Smart Bitches, Trashy Books

As I Twitterpated earlier, after reading that article, I now wonder if reading fiction about aliens will make me be dissatisfied with being human?

Thank you, thank you THANK YOU!
Excellent article. Now I don’t feel like punching.

Sad thing is I had this same argument with a childhood friend who just couldn’t get over I was writing “those books”. Because (and she is a very devoute woman to her faith) books she’d read “like those” tended to take her mind away from her purpose of serving the Lord. OK. Sure. What works for you works for you. But PLEASE don’t tell me that “those” books are bad for everyone because they don’t work for you. That’s the part that really tips me in to *foreheaddesk* mode.

I totally agree with everything you just said. The whole article was too Victorian for words. If women would learn to understand sexuality in a responsible manner and teach their daughters to have the same viewpoint, articles like this might not even be thought of. I’ve read romance novels since I was 14 (I’m 22 now). And because of that, I have formed my own standards and views of relationships and I won’t settle for what is easiest as I see a lot of my friends do. I don’t expect my future husband (whoever he may be) to look like a romance hero, but I do expect him to treat me with the respect (both in and out of bed) that a romance hero would. When will all women stop believing that they don’t deserve to enjoy their sexuality? When will they learn that the only shame comes from not discussing it? It’s like refusing to say Voldemort’s name.

Duuuude….my husband loves it when I read romance novels.  He get’s jumped more often.  Sounds like something good to me.  What a jackwad.

Oh, why stop at porn?? I mean, all those crazy, over-the-top thrillers fostering vicarious adrenaline rushes, aren’t they “addictive” too? And how about all that holier-than-thou, uber-pious religious reading? Doesn’t that create an emotional/spiritual high of sorts? What about those contentious, vitriolic political publications and blogs? Don’t they provide an echo-chamber that can be powerfully addictive?

Heck, ANYTHING can become a drug—anything. Reality TV, religion, politics, food, shopping, exercise, collecting weird objets d’art. But that’s a personality flaw. That’s the person. Not the material (yes, I know, heroin, et al., but that’s a chemical substance designed to create a chemical high and serves no other purpose).

If a person finds his or her regular reading material is becoming an issue, then by all means they should distance themselves from it, or change it up, or balance it with something else, but they have no right to claim the material is always dangerous for everyone else.

Personal responsibility folks. It’s a wonderful thing…

Here’s my favorite part: A pornography addiction counselor named Vicki Burress also equates pornography with reading romances, then says that “Women involved in pornography have a hard time keeping their family together.”

Well, that sucks.  And just think, my and my guy have been together since high school, and are coming up on our 15th wedding anniversary.  We’ve got three kids, too, who seem so happy (spoiled rotten) and well-adjusted.

Guess they are all FAKING it… wwwwwaaahhhhh!!!!!

This romance-loving Mormon girl is appalled.  APPALLED.  As if Glen Beck didn’t make us look bad enough.  Just remember that there are wack-a-doodles in every group, please.  I wonder what this article will do to the small but successful LDS-romance genre?

Captcha: Mean33…this ridiculousness makes me feel at least 33 types of mean.

This made me want to cry. Romances get such a bad rap. And why? Because it makes us happy? Ugh. I can’t even continue getting upset about this or I’ll never stop. Great post. I like your final comment. Your final paragraph.

Having worked for an addiction non-profit and done actual addiction research…with, like, numbers and pictures of brains and stuff…my patience for this type of thing is wafer-thin.

There are no numbers whatsoever to back up the idea that romance breaks up marriages. I’m sure that somewhere there’s a depressed person reading romances as a way to escape- same as depressed people watch too much TV. But overall, the numbers show that romance is beneficial to relationships.

Not that this matters. People with a theory and a prejudice will spout any faux science they can to back up their beliefs.

I read this article and was saddened and angered, like you, that it was written by a woman who professes to be a life coach. Instead of being glad that her clients could read about positive role models and outcomes to desperate situations illuminated in good lights, she’s quoting fake science and narrowly-focused study groups (who, herself and some cult activists?).

And Robyn Carr’s quote from EIKAL is totally apropos.  One of these days, maybe the asshattery will cease.

So, being and male, I’m okay right? :P

Seriously, articles like this tick me off more than works can express! This isn’t the 1800s, we need to quick acting like it.

What I found so disquieting about it wasn’t even the tired old comparison of romance to porn, but the underlying indictment of fiction in general as a waste of time, a substitute for real life.  We’re told to learn to play an instrument or read a self-help book, to “invest in your real life, not fictional characters”. 

I don’t understand the implication of either/or, that it’s us or the characters, a fictional shadowland or “real” life.  Personally, I find reading fiction an investment in my own life, a means to stretch my imagination, challenge my preconceptions, view life through other pairs of eyes. 

But maybe that’s because I’m already an addict….

I don’t think it’s worth giving her the airtime. It’s complete nonsense, and that’s all there is to it. Not worth getting worked up about and definitely not worth linking to.

KSL is owned by the LDS Church. So it isn’t surprising that they would run this type of story.

As I mentioned on twitter, if someone is addicted to romance novels to the extent of ignoring real life, the problem is not with the novels, it’s with them.  Romance novels are just the form of escapism that grabbed them; it could have been a TV show, a video game, a fandom, anything that took them out of their everyday life.  Not that escapism is a problem, as long as it doesn’t negatively affect real life.

Also, I totally support what Robyn Carr said in the quote above about what the good ones say about what we should want in relationships in general; when it comes to specific plots or characters, though, they’re *constructed to a be a certain way* by the author.  How well they’re constructed and how well they resemble real people depends on the author, but the fact remains that the plot and characters are created to go a certain way.  Real people, not so much, unfortunately. :D

And that commenter who says she was addicted to them when she was younger and therefore was waiting for someone to “save” her makes me facepalm.  Hard.  Nice that she’s learned the lesson now, but a) has she read any recent romance novels? and b) depending how young she was, maybe that was more the fault of being a teenager/young adult, rather than the romances.

(I’ll avoid commenting on the commenters’ discussion of Twilight in this context.)

Oh how sad. I grew up listening to that BS. My mom would probably believe every word of that article. That’s exactly why I haven’t told her I write romance novels. It makes me sad. It makes me angry. It makes me disgusted. Wow. I just don’t know what to say.

I’ve been close to people who have struggled with addiction. The comparison of reading habits to the hell they went through and the struggle to regain control of their brain chemistry is beyond absurd.

I’m pretty sure no one ever died from consuming too many romance novels at the same time.

I have one thing to say about this mess. Maybe two. I’ll try.

