Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

My first book is coming out from Tor next May (Waking Up Dead), and a condom is used every time the heroine has sex. Did I write it that way because I want readers to use condoms? Or because it would make people like Susan Quilliam happy? No. I wrote that way because…..

My heroine is not an idiot. She’s not going to risk her life for a roll in the hay.

Honestly. ::eyeroll::

If I’m reading a romance novel and there’s penetrative sex and no condom, I pretty much assume that the heroine will be knocked up by the end of the book. And since ‘I love you because you’re having my baby’ novels are my least favorite, that’s my usually about the time I stop reading.

Isn’t it interesting that no one ever does a study that cites watching James Bond movies as a danger for men bcz it makes them dress in tuxedos, drink martinis, chase manic bad guys and seduce anonymous women who miraculously at midnight turn into a beer and pizza?

Many of the books don’t have references to condoms, but then again they generally feature a sterile vampire or an immortal disease-free werewolf. (Note: if the werewolf isn’t an immortal, condoms are used.)

Quilliam will probably love this information because I’m sure she’ll think I’m looking for an immortal/disease-free/incredibly sexy/completely ripped/emotionally secure paranormal hero as a husband.

Gah! I’m astounded at the poor research practices of this article.
I’m also shocked when I read a romance and there’s no condom use. In the PNR/UF I’ve read there’s been stories with condom usage (Nicole Peeler’s Tempest Rising, Molly Harper’s Naked Werewolf series, I’m pretty sure the Kate Daniels series) and if there’s not condom usage it’s because you can’t get knocked up by a vampire/werewolf/demon possed warrior, etc, etc. Although maybe Edward should have donned his raincoat and Bella wouldn’t have ended up with a vamp baby trying to chew it’s way out of her uterus.
In the historicals I’ve read, depending on the timeframe,  there’s been condoms (They involved ribbon and were from France, but I can’t think of the book’s title. I read a lot.) and any contemporary I’ve read recently there’s been condoms.
When I started reading romance, about 4 years ago, I was actually surprised that authors would include condoms and discussions about contraceptives because in real life it can sometimes be a mood killer (but so can herpes-yikes!).
Anyway, I’m thoroughly impressed by your response to this ridiculous article and I am pointing and laughing along with you.

Wow. The stupidity. It hurts. And I am not surprised they were looking at 15yr old romances. I mean how else would they support such morbidly asinine arguments. I’ve just read a series of historicals that either use withdrawing or french letters as the preferred contraceptive.

You said it, sister! It was bad enough when that woman in Utah was peddling this same line of BS, but to perpetuate these tired stereotypes in the Telegraph? I wish I could point and laugh but I am sort of sad and mad.

I’m equally disturbed that a newspaper would publish an article based on such questionable study. Are they assuming that their readership is so ignorant?

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.  What’s with that.  If you are going to attack something, the least you could do is actually educate yourself on the topic, and do actual REAL research.  Romance novels that are 15 years old or more… come on ... I didn’t even start reading the genre until 2003 and I’ve never read any that predates 2000.  Truth be told, however, the only thing that irks me about these sort of articles presented as evidence of the evilness of the romance genre is how these people think that all romance fans are stupid and/or uneducated and can’t think for themselves. *sigh*

I say invite Ms Quilliam to read more recent novels and give her a cup of STFU. I love the attitude that women cannot differentiate reality from fiction. Like we are complete morons with stars in our eyes.  What really annoys me is she assumes women will read these books and have distorted views of men. Disney cornered that market long ago and to think they specialize in fantasies to impressionable young girls, not women.
I have read some erotica stories where the main characters did not use condoms. The reasoning given by the woman each time was that she could not get preggers so it should be fine. I admit that I got icked out the first time I read that.  What fascinated me was that it was always a BDSM relationship and it is the female submissive who tells this to her male Dom. Keep in mind, most of these Doms have clearly slept around more than Mick Jagger.

Well played with your response to this.  I doffs my bonnet respectfully.

I do see some young women with idealised views of what they think they are entitled to in luuurve and other stuff, but it seems much more fuelled by spoiled reality-show ‘princesses’ rather than evil romance novels.

People have already made my points about the article so I’ll just answer the question about “agony aunt”. It’s British slang for an advice columnist.

idea74: Susan Quilliam needs 74 better ideas about romance novels, but I’d settle for 1 or 2.

