Guest Rant: Slut Shaming in Romance

 I received this email from Linda recently, and asked if I could run it as a guest rant. Linda mentions some specific books, cover copy, and plot points for romances she’s read that inspired this rant. If you’re a fan of these authors, or you love these particular books, we understand that using them as examples might tick you off. The point isn’t the examples; the examples highlight for Linda a larger point that’s been true in romance for a very long time: there is some slut shaming going on.

Dear Sarah,

I don’t want to become the resident crotchet, but a book rant burst out of me a little yesterday and has just been building up steam all day in conversations with friends.

I was skimming the description of The Mistake by Elle Kennedy that was linked in the deals post, and I ran across the line:

“If Logan expects her to roll over and beg like all his other puck bunnies, he can think again.”

What on earth is wrong if someone willingly and consensually hooks up with a hot hockey player, and how the fuck is the heroine any better for doing the same?

Are these women really doing anything wrong? Does engaging in casual sex with an attractive man or being a “groupie” make them dirty? If you want to bang the hot hockey player, go do it. If you don’t want to, or have reservations about him, or want a relationship, that’s fine too. Why the need for this dehumanizing language? And why is it always these faceless (or sometimes not-so-faceless) girls who get censure for their actions while the hero’s cachet is raised for doing the same thing?

Or, to paraphrase the words of a friend of mine, I don’t understand why a genre where books often hinge on a couple eventually having sex and enjoying it is so full of rampant slut shaming with a fixation on sexual purity. And I’m not trying to put Elle Kennedy specifically on blast just for her book’s blurb, because it’s a systemic problem in romance.

For example, Penny Reid’s Neanderthal Seeks Human has a heroine who organizes her comic books by how much they have been influenced by different waves of feminism, yet the protagonist refers to women who have had casual sex with the male hero as “slamps.” While it is somewhat balanced out by the fact that her friend who anchors the second book has a lot of casual sex and the heroine of this book gets called out for her attitude and says she doesn’t judge these women, it doesn’t change the fact the character used the word “slut” so often that she made up a slang term to allude to it. Using another word doesn’t change the meaning when the heroine thinks to herself, “I don’t want to be another of his slamps.” (Just like someone not using a slur when making a racist comment doesn’t change the racism. I believe the term d’art is “dog whistle.”) Or when the hero tries to “rescue” the heroine out of a nightclub because she’s “not like those girls.”

It is entirely possible to convey that the heroine is not interested in having sex casually in a non-slut-shamey way. Molly O’Keefe did it in Wild Child, Courtney Milan did it in Talk Sweetly To Me, Pamela Clare did it in Extreme Exposure and so on. You do it by not dragging other women down in comparison.

Let’s be clear that Neanderthal Seeks Human isn’t the only book that does it, but I’m singling it out because I read it in the last year and I hold books that make claims of feminism to a higher standard. The slut shaming in romance isn’t an isolated incident when it is literally more common than non-white heroes and heroines in mainstream romance.

TV Tropes houses this concept under Not Like Other Girls, which I think is often further emphasized in romance by the author also depicting almost all the major female characters as being a “bitch” or “slut” or some combination of both. And I understand. I used to be that girl too when I had no friends and escaped into reading books during recess and telling myself I was better than those girls anyway. After all, popular culture and certain YA novels taught me that, as someone who reads books and has quirky interests, all the hot men will eventually fall for my chasteness and intelligence and I shall inherit the earth (because obviously promiscuity and intelligence are mutually exclusive). Basically, I was a jerk, but I also grew up out of it by the time I was in high school and the romance genre as a whole should too.

When I talk up romance to friends, I always point them to authors I love, like Courtney Milan, Alisha Rai, Alyssa Cole, Lisa Kleypas, Loretta Chase and numerous others (all of whom SBTB introduced me to), but right now, when I look at the genre as a whole, I’m reminded of this College Humor parody where they make a Reddit themed cocktail with a giant piece of shit in it to symbolize all the racist and sexist subreddits and the man says, “Just ignore it, you’ll barely notice it.”

