotected sex. If they did a study of contemporaries in the last two years, the results would be a LOT different.

  24. J.S .Wayne says:

    If I may…
    I’ve been following this discussion with a great deal of interest and amusement. But the dark shadow looming over this article and others like it, I believe, ultimately comes down to a fear that women might actually start believing that they and not the so-called experts or authorities have the right to dictate what they think, read, and do with their own bodies. *Horror!*
    This fear has been inculcated in Western society for the better part of two millennia; we’re getting there, but we’re not out of the woods yet. But the very fact that so many people come together over this issue is a very encouraging sign of better days to come.

  25. Jennifer Armintrout says:

    My previous comment wasn’t an indictment of those authors who wrote unprotected scenes, by the way. As someone who was born just a few years pre-AIDS panic, I kind of like books with unprotected scenes. I wouldn’t have unprotected sex with a new romantic partner, and I wouldn’t encourage someone else to, either, but it’s fantasy. I read about a lot of things I would never ever do. I’ve read Jack London stories, and I’ve never once had the desire to go sledding through the Yukon, so why do people assume that if I read about unprotected sex, I want to do it?

  26. Teresa says:

    I must confess I wasn’t reading romance novels 15-20 years ago, but I have been reading them avidly for more than 10 yrs. In that time, I’ve never seen any woman reject a condom because she wanted no barrier between her and the her hero. This makes me wonder whether they were even looking at romance novels. Perhaps they were looking at something more erotic.

  27. nlowery71 says:

    I must disagree; I find this highly scientific article extremely accurate. It completely explains my ongoing confusion with life.

    It started with Agatha Christie’s books in my teens. My response to reading them was to think I, too, could solve murders like Miss Marple. I never understood why the police got so exasperated when I repeatedly showed up at crime scenes.

    Then it was Heinlein. My parents worried so when I constructed a home-made space suit in the basement and would wear it at dusk while waving to the spaceships that I knew were flying by. After all, it worked for Kip in Have Space Suit, Will Travel! I never understood why my parents had me in therapy for that year.

    Then it was Harlan Coben’s thrillers. One day when I was babysitting my little brother, he disappeared for an hour, and I uncovered all of the neighborhood’s dark pasts and misdeeds in their twisty conspiracy to kidnap him. Then my parents found him next door at his buddy’s house.

    Now that I’m in college, I’m much better, thank you. Sure, my dating life isn’t great, but you know how shy vampires are. I’ve been tracking down all of the hot college guys who never come out during the day, approaching them (Twilight in hand) and asking casually which blood type they prefer. They usually walk away, but I know that’s just because they aren’t ready to come out yet. I understand. I’ll find my undead soul-mate yet.

  28. Jen says:

    I’m waiting for the “study” about mystery readers who expect someone to die whenever they have a dinner party.

  29. Linda Holmes at NPR has just posted a detailed rebuttal of Quilliam’s article. It’s well worth reading and it includes a link to a pdf of Quilliam’s article.

  30. Chelsea says:

    Ya this article made me angry. I’m tired of being judged poorly on the grounds of what I read. And not that it matters, but I’m in a healthy relationship, going on six years now. And I honestly believe my romance novels have done my relationship more good than harm.

    And anyway, who takes advice about contraception from fiction?? Even if no romance novel anywhere ever mentioned condoms or birth control, I would still continue using my preferred methods because I’M NOT AN IDIOT. Romance readers are not idiots. Geez.

  31. jody says:

    Qwilliam writes for a website for men called “Sensational Sex in 7 Easy Steps”

    —and she claims romance novels for women are unrealistic?

    Hahahahahaha!!!!!

    captcha—justice57 Oh, how true!

  32. jody says:

    I misspelled Ms. Quilliam’s name.  Sorry.  No doubt it was because earlier today I read a romance that had typos.

  33. The BMJ is a highly regarded medical journal—dominated by men. My casual observation is that Dr. Quillam is suffering from the “I-have-a-bigger-dick-than?-you-do syndrome” commonly seen among women in male dominated professions. And yes, I do have a PhD and yes I am an RN and yes I do write them romance novels!

  34. On second thought, does she have a doctorate? Her outdated and data and agony of analyses lead me to believe not…

  35. Hydecat says:

    I don’t have much to add to the excellent deconstruction of Quillam’s article you all have already provided. But I did want to share my favorite condom-use romance: Flat-Out Sexy by Erin McCarthy. It’s awesome because the couple doesn’t have them around so they have to keep stealing a friend’s. That’s right: stealing condoms is better than unprotected sex!

  36. DreadPirateRachel says:

    @Sharon Buchbinder,

    On second thought, does she have a doctorate? Her outdated and data and agony of analyses lead me to believe not…

    As per her CV, posted on her website, she does not have a doctoral degree. She has an Honours Degree in Psychology—a Bachelor’s. Behold, with the linkyness: http://www.susanquilliam.com/WebsiteCV.pdf

  37. Bri says:

    havent read all the comments yet but –

    Love Angela James’ comment!

    I dont think I’ve read any non-historicals that do not talk about contraeption – not always condoms, but something (quite a few heroines are also on the pill, too)  I’ve even read about condoms in some steampunk and 19th century books when the h/h are worried about contraception

    1981-1996?  really?  I mean, REALLY?  it seems as if the world has changed in the last 15 years and they are using stats from 30 YEARS AGO?????

  38. DreadPirateRachel says:

    And here’s a rather fabulous response from a romance author and Member of Parliament, no less! http://www.telegraph.co.uk/culture/books/8623588/Chick-lit-doesnt-damage-its-readers-itjust-makes-them-raisetheir-standards.html

  39. 1) Think I am buying all of Lynn Rae Harris’s backlist. Super sperm, secret babies and a sarcastic author? I’m so there.

    2) Can’t remember the last time I didn’t see a condom in a romance (historicals aside). As a writer, always included them (although my editor had to remind me once—got wrapped up in writing the scene, forgot the condom. Hmmm.)

    3) Currently working on my doctorate. My research materials must be within the last five years to be considered timely. So, yeah. Not impressed by using a body of work that’s at least ten years’ out of date.

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

↑ Back to Top