I’m tired of it. I haven’t got the energy to get angry with it any more. Hopefully the “Romance novels are bad for you” shtick will lead to more sales.

Like Sara H said, even most of the historical romances I’ve read use some sort of protection (or at the very least carry some understanding of the risks involved). I guess I just don’t have the stones to quote data that is at least 10 years out of date, and wasn’t that thorough to begin with.
Great response!

I don’t care either way if condoms are mentioned because I recognize that I’m reading FICTION and because just like in real life, it is none of my business what other people do in bed.

I can’t help but smirk that the author of this study thinks that women are going to not use condoms because some romance novel heroine didn’t.  That assumes we’re all mind-numbed idiots.  Sort of how I picture Quilliam.

Really? The mind boggles. I will admit to having devoured my mother’s collection of steamy bodice rippers when I was 11-12. She was a big fan of Bertrice Small, Janelle Taylor and Constance O’Banyon, to give you an idea. And even then, I was conscious of the fact that what I was reading was _fiction_. I dare say that a good percentage of readers in general have enough brains to know that what’s depicted IS idealized and doesn’t always take reality - pregnancy and STDs - into consideration. When did it become the romance industry’s responsibility to take on sex ed?

Perhaps romance readers have a lower rate of using condoms for contraception - because we tend to be in long term monogamous relationships? A quick poll would show what percentage use condoms and not bother to break out the “I’ve been with one guy for 21 of my 42 years, we are a bit past condoms.”

I have certainly read books with condoms, books with a spouse who has been cheated on getting tested for STD’s, books where birth control works and where it doesn’t (the old antibiotics-ruined-my-birth-control-pill gambit). Even books by authors who explain that withdrawal won’t actually keep a woman from getting pregnant.

Thank you for pointing and laughing, Sarah. This article is a flaming pile of poo. I think I’ll go on idealizing great sex and loving relationships. So far that crazy attitude has led me to a ten-year wedding anniversary, not heartache.

Maybe life IS more difficult for those of us who are passionate about our partners and deeply in love. Being an emotionless lump with low expectations is probably easier.

I always mention condoms in my books. If my characters have unprotected sex, they discuss the consequences. As long as the issue is addressed in some way, I’m okay with it.

I don’t believe there is any correlation between reading romance and negative attitudes toward condoms. Those kind of attitudes stem from ignorance. Romance readers are exposed to the subject of contraception repeatedly and are well-educated on it IMO.

Off the top of my head, the characters in Jaci Burton’s The Perfect Play used a condom Every. Single. Time. They used a grip of condoms! Several boxes maybe! And it didn’t detract from the sexiness in the least.

They’re checking novels from 1981? 30 years ago? The same year the term AIDS was finally coined and most of us had still never heard of it? And when most people never mentioned condoms in polite (or at least mixed) company?

Susan Quilliam may not refer to herself as a scientist, but I’l bet some of the folks doing that survey do. I’ve often thought that rampant stupidity should be grounds for taking away degrees so that folks don’t lend weight to the words of idiots just because they have a few letters listed after their name.

I couldn’t get hold of a copy of Quilliam’s article but from what I could see of it via Google I worked out that in addition to the not-very-up-to-date study which dealt with condom-use, she cites another study.  The abstract of that second study mentions that

Most participants (85%) reported that reading romance novels has not had an impact on their feelings about their sex partners or has had a positive impact on their feelings about their sex partners.

Jonathan then confirmed that Quilliam had cited that second study. Given that (a) I’ve only read excerpts of Quilliam’s article and (b) she’s quoted as saying that

I’m not arguing that all romantic fiction is misguided, wrong or evil - to do so would be to negate my teenage self as well as the many millions of readers who innocently enjoy romances

I’m going to be charitable and work on the assumption that Quilliam thinks that romances only have dire effects on a small minority of romance readers, such as those who end up being her clients.

Some of the comments to the article in the Guardian are pretty good.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/books/2011/jul/07/mills-and-boon-sexual-health-problems

OMG is this broad for real.. She must be a frustrated spinster, that never had good sex in her life… Try coming into at least the 90;s lady…
I am LOL and pointing out that this gal needs to do a bit more modern reasearch….
Unbeleiveable..

LOL, I was just going to link to the Guardian article!  SBTB gets some mentions from fans in the comments, and I had to stop and read the Pregnesia review someone linked to - hilarious!