1. I had never read a romance until three years ago and now am I not only happily obsessed, but I am also an author.
2. Three years ago I was downloading divorce paperwork. Today I have never been happier in my marriage. It is directly related to the romance novels I read. Directly. I won’t go into detail here.

LDS? Really? Since when do we listen to them.

It’s hard to believe I’m still reading this kind of thing in 2011.  I feel like my brain just regressed 20 years reading that article.

Her awesome-sauce heavily biased empirical data aside, why are only women questioned when they enjoy something?  I’ve NEVER seen this attitude applied to stereotypically male driven fiction.

Are all those mystery/thrillers fueling future serial killers?  Are the political conspiracy tales a threat to our government?

The whole thing is so ridiculous it makes my head hurt.

LOVE this post! In fact, I blogged my outrage as well, today. I love how supportive the romance reading and writing community is, and how fiercely protective we are of the genre we love! Ms. Sayer Giles sounds scared to me. And when faced with feelings she felt were sinful, she resorted to lashing out.

I’ve seen this from Catholic quarters, too—some of the more rad-trad Catholic convert/revert circles condemn romance novels as porn, too, although they focus (of course) on the physical sex. Georgette Heyer is okay, but Julia Quinn is not, for example. Because, you know, sex, our bodies, nekkedness = necessary evil for procreative purposes only. Any depiction of a woman actually enjoying sex is heresy. /rolleyes.

But they really, really like books and movies with lots and lots of gratuitous violence in those circles. Go figure.

Honestly, I was waiting for the ‘it’s a joke’ comment at the end of the article. All the way through I was convinced it was a wind up. Guess the joke’s on me.

I HATE when people say that romance novels make women dissatisfied, or give them unrealistic ideals for marriage.  Every time I read a good romance I’m reminded of why I love my boyfriend, and of how he has so many of the qualities that a romance hero has.  I wish people would stop using this stupid argument

As if Glen Beck didn’t make us look bad enough.

He’s a Mormon?! I do feel bad for you….

Not to be too crude, but romance novels and romantica and erotica does have a big effect on my relationship with my husband…it makes me want to jump his bones more! Not the fantasy man in the novel, but my flesh-n-bone hubby of nearly 16 years.

How is romance porn? It isn’t even as graphic as your traditional XXX porn.

“LDS? Really? Since when do we listen to them.”

I apologize, that was little and callous, I shouldn’t have added that last comment about LDS and it isn’t something I generally do. Generalize. Because generalization is not okay.

My problem is with the article and the writer directly, not the LDS church or its members. Entirely inappropriate response.

Apologies apologies apologies.

God forbid that well-adjusted, intelligent, educated, happily married women read romance.  God forbid that well-adjusted, intelligent, educated, happily married men watch porn.  I wonder what would happen if that woman found out that a lot of women actually do like to read romance AND watch porn ... and sometimes even watch the porn with their husbands… oh my ...

Joking aside, attitudes like the article’s author piss me off.  I read romance for escapism, the same reason why my husband reads sci-fi and fantasy.  Romance kept me sane when my mother got ill with cancer. 

Anyway, I better go do some work, I feel my blood pressure getting “boily”.

I like how when you want to check the comments, the featured ones are what you see first. And they make the article’s author seem completely valid.

Sigh.

What I found so disquieting about it wasn’t even the tired old comparison of romance to porn, but the underlying indictment of fiction in general as a waste of time, a substitute for real life.  We’re told to learn to play an instrument or read a self-help book, to “invest in your real life, not fictional characters”.

I completely agree. I would argue that some of these so-called “self-help” books can cause infinitely more psychological damage than any fiction; after all, fiction does not masquerade as truth, but self-help books claim to teach their readers the “right” way to live—as if there is a single, absolute, one-size-fits-all “right way.”

Not only that, but I do play instruments (many of them); I have a very healthy and loving marriage (three years next month); I have many friends; I get along great with my family; I am a productive member of society, both holding a job and attending college; and when I have time, I read romance novels. Go figure.

Agreed with all that’s said!

@Mireya—I’m as uncomfortable with linking romance to porn in your context as I am in the original context of this post. The porn industry vicitmizes women for male gratification (yes, I know, there are niche porn entities catering to women and to alternate lifestyles, but there’s victimization and abuse among those circles, too). Romance novels victimize no one, and promote healthy emotional and sexual relationships (again, I realize there are sub-genres that may not adhere to this, but they are the exception and I wouldn’t categorize them as “romance”).

What Mireya said. I take issue with the assumption that *porn*‘s addictive, except in the sense that anything can be for the right personality.

Honestly? Having romantic and sexual fantasies available—whether they’re porn, romance novels, or daydreams about Thor—probably has, indeed, made me a little more picky. If I have a fictional way to play out those urges, I’m far less likely to settle for an evening with Schlubby McDoughFace and His Unfortunate Facial Hair Stylings.

Not really seeing how that’s a bad thing.

Honestly, I don’t read Romance novels, However, I do like my novels to have a bit of romance in them! And, as a young girl who LOVES to read, I also believe that no one should be told what they can or can not read because a few people in their religion look down on it! That’s almost as bad as burning books because you believe your God would not want you reading them! In truth, reading is knowledge and knowledge is power! People fear power. Reading romance novels or any type of novel where a female has power can be scary to some. But I can honestly say that anyone refusing to allow people to read certain types of novels, or refuse to read themselves, is missing out. I come from a broken family and for the longest time I refused to have a relationship with anyone thinking that it was just going to end up like my parents but after I started reading stories about how not all relationships are as screwed as my families, it gives hope to girls who never cared to get married or even date because “All guys are the same”. Of course I know no guy is as perfect as the guy in the novels, Like right now, I am in the middle of Melissa Marr’s Wicked Lovely series and I’m sorry but it is rare that you will find the guy who will stick around and be with you even though you’re with someone else, but it shows a love strong enough to get through anything! Love is hard but it’s do-able! And to be honest, without novels like that I wouldn’t have started seeing me as the marrying type! I would have missed out on A LOT!

I can’t speak for all Mormons, but as an ex-Mormon, I remember being told in my youth that I shouldn’t read romance novels with explicit or implied sex, that they were just another form of pornography. The folks who told me this included advisors for the Young Women’s auxiliary, my bishop, multiple talks in church, seminary teachers, and home teachers. I’m sure it’s been referenced obliquely in conference talks too because everything taught generally trickles down from the GAs. This was common enough that I’m rather surprised that other Mormons escaped it—but things could have gotten more lax in the last twelve years since I left Utah.

Because of this, I didn’t actually start reading romance much until I hit adulthood. I was terribly embarrassed by the covers, and so got most of my romance trickled in via other genres (like Anne McCaffrey’s Dragonriders or Elizabeth Peter’s Amelia Peabody books).