I wonder if I’m that man.

Thanks for reading this,
Linda

Amanda: I think I touched on this in my podcast with Sarah on Tinder & Dating, that sometimes romance novels can still have these more traditional views on sex: heroines are virgins or mostly inexperienced and the dude that gives them ALL THE ORGASMS is their true love.

And there’s also this weird test: sometimes a guy wants a girl who will sleep with them pretty soon (maybe they just want to get laid and there’s nothing wrong with that), but if I girl DOES sleep with them, then she’s somehow unworthy or less worthy of respect than if she had waited a few dates. This was my central issue with The Master by Kresley Cole. Hero hires an escort, which is a frequent thing he does. Heroine is an escort to make some extra cash, but this is her first night on the job. Hero doesn’t believe her and shames her for lying and then also slightly slut shames her because she’s an escort. WHAT.

A lot of that concept of women who are chaste being more valuable is reflected in romances and I get where Linda is coming from. It especially bothers me when it pits two women against one another. For me, a book will automatically get knocked down a grade if the only other women in the book (aside from the heroine) are used as competition to get the hero. Usually the “villain” woman is aggressive or overtly sexual, while the hero can’t help but be drawn to the heroine because of her sweet and possibly virgin qualities.

Unfortunately, I have no solutions on how to fix things. Just let my wallet do the talking.

Sarah: I am still thinking about Linda’s email, days after I read it. She’s right: for a genre that’s written for women, by women, about women, we often maintain very narrow, particular standards for women, especially heroines. I think those standards are changing, and there’s a lot more fluidity when it comes to heroine sexuality and the expression thereof, but still, slut shaming happens. And like Linda, I didn’t always see it until I saw it and connected those individual books to the larger pattern. For example: in a romance, a woman who behaves as if the hero is her possession and belongs to her is often the antagonist. But a male who behaves as if the heroine is his possession is more often the popular hero, specifically the alpha variety.

Romance has long prized virginity, which is itself a kind of sexual fetish. Somehow, there’s often an expectation that sex between the protagonists will be The Best Thing Ever With Waves, Shattering, and Possibly Explosions, because their status as Said Protagonists has to be reinforced and highlighted by Magical Sexxytimes. Whether it’s actual virginity, the absence of sexual experience, or something else standing in for virginity, such as a more different sexual act or sex without protection (which, no thank you), the sexxytimes must be singular and a pinnacle experience to underscore the unique and meaningful coupling of said couple.

Thinking about the way in which romance focuses on virginity, and the ways in which women who actively own their sexuality are portrayed in romance makes me sad. The happy-ever-after could be built on choice and recognition of sexual compatibility from both individuals, and not on overwhelming waves of orgasmic sexxytimes that have never crested that high before, or on the comparison between sexual initiation and sexual experience. Women who actively seek their own sexual satisfaction (and who don’t have it – ahem – thrust upon them) aren’t sluts or “other women” or the negative against which a protagonists can be judged positively. They’re normal.

This is another area in which the divide between Actual Reality and the Romance Version of Reality is wide and vast. In some ways, that distance between the two realities is funny, as Elyse mentioned in a recent podcast. In Reality, we have to brush our teeth in the morning before we kiss anyone, and people should pee after having sex. In Romance Reality, there’s no such thing as morning breath and no one gets a life-threatening UTI, ever, in any era. Sometimes those two realities are closer together, such as the way that Romance Reality values normal human emotions and vulnerabilities. Contrary to social expectations, human beings of all genders have feelings, and romance celebrates them.

In portrayals of characters with sexual agency, though, the distance between the two realities is disheartening for me. In Actual Reality, any character should be able to possess agency over their own sexuality without being judged for it. In Romance Reality, that doesn’t always happen, especially when an antagonist is used to highlight the virginal suitability of the protagonist.

What do you think? Have you noticed slut shaming in romances you’ve read? Do you think it’s an indelible part of the genre, or is it changing? What’s your take? 