A lot of the romances (perhaps even the majority?) published between 1981-1995 were very likely to be historicals.  I know condoms existed in the 19th century….but they were far from the norm, and would have been out of the norm. 

Just another huge problem in the sampling pool….

You know, I’m on the fence about condoms in romances. My first romance for HQN Nocturne had condoms because it was set in Africa with “poisoned blood” as a thematic backdrop and it seemed necessary and appropriate.

But sometimes, just like in real life, condoms aren’t appropriate. One of the freaky things about love, and making love, is that you sometimes entrust your health and well-being to another person. It’s hard to make a baby without taking that complete leap of faith. Yeah, it’s scary. And it should be. Love isn’t for sissies.

Anyway, I realize I’m veering slightly off-topic as this is really about ignorant and wrongheaded comments about the romance genre, but the assumption that women who read about other women having unprotected sex will then go out and do that…and therefore we must all confine our writing to certain kinds of stories is very frustrating.

Dorothy, I’ve got a bit more detail about Diekman et al’s research here. They did take into account that concern; they only sampled contemporaries.

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. While it’s true that condoms are often a necessity, something we have to deal with in real life, it’s also true that I occasionally have to deal with less-than-amazing sex in real life. That doesn’t mean I want to read about it in a romance novel.

Also, in reply to henofthewoods, I’ve actually read that withdrawal is actually as good a method of contraception as condoms…when done properly. (Of course there’s still no protection against STDs.)

This nonsense is based on fear, I think.  Like those administrators in Arkansas or Alabama (?) who make it illegal to buy sex toys because they’re terrified of women actually being empowered, knowing what to look for (ie, orgasm).  People who disparage romance novels seem cut of the same cloth.  They’re terrified women might actually think it is okay to find someone who respects you, loves you, and gives you mind blowing orgasms.  And we just can’t have that in polite society.

I think Ms. Quilliam needs to have some Vicki Lewis Thompson among her recommendations. Every one I’ve read includes condoms or other contraception- even the paranormal stuff has some kind of paranormal contraception going on. (I give paranormals a little leeway in specifying this, because I tend to assume there’s a supernatural explanation for why it’s not necessary even if it’s never spelled out. Otherwise, I’m with the people who don’t want to read about people having sex without giving any thought to potential consequences.)

Some of the comments to the article in the Guardian are pretty good.

Oh, I love some of those.  As for the rest - what everyone else said.  “30-year-old books =/= contemporary example” is surely not a hard concept to grasp, even if you’re not familiar enough with the genre to appreciate the differences between old skool romances and those published today, and somehow haven’t noticed that early 1980s is pre-AIDS awareness ?  And one visit to a bookshop ought to demonstrate that the sample size is ridiculously small. 

Interesting that this came out the same day as another piece of research into fiction: BBC Radio 4 had an interesting piece today (listen here; probably not accessible outside the UK, but I’m not sure) about a study that shows how reading fiction - ANY fiction - helps to improve social understanding and skills.  The study suggests fiction works for, well,  for life like a flight simulator works for flying, and helps people learn how to deal with situations, personalities, issues, relationships etc.

Thanks Fee, I linked and found this poser:

Her comments follow a recent claim that romance novels can “dangerously unbalance” their readers, with Christian psychologist Dr Juli Slattery saying she was seeing “more and more women who are clinically addicted to romantic books”, and that “for many women, these novels really do promote dissatisfaction with their real relationships”.

Can you hear my head banging against my desk?
Clinically addicted? As in lying, cheating & stealing for the $8.99 for the latest Nalini Singh? Ruining your familial relationships, destroying your career, foregoing social interaction to keep up with Nora Roberts? Have any of you found yourself curled up in a sweating shaking ball on the bathroom floor because you didn’t get your 300 pages a day in?
OMG!
And by the by, does anyone wonder if the reason these women find dissatisfaction in their relationships is because there’s actually something to be dissatisfied about?!

Thank you for addressing this in such a thoughtful and rightfully disdainful manner. I saw several newspaper articles last night that derived from her journal article and new this couldn’t possibly be based in reality. I’m as disgusted as you and many others by the shoddiness of the research and the demeaning of female intelligence that oozes from Quilliam’s tripe.

Wow. My cup is runnething over big time these days. I just don’t know which way to turn, between the imminent danger of YA novels converting teens to a life of cutting, drug abuse and early death (the day job) and the horror of women learning that unprotected sex is okay (the afterhours entertainment). I guess I’ll have a beer and watch some reality TV, that’ll keep me grounded in reality, right? Right?

turned44 - not quite yet, thankyouverymuch!