I have to note that there are LDS folks who think that Titanic was pornographic because Kate Winslet was nekkid and that my Mormon mother thinks I’m an alcoholic because I have a drink once every four months or so. And when the Rodin exhibit went to BYU, apparently they had to put the Kiss somewhere in a room with warning labels so innocent children wouldn’t see it. My science fiction reading parents chastised me for giving John Scalzi’s Old Man’s War to my younger brother because the main character names his BrainPal “Asshole”. One of my friends in Utah has complained to me about the relative tameness of her book club—she got a lot of flack for suggesting books that were too secular. Lack of perspective may be a huge problem here.

(As the person above notes, Georgette Heyer would be considered okay. Jude Devereaux, not so much. Jane Austen is revered. Harlequins from the era when kissing was followed by marriage would also be fine. Barbara Cartland of the breathy, ellipses-ridden heroines would pass. Tessa Dare or Eloisa James wouldn’t.)

There are a number of LDS romance authors, but those that want to sell to a primarily LDS audience generally write books about LDS gospel principles like temple marriage, and the romance is secondary to the gospel aspects. (See Anita Stansfield and everything Jack Weyland ever wrote.) Those that write for a wider audience probably tend to have sex only occur after marriage and it’s probably implied more euphemistically.  (I can say from personal experience that when I mentioned I wanted to write books to my bishop, he asked if they would reflect my personal values and not get explicit or have swearing.)

All that said, certain younger segments of the LDS population may look upon these warnings less authoritatively than our parents did. I know lots of my still-LDS friends read widely, and a lot of them are involved in fan fic communities. So it’s not all LDS folks….but these Victorian attitudes are still very much present in LDS-centric Utah.

No religion is uniform across all its adherents. Several of the generally-more-conservative religions have in recent years seen a rise of extremely-more-conservative subgroups within them.

These subgroups are very much about keeping teh wimmenz in the kitchen, and preventing them from discovering that sex is supposed to be more than just a service they are obligated to provide for their husband. The saddest part is that most of the women are brainwashed to think that this is right and normal.

I wonder how many of these folks objected to romance novels back in the 80s when the rapist-hero was the standard.

Don’t save all your indignation for the LDS.

Juli Slattery, whose research is used as the basis for the article, is with Focus on the Family, so this seems to be an LDS article based on work by evangelical Christians.

A nurse told me once, that a heart doctor at her hospital said “If it tastes good, spit it out, its not good for you.”

I think a lot of people have that same attitude towards romance.  “If it makes you happy it can’t be good for you. Stop it.”  People associate happy with selfishness, not the healthy, growing, bettering oneself type of happy, but me me me first and always happy.

Which is sad.

What I found so disquieting about it wasn’t even the tired old comparison of romance to porn, but the underlying indictment of fiction in general as a waste of time, a substitute for real life.  We’re told to learn to play an instrument or read a self-help book, to “invest in your real life, not fictional characters”.

Normally in these kind of romance hit-pieces, the contrast is between romance and “high” literature or literary fiction. Seeing the number of times this article recommended self-help instead was disquieting. The “solutions” they suggested were, in order:
1. stop reading romance
2. work on your real relationship
3. find a real relationship, if you don’t already have one
4. get a hobby
5. read something else, like a self-help book

Seems like someone’s really threatened by women who read and think for themselves.

I refuse to take that article seriously becuase it’s written from such an anachronistic perspective that has nothing to do with my own life. Still, I agree that attitudes like that suck!

—E

Interestingly enough, Caitlyn Flanagan (uh-huh, that Caitlyn Flanagan) asserted several months back in one of her WSJ pieces that women want to be “taken” a la the rapier old-skool romance novels.

So I’m guessin’ those scenarios are just A-OK with that crowd. Just as long as the woman never willingly enjoys sex.

I do think they are trying to keep women from reading anything.  It is easier to control people who don’t think, and blindly obey.  Reading tends to widen people’s views and make them think and question things.  Women aren’t supposed to think.

Well, if I was Freud I would have said that they’re all closet romance junkies and they are extremely afraid of their urges and very jealous of other people who do read freely.. I think it’s the case of “hate what you can’t have”. I can only pity them for being so blind.
Agree with everything else which was said. I’ve been reading romance novels since I was 13. I’m in happy marriage of 7 years, and as far as I remember I always expressed my views freely and never settled for anything but the best. Thank you, my pretties :)

I gotta laugh at the self-help books thing ... because I’ve never come across one that did me a lick of good. Not the right kind of touchy feely for my world. /grin

I end up feeling similar sorts of euphoria from romance novels as I do from video games ... or finishing a somewhat difficult crochet pattern ... or adding to my rock collection ... or helping my mother plant in the garden ... or any number of similar things.

OMG, there are too many things around for me to be addicted to! Where will the madness end?? Quick, someone toss me a book, I need an afternoon fix to get through the rest of my day!

I have to say I have really glad that someone told me that reading romance novels is unhealthy.  I think I might go start a bonfire—who cares if it is freaking 90 degrees—so i can burn all the evil books I own.

Give my a fucking break.  Seriously, what is wrong with these people?  What’s next?  Romcoms???  Are romantic comedies bad too?  Should we sue Tom Hanks and Meg Ryan for getting us addicted to romantic comedies?

Also, what are their views of Shakespeare?  Should we stop teaching Romeo and Juliet to high school kids because they might kill themselves if they’re families don’t approve of their relationships?

So, the gist of this article is don’t read romance books because there is potential that you may not find your real life satisfactory ...with the big hint being ‘your sex life’,  especially with the comment “If you love to read, just choose a different type of book. There are many interesting choices that do not include arousing scenes”). Ooooh- kaaaay.  Thus the slippery slope* argument that aroused women are trouble, they won’t have your dinner on the table on time or whatnot. Argh.

*I hope by using the phrase “slippery slope” I did not arouse anyone, thus making them prone to dissatisfaction with their (sex) life.

It might just be asking for what we’d like in a relationship, and standing up for ourselves and our own desires. Being inspired to be the strong heroine of our own lives is quite a coaching-worthy goal, isn’t it?

Yes, yes, yes, yes - exactly!

I do think they are trying to keep women from reading anything.  It is easier to control people who don’t think, and blindly obey.  Reading tends to widen people’s views and make them think and question things.  Women aren’t supposed to think.

@Michele, that is the exact reason that slaves weren’t allowed to learn to read.  The rich, white guys were afraid that if slaves would learn to read they would get their hands on a pesky document known as the Declaration of Independence (or other Enlightenment Era texts) and start thinking that when Jefferson said “that all men are created equal” that it meant they were equal to white people.  (oh, noes!!!)

