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.
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.
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!
=
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