@Fee: I am reading the comments… man a lot are really good and I am literally LOL here, thanks for sharing the link.

The article was “peer reviewed.”

Which leads me to believe the journal is shitty.  Shitty journals will publish shitty research.

If I wrote this article for an undergraduate paper, I would have failed.

Was this study looking at contemporary romance (versus historical)? That is the only conceivable way I can believe no condom use.  Almost every book has it! Or at least a discussion of it and why not if none is used.  And in m/m probably 99% mention condom use.

I am also curious how they determined whether condoms were mentioned. DId someone read each book cover to cover? Or were these books electronically scanned? B/c there are lot of euphemisms that make it clear they are talking about condoms w/o using the word (foil packet opening, crinkling sound, etc).

Sheesh, leave us poor romance readers alone? Don’t these people have anything more to worry about?

Susan Quilliam is listed on the journal abstract page as a “consumer correspondent.” No professional credentials are listed, aside from “freelance writer” and “agony aunt”, yet throughout the article, she consistently implies that she’s a psych professional (e.g., references to “our therapy rooms” and “our work [in health care]”). Disingenuous, to say the least.

The journal is peer-reviewed, which means that manuscripts are sent out for evaluation by experts before publication. Quilliam’s piece, however, was “internally reviewed.” That means that the editor of the journal gave the okay to publish. I’d like to think that if that piece of nonsense had actually gone out for review, it would have been rejected.

But then, instead of bitching, we’d all be reading, and therefore confusing our real partners with immortal, well-hung zombie cyborgs.

Sarah,

Coutesy of freedictionary.com here is the definition of agony aunt: 

“Noun 1. agony aunt - a newspaper columnist who answers questions and offers advice on personal problems to people who write in.”

Personally I like your agony rant much better than any old advice giving shenanigans.

Ye Gods!
Another “romance is bad for women” article. It’s becoming an epidemic, I tell you!
In my first novel, Shadowphoenix: Requiem, the main character used a condom because vampirism can be transmitted through blood or sexual fluids, and is almost always fatal. Admittedly, I haven’t troubled with condoms since in my erotic romance, but these are angels, werewolves, and female vampires (not of the same ilk as my original vampire, so it doesn’t count.)
I’ll say the same thing I’ve said elsewhere, and for the same reasons: Almost without exception, the readers and writers of erotic romance that I’ve met are intelligent, dynamic men and women who are certainly aware enough of the potential risks to use protection in real-life situations. Whether they find it a mood killer or a turn-on depends upon the reader, but in my case, I find it kills the fantasy.
Real life is messy; but in erotica, disease and pregnancy exist only at the writer’s discretion. I have enough respect for my readers not to preach at them about being safe once they close the book. My readers are certainly intelligent enough not to “try this at home” outside the safety of a committed relationship.

Tweeted you as soon as I read this & the more I’ve thought about it, the more I feel how downright insulting it is to women. It’s not even about the condom rubbish it’s about the broad crass belief that women could be so naive.How insulting. BUT Just for the record I love reading romance; I love my husband; I love sex with my husband.  This is because we are intelligent loving people who think. And yep, romance books have GREAT capacity to help you get better at sex it’s true. But that’s within a real life relationship.  Ooh I’m so cross. And anyway what’s wrong with a bit if fantasy anyway???

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

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*

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…

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?

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? !

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

“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!

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.

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.

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

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.

“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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

I just read a very similar argument over at the NPR website.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2011/07/07/137675779/romance-fiction-and-womens-health-a-dose-of-skepticism

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!

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

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!

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

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!

@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

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?????

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

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.

@DreadPirateRachel Thank you for the linkyness.

I’m sticking with the “my-dick-is-bigger-than-your-dick theory.” A psychologist in medical journal. Oh, the thrill. “Hmmm. What can I write that will put women down and confirm prejudices against women with “data”? Oh, here we are!” Inflammatory bad science.

I haven’t read all the comments, so I may be repeating things.  Younger people forget, or do not know, that condoms were not used much from the 1960s to the early/mid- 1980s because (a) the threat from ‘traditional’ sexually transmitted diseases such as gonorrhoea became quite low after the Second World War, (b) AIDS had not been identified and (c) most sexually active young women took care of contraception by taking the pill.