Thus the slippery slope* argument that aroused women are trouble, they won’t have your dinner on the table on time or whatnot. Argh.

You mean like in Pleasantville?!  Poor William H. Macey.  All he wanted to do was have his dinner on the table when he walked in the door.  Who cares if his wife would rather see things in color with Jeff Daniels?

*giggles* This remind me about an discussion I had with my brother.  I was reading Passion in Paradise by Jaci Burton, and he said that it was porn.  I sputtered, and told him it wasn’t.  We argued, and then I said: ” Fine. Read it, and see for yourself.”  He did read it.  (Unfortunately, I forgot to take a photo)  He still claimed that it was porn when he was finished.  sigh.  Let’s just say that we agreed to disagree.  And sure, maybe an Ellora’s Cave book wasn’t the best book, but it was the only one I had with me.

And hey, he shouldn’t say anything, he considers the Bert books to be good literature. (Funny Middle Grade/ YA books. No problem. Except my brother is 25 *g*)

Well, I just… I think… Yeah, what you all said.
I have a sign posted on my office door:
Warning: Woman with fully engaged upper brain functions & self esteem inside.

Must admit, when I read this article I laughed out loud and saw it as another example of the strange kookiness of the American right (not that we don’t have kookiness here too). I think it needs a relentless satirical response that only the SBs can do. My catchpa cope is arms 65. More evidence of pornography in romance.

So if I start reading mysteries instead of romance novels will I be ruining my family’s life because I’m too busy solving crimes? Will my altered brain chemicals make me only able to focus on blood stains and fingerprints instead of meaningful relationships?

Really the article was so stupid I thought it was funny.

As an LDS reader, I feel like I have to jump in here.  I have frequently heard the advice to steer clear of romance books, especially the explicit ones.  The church has a very strong anti-porn stance and sometimes romance novels get rolled into that. 
However, it’s advice, not law.  I think it’s one of those things that should be a personal choice.  IF you are having a problem with reading, IF it’s interfering with your life, IF it’s causing difficulties in your relationships, then OF COURSE you should stay away.  But that’s true of anything taken to excess.
I honestly don’t know what I’d do without my regular doses of HEA.  I do tend to chose books that are a little more on the tame side as far as sexxy sex goes.  (But that’s mainly because I get embarrassed.)

Thank you, thank you, thank you. You’ve helped me stand tall and proud as a reader and writer of romance and I hope you continue to fight the good fight in defence of romance.

I have great respect for Mormons.  How can I not?  They believe in family and love, they don’t believe in poisoning their bodies with drugs and artificial stimulants, and the majority that I’ve met outside of Utah are wonderful people who don’t shove their religion down your throat if you attend some of their functions with a Mormon friend.  Indeed, some of my favorite romance authors were suggested to me by my Mormon female friend when I first began to seriously read romances. 

This woman, Kimberly Sayer-Giles, is just another narrow-minded person who like so many others is looking for her 15 minutes of publicity, knowing that a statement like that will get her more attention and potential business than she can handle.  I think she never considered just how strong the backlash could be.

Now, I will admit that to an addictive personality anything can become as addictive as romance or porn.  Drugs, alcohol, food, cell phones, publicity, pornography, exercise, it can all be addictive to the right person.  But is a belief in what romance novels show you regarding relationships really such a bad thing?  It shows you how your significant other should be: caring, supportive, non-abusive, willing to work, loving, strong, family orientated.  Is that really so unrealistic?

Yes, marriage and love and family does take work, hard work, but that isn’t something overlooked in many of today’s romance novels.  Compromise is always a key part of any real romance as well as in most of the modern day novels.  Perhaps someone should send Kimberly Sayer-Giles examples of these types of books.

choice39: Yes, it is my choice and I can get at least 39 other people who agree with me.

Well, I found it very interesting that “women are more stimulated by romance than sex.”

Now, that’s just sad. It’s not really clear whether that is according to Slattery or the article’s author, but all I can say to whomever is, UR DOING IT WRONG!

Seems to me if “women are more stimulated by romance than sex” the savviest guys out there (at least the ones who want to please their woman) would be advised to start reading some of our “addictive” romance novels. In fact, maybe we should start a pay-it-forward campaign and Give a Guy a Romance Novel Today. Ellora’s Cave or Bethany House, your choice.

I wonder if some of this is thinly-veiled criticism over women doing anything strictly for fun. Not exercising (fun with health!), not doing something with/for the kids, but FUN, honest-to-God fun for themselves that isn’t for the benefit of anybody but themselves and isn’t considered ‘good for them’ in some way.

Heaven forbid women NEGLECT THEIR FAMILIES (by way of expecting, oh, I don’t know, THEIR SPOUSE, to do something) while they relax with a novel for an hour or so.

It would be LDS Life Coaching as in “marketed to LDS people, some of whom will buy into anything that has LDS in the name” rather than “official position of the LDS Church or the general membership”. I’m LDS. My mother gave me my first Harlequin when I was 12 or 13 - she’d been reading them for years, and I’ve been reading them ever since. That is just one narrow-minded woman’s opinion. She’s probably jumping on the current focus on avoiding pornography among church leaders, trying to pump up business. It’s people like her who give Mormons a bad name.

I totally agree with comments above that the good romance novels are very thoughtful about relationship dynamics, personal responsibility, and what it means to care for and respect yourself.  As others have said, if books like this make us more likely to ditch people who don’t treat us well, so much the better.

However, one thing I think the romance novels I’ve read are *not* very good at teaching me is that when a guy says that he likes you but he’s not ready for a relationship, 99% it’s true and you should thank him for being self-aware enough to give you a heads up and MOVE ON. 

I’m a sucker for the emotionally damaged loner hero (tortured hero of the Napoleonic Wars, jaded city cop from a no-good family…you all know the books I’m talking about).  In these books, the hero usually spends quite a lot of talk-time telling the heroine to give up on him, that he’s no good, that he prefers to be alone, or whatever his version is…but he doesn’t really mean it, or he outgrows it.  (same deal when the heroine’s the one who’s pushing the hero away)  I’ve been in a couple of deeply ambivalent relationships like this (and have seen other friends go through this), and so far I’ve never seen an epiphany or turnaround of the second-to-last chapter variety.  Sometimes I realize I’ve been waiting for the groveling to begin, but it never does.

Now, I’m not saying that I bear no responsibility for the way those real-life relationships went.  Do I myself have ambivalence that makes (a part of) me want to stay in a relationship that’s going nowhere?  Yes. Clearly.  But there was also a real bond that was (almost) awesome between us in those cases, so it’s hard to tell - especially if you think he might get over the ‘not-ready-for-a-relationship’ at any minute now. 

