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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

But this part really raised my brows:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categorized:

Ranty McRant

Comments are Closed

  1. @DreadPirateRachel Thank you for the linkyness.

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

  2. AgTigress says:

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

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

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

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

  3. P.N. Elrod says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  6. Susan says:

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

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

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

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

  7. Susan says:

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

  8. LOL, @ErinGriggs. No, no Santa Babies! That is kind of horrifying. 😉

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

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

  9. Jessica E says:

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

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

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

    Ugh.  How stupid do they think we are?!

    Rant over.

  10. Ann G says:

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

  11. BookwormBabe says:

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

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

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

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

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

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

  12. GreenOtter says:

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

    Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; internally peer reviewed.

    And a list of 4 references.

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

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

    Point, laugh and move on.

  13. Overquoted says:

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

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

  14. Isabel C. says:

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

  15. Diva says:

    A lot can happen in fifteen years.

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

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

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

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

  16. PamG says:

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

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

  17. Pam G again says:

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

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

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

  18. Sharon says:

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

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

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

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

  19. cleo says:

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

  20. MissMariah says:

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

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

  21. EbonyMcKenna says:

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

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

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

  22. Kris says:

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

  23. Michelle R. says:

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

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

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

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

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

  24. AgTigress says:

    @Kris:

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

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

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

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

  25. B. Sullivan says:

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

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

  26. Susan says:

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

  27. AgTigress says:

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

    🙂

  28. Alex Ess says:

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

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

  29. Anony Miss says:

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

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

    (now ducks)

  30. Angela M. says:

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

  31. Diva says:

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

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

    oh dear…what if they don’t flush?

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

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

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

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

↑ Back to Top