Books written in the early to mid 1980s therefor did not usually mention condoms because they were simply not used much;  the stories were depicting reality. AIDS made the difference, and of course today’s adults don’t remember a world without it. 

When condoms were invented in the 17th century, their purpose was to shield the male from disease when consorting with prostitutes;  by the mid-20th century, they were used by many respectable married couples for contraception, as they were cheap and easy to obtain, and mostly effective.  Other contraceptive devices used by women required quite a bit of expense and planning;  I don’t suppose any of you here remember the tiresome ritual of going off to insert the diaphragm just at the point when passion was building…  The pill undermined the use of condoms as contraceptives in the 60s and 70s, and they went back to being used mainly by prostitutes and their clients.  For my generation, they still have a sleazy sort of image.

So, when anyone draws conclusions about books, they MUST be aware of the social history, and what the norms in real life were at the time a given book was written.  Sexual activity began to be described more fully in romance novels at a time when condom use was still uncommon, so one would hardly expect it to be mentioned.

I recall reading only one romance in the 90s that indicated a condom would be used. The author simply mentioned a box of Magnums (unopened) being in the bedside table drawer. The points covered in a single sentence:

1) The MC is optimistic about the size of any future partner (!!!)
2) Prepared and careful

So when the time DID come and they got down to business I didn’t think she was an idiot.

Oh, that crap again about romances being unrealistic fantasies. Completely different, apparently, from porn flicks where the female subjects actually enjoy getting sprayed in the face by the objects of their oral ministrations. Or, Playboy, in which the centerfold is usually working on her PhD thesis and wants to work for NASA as a rocket scientist.

The condom thing . . . I won’t even go there. Thank God I write historicals—I never have to mention them.

There have been a few fairly high profile jabs at the romance genre recently.  It doesn’t pass the smell test to me anymore.  For the love of all ducks in the univere, I’m not sure who, what, where or why - but somebody somewhere has an agenda. 

Yes, Virginia. I sense a conspiracy afoot.  By whom? That will come to light sooner or later.  But I’m betting that something’s afoot. I’m not a big believer in coincidence. 

Excuse me - I’ve got to go find my tinfoil hat now…

Back in the late 70s, when I started reading romance novels as a teenager, they were mostly historicals with no mention of contraception.  And I kept thinking “How come this heroine magically never gets pregnant?” I finally decided I had to suspend my disbelief. 

Also, some women *do* have a lot of trouble conceiving.  My mom married at 18 1/2, and didn’t conceive until 2 years later (me).  She says she didn’t use birth control.  And she never used it after me, she says, but never conceived again.  This may have been due to problems with my birth or her fibroid (sp?) tumors. She finally had a hysterectomy (sp?) at 33.

Also, as one whe was there, I can say that in 1981, there was no awareness of AIDS.  All we worried about was herpes .  I honestly don’t remember hearing about AIDS until 1986, and even then, it was presented as more of a concern for gays.  And I didn’t live in a cave - I read at least the front page of a newspaper or listened to radio or TV news reports every day.

As a single person, do I use condoms now?  Well, actually, the occasion hasn’t come up for a long time, but I do carry 2 in my purse and keep a box in my nightstand.  Can’t get pregnant ‘cause I had a hysterectomy ( also due to fibroids), but I sure can get STDs.

BTW, anybody know where I can find an “immortal, well hung zombie cyborg”  who looks like Peter Wingfield?  Guess I’ll have to write that book.

LOL, @ErinGriggs. No, no Santa Babies! That is kind of horrifying. ;)

@LindaWinfree—thanks! :)  And I am mega impressed about that doctorate.  Wow, that’s a lot of work!

And now I’m off to write, you got it, a Secret Baby story. ;)  *cackles with glee*

The comments on the article website seemed to dwell on how romance novels were affecting teenagers.  Maybe in the UK teens read more than they do here in the States, but I have a 16 year old sister and the only book I have seen her read in the past year was one for school that she could not get Spark Notes.  From chatting casually with her and her friends, this is the norm for teenagers so clearly romance novels are not the issue.

But, seriously, what is with all the romance novel bashing?  At least we, romance readers, are READING and actually USING our brains, unlike the majority of people I meet and interact with on a daily basis.  I really really really want someone who is well respected for being erudite and thought-provoking, in a good way, like Diane Sawyer or Michelle Obama to announce to the world that they read romance novels and absolutely LOVE them.  I am so fed up with reminding people that romance novels are not evil and that, while we’re on the topic, my vocabulary is dramatically more expansive than whomever it is that I’m conversing with.