Sometimes the very fact that the emotional maturation of the couple is portrayed in a psychologically nuanced and healthy way makes the illusion created by the narrative arc of the story even more compelling and (thereby) misleading.  As Karen S said earlier in this thread:

when it comes to specific plots or characters, though, they’re *constructed to a be a certain way* by the author.  How well they’re constructed and how well they resemble real people depends on the author, but the fact remains that the plot and characters are created to go a certain way.  Real people, not so much, unfortunately. :D

Hmm. Reading about romance will make me dissatisfied with reality. Does hat mean I should also not read about heroism? saintliness? any sort of virtue?
Come to think of it, I am not particularly enamored of reality in the first place. That’s one of the reasons I read fiction.
I guess the assumption is that I’m so stupid I can’t tell the difference between fiction and reality.

I always love - and by this I mean, hate with a passion that makes me want to claw my eyes out - the rationale that romance books can make you dissatisfied with your current relationship. Um, hello! If your eyes are opened to the fact that you don’t have to settle for whatever shite your partner chooses to shovel in your direction, more power to whatever gives you the inspiration to want more than that. Knowledge is power. Reading about all the possibilities in love and romance? Power.

Full34. Yes, Ma’am.

I always like the part when they talk about the chemicals released in a guy’s brain when he looks at porn.  They have studies that show they produce the exact same chemicals when they look at pictures of power tools.  C’mon.  They’re guys. And they are not thinking about a “chemical” released in their “brain”.  Least I never heard it called that.  Oh, yeah—I did.

OH FOR FUCK’S SAKE - what a bunch of horse shit!  So discouraging (although not altogether unsurprising) to hear about this article.  It’s so completely past time for people to keep these kinds of narrow-minded, baseless opinions to themselves.

Grrrr…

So many of these comments have made me laugh, can’t feel anything but gratitude for the original silliness that inspired such hilarity.

So many of these comments have made me laugh, can’t feel anything but gratitude for the original silliness that inspired such hilarity.

I have great respect for Mormons.  How can I not?  They believe in family and love, ...

... unless you are gay.  Then you don’t have the right to love.

... unless you are gay.  Then you don’t have the right to love.

This.

Romance novels taught me warning signs for abuse. They taught me I don’t deserve to be coerced or made to feel less like a person because I have desires and wants independent of any other influence in my life, including a romantic partner.

They weren’t all perfect, and they didn’t all empower women the way I’d like, but together they showed me better standards, how to have more respect for myself and my sexual identity, and it truly saddens me that there are people out there that preach against them and attempt to vilify them in the eyes of the women who may need those books the most.

The article in question, the one that claims that romance novels are to women what porn is to men, can be read as an argument for romance novels being worse than their reputation. It can, however, also be read as an argument for porn not being as bad as it’s rumored to be.

I am a man, and I watch porn from time to time, and I am not ashamed of it. The same cannot be said for the many a teenage boy with pimples and a body rushing with hormones, that sit alone in his room and looks at porn. That is a perfectly natural thing to do, and he shouldn’t be all guilt-ridden over it; but he is.

Romance novels are not James Joyce. Neither is porn. But there’s absolutely nothing wrong with either.

Soooo…that´s the problem with my life. That´s why I´m unhappy and depressed and have no friends and no goals…ITS THE ROMANCE NOVELS! Thank God someone finally told me so now I can throw them out and get a REAL life….

Oh…wait…I do have friends and goals and am happy…AND I read romance…how is that even possible??

This article could have been hilarious. If it wouldn´t be so sad.
What a BS…

Funny how someone who claims not to read “those books” feels she’s expert enough to comment on their impact to women. Thanks for writing a response that hits home. I’d like to add one other point. Women who read “those books” (and this is a fact that at least 66 other women, all noted above, can attest to) have better relationships, deeper intimacy with their mates and high levels of self-value.

Those damn books might put LDS Life Coaching out of business!

Jordan
www.jordankrose.com

I was told by an

enlightened

female Episcopal priest that women who read romance novels are committing adultery because they’re imagining sex with the fictional hero. And when several female members of my church congregation told me the same thing, I left for good, unwilling to put a dime of my hard-earned romance novel advance in their church collection plate.

But not before telling them that studies show that women who read romance novels have more sex with their husbands…and indeed, isn’t the church’s role to help couples stay together if they possibly can? And that a woman with a healthy libido has a better shot at having a healthy marriage than a woman who doesn’t? And then I asked why they weren’t promoting the reading of romance novels at church? That sexual fantasies are normal and healthy and can add spice to a husband/wife relationship? Huh? Huh?

There was a lot of blinking and silence (& did I detect yearning in their stolid gazes?).

Anyway, I think I got my point across. And then I sashayed my romance-lovin’ butt right outta there.

Oops—I meant to put little quotes around enlightened.

Please note one of the sources in this article: Focus on the Family.  As soon as I saw that, I was done.  Any journalist using this group as a resource is inherently biased and/or ignorant.
FotF is one of the worst hate-mongering groups out there - I highly recommend reading the Southern Poverty Law Center’s report naming them a “hate group” (p.s.: it’s not easy to get on the SPLC’s list; it’s about what you DO rather than what you think).
In short, these are the people that push homophobic campaigns and use discredited research (by Paul Cameron) that says gay people are inherently diseased and have a short life expectancy, QED.
I agree wholeheartedly that these people are likely terrified by female agency; haven’t you heard that empowering women almost as dangerous to society as teh gays?

I tried to post a comment yesterday, it never went through.  I suspect they pretty much censored every single comment that was not in favor of the article’s author POV.  I go in this morning and what do I find? The comments section shut altogether ... gee, wonder why…

I showed the article to my husband and after he rolled his eyes he said “but I love that you read those!”.
I work with a woman who will not read romance novels because her church has told her all her life she’ll go to hell if she does. Well, she has admitted to me there has been no sex in her house since her youngest son was born (he’s 32!) and she is honestly one of the most negative people I’ve ever met. Maybe they would have helped her.

Running28. I’m about to go running to the bookstore to see what new romance novels are there ;)

Whilst obviously it would be wonderful if everyone could and did have a good, satisfying, nurturing, fulfilling relationship, it doesn’t happen that way.  Sadly.  (And I mean that in all honesty.)  For many, romance novels offer the one bright spark of hope of an enduring and satisfying relationship, and that frankly keeps them sane in what might otherwise be intolerable circumstances.  The difficulty is always when critics (or authors) forget the Arabian proverb:  stories teach people how to live.  And that holds true for romances or sci-fi or historical fiction.  Those stories in Mills and Boon or wherever they are, are teaching messages about what would be a good partner, what wouldn’t be, what will work, what won’t work…and as I say, offering hope and a sense of good will triumph.  And that should never be discounted.  Which is why, for example, I find it so disturbing when authors present rape as a sound basis for a relationship (Victoria Holt and Kathleen Woodiwiss both did so in the 80’s I seem to recall).

