ETA: Thanks to Carolyn Jewel for the link: it seems most of this article is plagiarized from a letter to the editor from 2007. OH THE HILARITY. So not only does Sayer Giles have her head up her bum BUT she’s a plagiarist, too? WOW. JUST WOW.
Another day, another disparaging article about romance novels. If you haven’t seen it, here’s the link that set Twitter on fire this morning and insulted so many of us who read and write the genre: Romance novels can be addictive as pornography.
What set my hair on fire about this article is that this is EXACTLY the attitude I was trying so hard to combat in my upcoming book, the one where romance readers and authors worked together to help me defend against this crap.
At least it’s a bit more rare to see the asshattery displayed in flaming colors like this. Used to be weekly. Now my blood pressure has time to level out to somewhat normal numbers.
Kimberly Sayer Giles, of LDS Life Coaching, outlines that romance is porn, some women are addicted to it, and conveniently she has a few steps toward wearing yourself off the romance now that she’s insulted us all most thoroughly.
First, I have a question: LDS Life Coaching? LDS as in Latter Day Saints? Is there a Mormon prohibition against romance novels or fiction depicting sex? I know of some of the other Mormon prohibitions but am unfamiliar with any regarding sexuality in fiction or romance specifically. Sandy Kidd tweeted that, “sex depictions are taboo, even between married het couples in romance books.”
Yet Laura Hunsaker’s sister pimped Hunsaker’s books to her LDS book group (nice sister!). And Andria Robb responded that she’s Mormon and has “never been told that I can’t read romances. It would be a very sad day for me if I couldn’t.”
Agreed, ma’am.
So it might be somewhat narrow set of religious prohibitions or interpretations that serves as the motivation for this article, but I suspect not. I think it’s more that Sayer Giles has her head up her ass and is so wrong I’m not even sure where to begin to try to flag her back to reality.
I doubt it is even worth it to try, since it’s one long crazy fiesta. Maureen Johnson likened finding the crazy parts to an Easter egg hunt where the eggs are huge.
Like, the size of Yugos, says I.
Citing sources from Focus on the Family, a conservative Christian site that provides “Christian advice on marriage, parenting and other topics,” Sayer Giles backs up her porn-for-women-therefore-it’s-bad argument with specious supporting evidence.
Dr. Juli Slattery says that a male looking at porn experiences a “neurochemical” reaction while women experience that same high reading a romance – and thus “experience the same addicting chemical release as men do” when they view pornography.
Wow. That there is some science.
Sayer Giles continues that all that romance promotes dissatisfaction with real relationships because real life doesn’t measure up to the fantasy.
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.”
I refuse to debate the idea that a woman’s responses to anything are “emotional” or the idea that romance is pornography, because it’s a tired, lame argument. And it’s dumb.
And wrong.
And the responsibility of holding a marriage together falls on both parties, by the way. Not just one.
I’m also not going to say, “Oh. It’s Mormons” as some sort of explanation because there are many Mormon readers and writers of romance whom I suspect disagree mightily with this argument.
I am going to say the following, again and again and again: romances are good. Romances are fantastic, in fact. There are terribly few places wherein women’s emotional experiences, personal troubles and intimate sexuality are portrayed favorably.
In this slackass excuse for journalism, Sayer Giles writes, “Women may find their standard for intimacy begins to change over time because may not be able to get as satisfied with their partners as they can reading a book.”
Well, hold on a minute, there. Actually, yes. We do learn that there are some behaviors and habits we should not be satisfied with. And many of us learn to think better of ourselves from romances.
So we may find that we are not satisfied with the intimacy of our relationships – but I don’t think the automatic next step is cheating. 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?
Let me quote Robyn Carr’s contribution to “Everything I Know About Love, I Learned From Romance Novels,” because she said it best:
… what do we learn from romance novels that we shouldn’t get over? When our heroines walk away from lying, cheating, abusive relationships, our readers stand up and cheer! When our heroes fail to fall for mean, selfish, manipulative women, our readers applaud!
Men and women in real life and in romance novels find themselves trapped in unhealthy, destructive relationships all the time, and when they choose to believe they deserve love, respect and healthy, enduring relationships, when they reclaim their lives and demand only excellent treatment and a love they can fully trust, life is good. Readers are not only satisfied – they use those characters as role models.
What saddens me most is that this is a “life coach” writing this article. Yes, by all means, let’s tell women who read about commitment, emotions, sexuality, trust, honor, and happiness that they have a problem and can’t stop themselves. Let’s treat our indulgences and our happy interludes as something to be ashamed of. Let’s shame those who read regularly about fidelity, courage, honesty and strength. That’s good coaching.
But then, I agree with Susan, who said via Twitter that the “article read to me like fear-mongering by those threatened by female empowerment.”
Ayup. I can see that point, clearly.
But what makes me even more discouraged is that somewhere, a person is going to read this and might think this is good advice, that romances are terrible and destructive, and stop reading them, even though they made her happy. Or, a reader is going to be told to stop reading them, or made to stop.
The likelihood of that person reading this page along with that pile of festering tripe is slim, but let me say this anyway: Romances are not bad for you. There is nothing wrong with you for liking them. There is nothing wrong with you for exploring different worlds, different relationships, different emotions, different personal experiences through fiction, and if romances are your preferred way to be entertained, more power to you.
In fact, around here, and on many, many other sites online, there are thousands if not hundreds of thousands of readers who love romances as much as you do, who understand that they make you happy. Welcome. We’re glad to have you with us.
There is nothing wrong with wanting to be happy. You and your romances are awesome, just the way you are.
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.
Yes, yes, yes, yes – exactly!
@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!!!)
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:
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.
… 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
http://www.jordankrose.com
I was told by an
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.