And as a Christian, whenever someone makes a hateful or demeaning comment and claims to be a Christian, I really want to scream because I honestly can’t blame non-Christians for disliking or hating Christians when these idiots treat everyone else like they are lesser human beings.  And for the record, I read romance novels with pre-marital sex in them, but that does not mean that I am going to run out and have sex with the next guy who asks.

Ugh.  How stupid do they think we are?!

Rant over.

I just have to feel sorry for all those people who will NOT try reading romance.  They are missing history, imaginative plots,
and so many other things that we understand.  I didn’t start reading romance until the late 90s, and I’m glad that Nora Roberts’ books turned me into a romance reader.  I do read history and biography, classic literature, and whatever I darn please.

My husband and I both read Clive Cussler books.  My husband used to travel overseas extensively to some pretty out of the way places.  Did I naturally assume that he was off righting the wrongs of the downtrodden in the remote areas he was visiting, fighting bad guys, jury rigging bombs and creating world saving devices with bubblegum and a twinkie??? 

No - because I knew that those ideas were F-I-C-T-I-O-N. 
(And my husband wasn’t expecting to do any of these things either for the same reason.)

I read romance.  I enjoy it.  My husband especially enjoys it when I want to try out something I’ve read with him.  (Hmmm… I guess this “research” didn’t consider that idea.)

For me, I note when the H/h have unprotected sex and usually give them a mental slap.  I don’t need a sexy description of a condom being applied but even a mention of “condom” is good enough for me to know that they’re aware of the risks and sensible to them.

Publications like this are pathetic.  I would think a study into the effects of “reality tv” would be more interesting especially since novels don’t purport to be anything other than fiction.

Go Sarah for the Smackdown on this joke of an article!

At the end of the article, it tells you all you need to know about why it should be ignored:

Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

And a list of 4 references.

A serious social science article of this length on any subject should have 20+ references and be independently (not internally) peer reviewed.

It’s a load of trash and newspapers have picked it up because they got into trouble for hacking phones, and thus now don’t know what to do with themselves. So they sensationalise an article which is an opinion piece, presenting it as fact.

Point, laugh and move on.

I’ve got one to recommend: Linda Howard’s Open Season. It’s still one of my favorite Howard novels BECAUSE of a condom scene. If you’ve read it, you know what I’m talking about. Two words: Purple condom.

I haven’t read that book in nearly a decade, and yet I still remember that scene. >:)

Gotta love how many of the Daily Telegraph comments are guys clutching their pearls because OH NO WOMEN RAISING THEIR STANDARDS. Yes, men: God forbid you have to put half the effort into appearance and dress that women have been expected to maintain for the last few centuries. P.S.: shut up.

A lot can happen in fifteen years.

According to the research, 1996 was the most recent pub date of a novel reviewed for this ridiculous ‘study’.

In 1996, I was seventeen years old and graduating high school. The biggest decision I’d ever made was to get my hair cut off.

Now, fifteen years later, I have a bachelor’s degree in education, a master’s degree in ed admin, I teach second grade, write freelance, own a home and two dogs, am married and getting ready to birth my first child in the fall. And, in case anyone wondered, said child was conceived the VERY FIRST time I had completely unprotected sex thank-you-very-much.

And in all that time I’ve been reading romance novels. And never once failed to use contraception despite their clearly evil influence on my puny female brain.

Evidence suggests, however, that such fantastic qualities can influence readers’ real-life beliefs and attitudes. Fictional information is incorporated into memory (Gerrig & Prentice, 1991; Prentice & Gerrig, 1999; Prentice, Gerrig, & Bailis, 1997; Wheeler, Green, & Brock, 1999), and unless cognitive resources are available, even blatantly false information is remembered as true

Thanks for the reference, Ms. Vivanco.  All I could think of was those great romance novelists, Limbaugh, Coulter, O’Reilly, Beck, et al.

Recently, I read a work of literary fiction with an engaging Tiggywinkle title.  Alas, what a nihilistic letdown that book was.  The “heroine” was dumpy, intelligent, and socially impaired just like moi.  She was also intriguing and well-written.  Also doomed.  (Lit fic, right?)  According to the logic of these researchers, I should perhaps, run out into traffic and die?