There’s a segment in Georgette Heyer’s biography by Jane Aiken Hodge about a letter Heyer received praising Friday’s Child.  And in it, the correspondent wrote about how when she was incarcerated in a Romanian (?) prison as a political prisoner, every day, she would tell a bit of the story to the inmates—all female political prisoners like herself.  And this enabled them to endure.  She had told the story many times.  When she was freed, afterward, she learned that they carried on recounting the story until all of them were freed.  It was the only letter from a fan that Heyer kept. 

And just to say, I do have a Mormon friend who has indicated that sex in novels is for her inappropriate and who has given me to understand that she finds the (little) sex in my novels too much.  But that’s a different discussion. 

Best—MM

This makes me so sad.

Fiction is not real life. At least it shouldn’t be. I read romance, but that doesn’t mean I’m needy or dissatisfied.

A newspaper in Australia recently reported that a therapist had five teenage patients who had sucidal thoughts and also read Stephen King. As if all teens who read Stephen King will suddenly become suicidal and depressed, rather than voracious readers.

They’re books, lady.

choice64: We should all have our reading choices respected.

We should all be free to choose what we read and how it makes us feel. It always amazes me when religion comes out and tells you that the very things they believe in: love, honor, fidelity, commitment, treating yourself with respect and love (in the case of LDS tenants) are bad if you get them from any other place but the LDS church.

One important question though—Stephenie Meyers is a publicly acknowledged member of the LDS faith and has written some of the most popular YA Romance novels of all time. If it’s porn then are they going to shun her and return her tithes? Come out against the Twilight phenomenon?

I’m too freaked out by the fact that I’ve lived over forty years without realizing that I share initials with the Latter Day Saints to even hazard a comment on a ridiculous article that has all appearances of being of the “keeping women in their place” variety. 

To cleanse your palate here is a link for some other LDS acronyms:  http://www.all-acronyms.com/LDS  Pers.onally, I’m rather fond of liquid delivery system.

The LDS moron said : “Read self-help books together or contact a relationship professional or coach, who can help you to rekindle the flame in your marriage.”  To which I say, if you read the right romance, it IS self-help to rekindle the marriage.  Use some imagination for crying out loud.

She also said: “If you are not in a real relationship, you may want to focus on finding one.”  I was miserable when I was always looking for a relationship.  Worst time of my life.  It was only when I bettered myself by getting my degree and learned to stand on my own that I found someone right for me.  I agree with the Twitter commenter you quoted who said it sounded like a fear response to strong women.

Bleh.

This seems to me to go deeper than a prejudice against romance novels and to betray an attitude to fiction in general which is as old as the hills—in lines like “there is a wonderful real world out there to explore. Get out there and invest in your real life” and “try some books on creating healthy relationships or self-improvement”, which apart from being DEEPLY PATRONISING, typify the strand of nineteenth century thinking that said that novels would unfit young women for life and that improving moral works were less dangerous for them. I mean, God forbid that we should be using our imaginations, visualising a world different and sometimes better than the one that exists. God forbid we should be using fiction to understand a plurality of views about the world, or just to use our creative faculties and have fun. I think there are even today people out there who are just suspicious of fiction.They don’t understand why people would want to absorb themselves in a fictional world unless it’s because they’re addicted or unable to cope with real life, and seeing people talk with passion about fictional characters as if they were real makes them uncomfortable.  They don’t really understand how fiction can enhance life rather than detracting from it. I think a lot of them are probably not big readers themselves, and perhaps can’t understand that a) readers of fiction are really, GENUINELY able to separate fiction from real life and b) something that is fun and compelling is not necessarily bad for you.

Did you pick up on the spirited counterpoint response linked at the bottom of that letter in the Tucson Citizen?

http://tucsoncitizen.com/morgue/2007/07/03/56355-there-s-a-plot-erotica-is-harmless/

So happy you commented on this article. I couldn’t believe it when I read it especially because I was linked to it from the Huffington Post. What utter tripe.

But I am already busy being a juvenile delinquent from all that comic book readin’.

This article prompted me to think about precisely what it is about romance novels that I enjoy the most. Is it the sex? No. The locations? No. Then what?

From the prospective of an abused child who spent most of her early life on the streets i can offer this comment..Romance novels gave me a sense of what could be right with the world…I began to think that perhaps,,,just perhaps there were people out there that didn’t abuse each other, that didn’t have such low self esteem that they considered themselves worthy of abuse.
The females were depicted as strong, warm and caring individuals who had a real sense of self worth.
They weren’t all glamorous, they didn’t all walk on the beauty catwalk of life. The cried, they laughed and they loved unashamedly.
I had no female role models in my life. My view of human beings in general was not flattering. I escaped into books and found inside their covers a world that wasn’t dirty, it wasn’t a hungry pain filled place. People were flawed..sure they were, but through the words of a plethora of marvelous writers I found a place that I could see as attainable. Not heaven, not unrealistic fantasy…simply a place where it was safe and pain free to be in.
The people that put crap on Romance novels have no idea what hell feels like…if they had a glimpse of it even for a moment…then Romance novels would provide them with a dose of healthy and needed escape.

This is an amazing coincidence. 

My family and I were returning home from vacation and hit an enormous truck stop in PA.  I was checking out the book section (yeah it’s big enough to have a section) where I found a number of what I can only describe as Amish romance novels. 

The covers had disturbingly good looking couple in plain garb in a number of chaste-but-clearly-we’ve-got-something-goin-on poses.  Most had titles like ” Love is Kind” etc and the one I looked through had the heroine realizing that John was a good man and had a way with plants.

This woman does not speak for the church. There is no prohibition of romance novels and as far as I know, it’s never actually brought up. There are a number of LDS writers of romance who are in good standing with the church:

1. Brenda Novak
2. Christine Feehan
3. RaeAnne Thayne
4. Carla Kelly

And, oh, me, whose books are getting a very nice reception in the LDS community.

I’m sure there are other LDS romance writers, but I don’t know who they are off the top of my head (and I didn’t read all the comments before posting—sorry!).

I am reminded of one of my best friends from HS, who got married before 20 and moved to Utah. Her husband was a Soldier and she once confided in me that she was going to Sex Addict support groups, because when he was deployed she masturbated. Yep, her Bishop (not trained in psychology, unpaid lay minister) told her that was a grievous sin and that her frequent sexual feelings were a sign of her “Addiction”.