Seriously though, since this website enticed me back into reading romance after many years of abstinence, all I can say is that I am glad my daughters have the chance to read current examples of the genre.  Every time someone waxes nostalgic over the good old days, I remember how ignorant and scared I was at twenty and how many topics were simply not discussed.  Romance novels may be unrealistic, may often be craptastic, but they’re frank and open about sex in a way that is incredibly refreshing to one of my generation.  There’s undoubtedly misinformation scattered amid the huge range of tropes and topics, but no one is afraid to talk about it and if it stirs curiousity and stimulates research, that’s a good thing. 

Oh yeah and isn’t that the better sequence?  Input information; generate question; initiate research; answer question.  So much better that start with a premise and hunt down a bunch of questionable data to prove it.

Oh…well, whatever. She’s a sour old bat and obviously doesn’t have much fun in her life.

However, in general, I am fed up to HERE with these dull, pedantic old drones always telling us we need more reality and less fiction in our lives. Really? Fiction is bad? We should all just march in lockstep to the tune the know-it-alls call? Fiction is bad?

The hell with her and her dried up, dusty old vagina. I don’t give a rat’s ass about condoms—I’ve been happily married to one man for over a quarter of a century, and I was a virgin on my wedding night. “Reality” seems to mean that all women should be whoring around from the age of 12 on, pumping their bodies full of hormones, only engaging in emotionless, mechanical “safe” sex, and all because that is somehow “healthier” than my marriage.

Blech. Really. I honestly feel sorry for younger women these days.

@ nlowery71 - bwaaa!!!  You’re awesome (and good luck attracting one of those sparkly vampires)

They wrote about the Quilliam article on the Huffington Post.  I was not impressed by their coverage. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/07/07/romance-novels-health_n_892620.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009

A newspaper in my home town, The Herald Sun, ran this article in the ‘weird world’ section, where it belongs!

I too read the article and wondered exactly which novels they’d selected. Wow! They got themselves some old crack there!

I too did similar research - using 15 year old loaves of bread - and found that 100% were mouldy!!!!!!! OMG! This is major health news we all need to pay attention to!

Well, Jeebus, I know that brushing and flossing are important for good health, too, but I don’t believe I have read ONE SINGLE comtemporary that alludes to oral hygiene.  Darn all those novelists to fiery heck, and all of the peeps who read those books and think it’s okay to skip the toothpaste.  At least Bertrice and all of the oldies have them chewing those icky leaves and scrubbing pumice in their mouths.  Maybe that is the problem with society as a whole…zoobreath.

When reading, I’m happy to forget condoms exist—because I’m reading. The closest I get is, when I read in the tub, I put my Kindle in a Ziploc bag. Protection.

I suppose if I were reading something gritty and super-realistic, I’d expect there to be due diligence paid, but I don’t need it for a fantasy. I accept the mentions, because I know other people need them in order to not be distracted by the lack of mention

In either case, the fiction I read makes me think about all kinds of things about people, and relationships, and the world—but risky behavior in a book doesn’t make be take bigger risks. The very fact that most of us can label it as such—risky—means our brains are fully functional.

At the moment, I’m really into the books that include Game of Thrones. How has it affected me? I’ve named my kittens Jon and Arya. How has it not affected me? I have not tried to overthrow the government, nor have I walked into any funeral pyre lately.

stand67: I do worry that when I read The Stand, I’m a little too preoccupied with how—were I a survivor—I could pick any house or houses I wanted and decorate exquisitely. Which mean that I would so be “going to Vegas.”  I know that it just isn’t right—but the book helped me pinpoint this fact. I’m better for it.

@Kris:

I know that brushing and flossing are important for good health, too, but I don’t believe I have read ONE SINGLE comtemporary that alludes to oral hygiene.

This is actually a very important point.  All writing (and all perception of life, come to that) is partial and highly edited, full of details that are ‘taken as read’.  Nobody writes a sex scene, or any other kind of scene, mentioning every single move, because the reader can track the events perfectly well without that, and a blow-by-blow account is often extremely boring. 