This type of weirdo cultural-molly-mormon, holier-than-thou BS is one of the many reasons my LDS parents moved away from Utah. Mom still doesn’t understand the difference between being drunk (from having a bit too much wine) and being A Drunk/Alcoholic, since she’s heard all “forbidden” desires (for mormons, that would be sex, booze, cigs and coffee and tea) are automatically addictions. But still, she’s never said a thing about my reading romance or fantasy (which also takes you out of the “real world”) and has in fact encouraged it.

This so-called “life-coach” is disgraceful and ought to have her license revoked for potentially hurting rather than helping.  I’d greatly enjoy writing to her directly to give her a piece of my mind.  Especially considering that I have two friends who are just starting down the road to divorce - one of whom has read romance for longer than I have (we’re the same age) and one who’s never even touched a romance novel and stopped reading anything but the Bible and Christian non-fiction since she was 18.  It would be the height of unfairness to them to say that romance novels (or the lack of them) were the cause of their failed marriages.
My own husband asked me a few months ago (during a discussion in which I was trying to work through some stuff he was oblivious to) if I was so dissatisfied lately was because life wasn’t like one of my romance novels and I looked at him liked he’d grown an extra head and said “Sweetie, they’re FICTION; of course life isn’t like one.” 
So please, “Dr.” Slattery (and Ms. Giles), give us the credit of having enough intelligence to simply enjoy a romance for exactly what it is - an enjoyable ficticious adventure - and stop trying to blame a fiction genre for people’s relationship troubles.  Or, if you really feel the need to blame a fiction genre then please, at least have enough intelligence to target the genre that sells sex - Erotica - and not the one that “sell” love, trust, and fidelity!

This constant ignorance spewed from the mouths of bible thumping Fundies is really getting on my nerves. If you do not like it, piss off, don’t read it and leave everyone else alone. You don’t want me telling you how to live well same goes for me sister. And guess what? I have read my share of Amish Romances, you can all stop laughing, and I found them sweet and nice, but Mama also likes her Joey W Hill and when I read that my hubby better look out :)
My friend who is a happily practicing Mormon reads the Anita Blake series and all the crazy sex that goes with it. She has a healthy marriage with two kids and oh yeah, is friends w/the gays. Guess these folks would hate on her.  Jesus wept.

captcha: increase87 - their milligrams of mother’s little helper

As a slight aside, I’m sick of porn being the whipping boy (in a bad way) for all that is evil, simplistic, and prurient in the world.  Porn is fantasy fulfillment, typically with great looking men and women (and the occasional toy) gettin’ it on.  It’s not meant to be realistic (otherwise all women would be bi-curious and unable to stay alone alone in a room together for more than a minute without having sex.  If only…), it can be instructive (from positions to Nina Hartley’s HOW TO series of instructional videos), it can be a good alternative to adultery (“Honey, while you were gone I watched a bunch of pornos” is probably better to hear than “Honey, while you were gone I had sex with a lot of women”), and it’s safe sex—the biggest health risk is chafing.

Can porn be addictive?  Yes, as can alcohol, science fiction, chocolate, exercise, shopping, or anything else.  Should it be one’s only source of entertainment?  No—but neither should any other one genre.  Would getting rid of it solve all the world’s problems?  Hell no!  (And considering that it’s been around for centuries, and it’s quite popular online (I’ve yet to hear anyone complain that the song “The Internet is for Porn” from AVENUE Q is unrealistic), I’d say it’s here to stay.)  And there are titles and lines designed for women, from PLAYGIRL features to Candida Royale movies to plot-driven, high-production romances and comedies from Wicked Pictures.

I think discussions would be a lot better if folks would stop acting as if porn was the evil juvenile scrawl on a bathroom stall.

The chemical thing gets me…

So if we all experience say… a rush of adrenaline… one from a runner starting a race and another from a mother dashing in to save her kid from something falling… it’s all the same?

No, it’s not.  Maybe it’s the same chemical but it’s NOT the same situation.

Perhaps this is a way for someone to feel superior or better about their choices in life.

Can ANYTHING be addictive?  Yes.  Shit I could be addicted to Ruffles potato chips (mmmmmmm).  But, like everything in life, you have to temper it.  The same could be said for romance novels.  If you read NOTHING else EVER and close yourself off to the REALITY of regular romance (ie. You expect all men to act like those in romance novels when half of them get very confused about what a clitoris is…) then yes, it’s addicting.  But that is THAT person’s problem and THAT person’s choices.  The blanket statement can go fuck itself.

Is this life coach a psychopath or does she really believe that human beings (yes, women are human too it says so in the Bible) are so easily ensnared and controlled by all things romance novels?  How on earth did the Nazis miss that? Pol Pot could have done with this insight before he buried his people en masse.

The argument is crass, naïve and displays a profound ignorance about human complexity.

Am I alone in suspecting that, as a life coach, she has a non-fiction book to push?

NEXT!
As for a comment above that

For some maybe very obvious reason, this makes me want to tell a story about playing handball with my ‘paramour’ in one of those glass-walled courts and after awhile there were about eight people watching us and we had to hurry to the nearest motel.  Chemicals.  Ahh, chemicals.  No, the eight people were not invited.

Brava! 
Romances written by women, for women,
Yep, it terrifies men.

So sad that some women run with the line that if it’s fun, it can’t be good for you. If they don’t like romance, they don’t have to read it, but don’t take mine away from me.

The site stopped comments after only 28 posts. Speaks volumes.

As an author of 70 books including 50 romance novels and with a diploma in professional counseling, I’ve long said that romance novels are escapist - from the overly stressful and demanding life modern women have to deal with everyday. Our books are one of the few places where the heroine, as a portal for the reader, can be loved as she wants and deserves to be loved. She’s never asked what’s for dinner or where the socks are, certainly not in my books. Instead the hero focuses on her needs and her pleasure in and out of bed. There’s even a view that the heroine actually takes the role of hero. I can imagine what the article’s author would make of that. Horreur! Let our fictional characters take the reins of their own lives, go after what they want and achieve it, and where will we be next? Oh yes, empowered. Now there’s a novel idea.

Global warming and the melting of the polar ice caps are a direct result of women getting all hot and bothered by smutty romance novels.

Obviously this must be stopped. Think of all of those poor penguins and polar bears that are swimming around homeless because of your need to feed your habit!!!

OMG, if this isn’t stopped we’ll all be living in a village of floating dinghies waiting for Kevin Costner to show us the way to the promised land. OH THE HUMANITY!!!