It is a fact that condoms were not much used at the time when explicit sex-scenes began to be acceptable in popular fiction, so they weren’t mentioned.  Fine.  It is a fact that they are now used a lot, so sometimes they are mentioned, but they don’t need to be.  Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence:  no reference to a condom does not prove that there was no condom, any more than no reference to the hero’s socks means that he was not wearing socks.  An author does not necessarily spell out the full process of undressing, unless it is itself an important part of the foreplay.  If the couple enter a room clothed, and a little later they are stark naked and in the throes of passion, then clearly undressing has taken place (and so, in all probability, has the application of a condom);  one does not need to have the removal of every garment carefully listed and documented.  The scenes are not numbered lists of instructions, so the reader is not going to agonise about the precise moment on which they removed their knickers, and demand that this process must always be mentioned, otherwise clueless readers will try to have intercourse through impenetrable barriers of textile… 

Failure to include self-conscious and instructive little statements about ‘foil packets’ and the like should not lead the reader to assume that no ‘protection’ was used in the fictional congress.  If it is a norm these days, then it can be assumed.  Storytelling is a two-way process; the reader’s reception is as much part of it as the author’s creation, which is why we all have different opinions and reactions about books.

This REALLY makes me wish I was still working in academia because I did love me the fun content analysis, and this is really begging for another study, one in which the analysis is run by a forum like the readers here to point out the “nope, watch out there” portions. The problem is always getting your hands on the content - and with books you’d probably end up buying a great deal of them - which makes it something a grad student might want to do, but wouldn’t have the money. Most professors, no matter how well paid, would probably end up coughing up their own money to purchase the books anyway. And while “oooo reading romances for work” might sound fun - remember, you’d not always get to choose good ones, you’d have to select by the years, by the content (contemp), and then you might have to narrow that list down even more just to actually finish the research. Not to mention the part where you figure out how to quantify your findings (which is fun as long as you have a nice computer stats program).

Hey if anyone finds other such research - please post it!
Sigh, I’m suddenly missing access to Lexus Nexus.

B. Sullivan:  You may be able to access Lexis/Nexis through your local public library’s website.  I learned how to a few weeks ago.  Of course, I’m assuming you have a local public library - don’t know where you live.

@B.Sullivan:  remember that there is now a lot of serious academic research on romance fiction taking place and being published:  you can keep up conveniently with what is going on by visiting Laura Vivanco’s blog, http://teachmetonight.blogspot.com/

:-)

Well, Jeebus, I know that brushing and flossing are important for good health, too, but I don’t believe I have read ONE SINGLE comtemporary that alludes to oral hygiene.

You know, the only book I can remember mentioning tooth cleaning was A Clockwork Orange. I can’t remember if that had any influence on my oral hygiene habits.

I’m sorry, I can’t read the prior 108 comments now (working) but in the article’s defense (also didn’t read it) - a LOT of the HQN’s - specifically the tycoon-virgin-one-night-stand-resulting-in-hidden-pregnancy, or actually, any virgin-one-time-surprise-pregnancy almost NEVER mention contraception, unless it’s “unlike usual, Manly McMillions had nothing in his wallet, since he had bedded those 17 women the night before.”

So depending on which romances you look at - there is a real, real point here I’ve noticed myself.

(now ducks)

I could care less if a condom or STDs are mentioned or if it isn’t. I don’t expect authors to write in the removal of every scrap of clothing. I don’t need to read about the characters brushing their teeth in the morning or using the head or eating every meal of the day. As with any other details, I expect it only when it’s primary to the story or the characters’ relationships. And I sure as heck don’t live my life based on what I read in books or see in movies. Speaking of which, how often do you see condom usage in film? Sometimes, but usually in comedies from what I’ve noticed. Most people generally assume the use.

quick, someone tell this researcher that the characters in romance novels are seldom if ever mentioned washing their hands after they go to the bathroom!

She’ll be furious. Interventions must be staged before gullible women read these books and insist on walking around all day with dirty potty hands because romance authors irresponsibly failed to tell them to wash with soap.

oh dear…what if they don’t flush?

Dear Anony Miss:  I’m laughing, really.  I don’t blame you for thinking that.  But I assure you that if my Manly McMillions (love that, ha!) are thinking about birth control in my books, you can bet your bottom dollar there’s going to be a surprise baby somewhere along the way. (Darn it, I think I just gave away one of my secrets.)  ;)

But seriously, those tycoon-virgin-one-night-stand-baby books are really, really, really popular.  Presents readers seem to adore them—and I’m going to give them what they adore.  Though it will usually be the Super Sperm that defeats the condom or the pill, and not that he was just fresh out of condoms. ;)

Word verif: method93.  Ah, perhaps that’s what it’s called when the Super Sperm defeats the birth control!  I use Method 93 in my books when I need a Secret Baby.