As soon as I saw the words “plagiarism” and “Focus on the Family”, I knew the article was complete dreck, not worth reading. “Focus on the Family” is an automatic downcheck in any article or discussion, frankly.

I really don’t have anything else to say that others haven’t said better.

several75: almost that many others, yep.

As a librarian I’ve always thought the argument that because you enjoy reading about something—like romance for example—you are necessarily going to progress to having sex with any likely looking partner really, really crackpot.  Based on those assumptions when my husband asked what I was doing while I was reading a murder mystery, I was right to tell him jokingly—“nothing, just research”.  And, reading about Bernie Madoff means I’m going to set up some ponzie scheme to de-fraud folks.  Or, reading about army tactics mean I’m fixing to invade Canada.  Hey, there’s a librarian drinking game where we name a book and its “consequences” in 10 seconds.  Hesitate and you have to drink a glass of wine.

But I am already busy being a juvenile delinquent from all that comic book readin’.

This made me very happy.  Not quite happy enough to get over the article, but it helped.  All the comments have.

I don’t understand the animosity towards fiction, fun, ideas, romance, romance novels, women, or porn.  Or any combination thereof.

Although for every romance novel that has shown me what I want in a relationship there’s a slew that illustrate what I don’t.  But then I’m clever enough to tell the difference, and anyone who writes an article like this one presumably isn’t.  Also it makes me feel better to assume people hatin’ on romance novels have something like this one in mind: http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com/index.php/weblog/comments/scoundrels-captive-by-joann-delazzari-a-guest-review-by-redheadedgirl

Oh, for heaven’s sake, not this crap AGAIN!  I strongly believe it’s because Romance is by women (mostly) FOR women.  We can’t have that, now can we??  That is some badly written article, too.  I particularly love this priceless bit of literature:

=This seemingly harmless pastime, however, is not as harmless as it may seem.=

It’s practically a palindrome.  The other fabulous sentence is this one, in the “what to read instead of Romance” :

=There are many interesting choices that do not include arousing scenes.=

Uh…like what?  Practically any book has something that will arouse SOMEBODY somewhere on the planet!

=

Our books are one of the few places where the heroine, as a portal for the reader, can be loved as she wants and deserves to be loved.

Valerie Parv, you are Australia’s national treasure!

PS, I couldn’t help joining in the #romancekills tweets. I suggested the #rapturefail was because God was preoccupied reading a romance novel.

I noticed that one comment listed Carla Kelly as an LDS member in good standing who is also a popular romance novelist.  But, she, too, has just recently said that she is finishing up her contract for Harlequin Historicals and is already writing for an LDS publisher.  Interestingly, she cites wanting to write something other than regencies (which I completely understand) as well as feeling uncomfortable with writing about sex.

Here’s what she said on her blog earlier this year:

To answer Heidi’s question, yes, I am LDS. I cast my lot with the Mormons in December of 1965, and have never looked back. It was perhaps the smartest thing I ever did. I’ve felt some definite unease in recent years, because I do feel that I’ve been writing books that go a bit over the top for me. I generally prefer to be a bit more sedate about sex in novels. (I have nothing at all against sex in novels, let me state.) But having said that, I am still pleased with my work for Harlequin. But when the opportunity came along to write something more to my comfort level, I did. The result was Borrowed Light, which is the first of what will be more my pattern from now on, I think.

Ms. Kelly has never, in my opinion, been a writer whose love scenes are too descriptive.  In fact, most of her early books sometimes did not have anything other than kisses.  But, oh man, she is wonderful at writing real, in-depth characters and stories that are believable and unforgettable.

So, I was sad to hear of her parting with Harlequin.  I did read “Borrowed Light” when it came out (and it was hard to get because of the publisher);  it was very good.  I probably won’t get the next one because the LDS theme was off-putting to me. 

Now, after this article, I wonder how much the LDS influenced Ms. Kelly’s decision to step back from mainstream romance novels.

Thank you for your write-up and link, Sarah. 

The earliest putdown of romance fiction that I’ve heard about came from Nathaniel Hawthorne, who denounced “that damned tribe of scribbling women”. Since then, I bet just about every accusation that can possibly be leveled against a genre of fiction has been aimed and fired at romance fiction.

But how many readers have been dissuaded from reading it because of these accusations? I bet the total is the roundest number of all.

Keep up the good work!

Ladies, well said. I was so angry when I read that stupid article. I am still seeing red!!! The only thing that cheered me up (besides your article) is all the backlash on Twitter against the article. Really! The nerve of that lady.

I don’t get the “romances are porn” thing - I mean, I like porn, and I wish there were more fun, romantic, woman-centered porn out there, especially in comic format (I wish Colleen Coover would write more volumes of Small Favors). I feel like I can tell the difference pretty readily, and if I were accidentally reading porn without meaning to, I would notice.

And the idea that a man who loves you romantically is an unreachable fantasy that just causes women to be disappointed in their real life men is just sad.

You should check your sourcing. That letter to the editor is actually the one doing the plagiarizing. The two pieces did use the same quotes, attributed to Dr. Slattery, but the paragraph in the letter that begins, “Some marriage therapists caution that women can become as dangerously unbalanced…” is a quote from author Shaunti Feldhahn, found in this interview here: http://staugustine.com/stories/070107/opinions_4687418.shtml

The KSL article attributed this quote to Feldhahn. The editorialist did not.

When I read this article, I had the urge to punch out my computer screen. This is the image romance writers and readers have battled for years. Then I decided woman was a closet romance writer with a file drawer full of rejection slips or she’s just plain jealous her life isn’t as satisfying as those fictional heroines we’re all so addicted to. Chew on that, honey.

You know what’s really hilarious about this asshattery? Mormon men expect their wives to happily embrace “sister wives”, yet they can’t stand having to compete with IMAGINARY men themselves.

@EC Spurlock: Sister wives are a concept in fundamentalist Mormonism. The Latter-Day Saints church outlawed polygamy about 125 years ago, and as I understand it fundamentalist Mormon and LDS have little if anything to do with one another at this point.

I am a member of the LDS church. (Only have been for about 6 months, so I may not be typical LDS.) I also write and read romance. Even erotic romance. Before my baptism, I asked the missionaries whether the fact that I write “spicy” romance violated any LDS principles. They told me that the LDS church preaches chastity; that is, no sex before marriage, and no sex outside marriage. They also said that writing is not the same as doing.

There are people in any religion who are going to have extreme opinions. Personally, I don’t consider romance to be anything akin to porn (which the LDS church does teach against), and I don’t feel that I’m doing anything “wrong” by writing or reading romance.

I agree with every word you said. thank you