Comments are Closed

  1. […] From Smart Bitches/Trashy Books: a little rant on slut shaming in romance. […]

  2. Yeah, sorry, I know I’ll be hated over this comment, but I’ll share my experiences anyway. I’m 48, never been married, so to say I have a lot of experience with various men is an understatement. If women choose to ignore the double standard of dating in society, that’s on them.

    There’s a reason ALL the relationship books state not to give it up too soon IF you want a serious relationship. Because it’s true. All the serious relationships I’ve been in were with men I knew for at least a couple of months before sleeping with them. I have never had anything come from men I’ve simply hooked up with.

    There IS a difference between the women who go out to bars and clubs dressed provocatively with the intention of going home with someone and those who don’t, and men recognize this. If a woman wants just sex, that’s fine. But then they can’t cry when the guy doesn’t want to see them again. And don’t be naive to the fact that men usually decide within the first minute of meeting a woman whether they’re a booty call or relationship potential.

    I’m not saying this double standard is right. But when you sleep with someone an hour after you meet them, where is the relationship to go from there? The man got what he wanted (and presumably the woman), he certainly doesn’t need to woo her anymore or get to know her, so he moves on to his next conquest.

    As long as the woman understands this and does the same, there’s no problem.

  3. JMM says:

    This “Not Like Other Women” BS is the main (not the only) reason I have stopped reading romances. Period.

  4. Victoriana says:

    @Tiffany Lol, “conquest”? What is this, the 18th century?? I would not consider any man who thought or spoke of me or any woman as a “conquest” as a person I would want to interact with on any level, for casual sex or a relationship. Sex is a mutual experience, not something the woman “gives up” for the man. And seriously why would a woman who hooks up for a night at a bar be looking for a long-term relationship any more than the man who hooks up with her there? Your post is chock full of internalized misogyny, so even if I wanted to waste time responding to all of it, I wouldn’t, but let me just say, any romance hero who talks, thinks, or speaks like this is not one I want to read about, nor is any heroine who talks/thinks like this about other women. And unfortunately far too many do, which just puts off me and many many other readers (as evidenced by the number of comments on this post and the dozens of discussions on the Amazon romance forums on this topic) from those books and authors. So authors, you decide, do you want to increase your readership, or shrink them? I know I’m not the only one who votes with their money.

  5. Squimbelina says:

    @Tiffany – this is why anecdote is not data – everyone’s experience differs. You may not have had a relationship without withholding sex for months, but my best friend has been married for the last fifteen years to a guy she slept with after they had drunk sex after meeting in a pub.

    I just think this attitude about men needing ‘conquest’ and to ‘woo’ is crazy. They aren’t a different species! It’s perfectly possible to meet someone, have sex, go ‘hey – that was fun, let’s do it again!’ and for it to develop into something more.

    Yes, there are repugnant attitudes out there (that whole thing with the alpha male and ‘game’ and how to manipulate women into sleeping with you? Ugh). But I really don’t think that’s the norm, at least not any more.

  6. Katie says:

    Not sure if anyone else reads Ask Polly on NYMag.com but today’s column is the real life example of why the “not like other girls” thought process is such a dangerous, slippery slope: http://nymag.com/thecut/2016/02/ask-polly-why-did-my-dream-man-dump-me.html

  7. Samantha Schafer says:

    I recently purchased a book that did this SO TERRIBLY in just the first few chapters that it left me physically uncomfortable. I literally sat staring, with my mouth gaping open, at the scene that I had just read. (Taste for Trouble by Susan Sey, so you can avoid this trauma I read.)

    So the premise of the book is: a wannabe Martha Stewart-esque TV host is hired to ‘reform’ this bad boy hockey player, for convoluted reasons. So she moves in with him and his two brothers (older bro is his manager, younger bro is his social media person).

    Anyway, Heroine has to escort Hero and company to an industry party. While there, brothers get drunk and basically harass this poor waitress. Younger brother swears he saw her at the strip club and she said she was leaving town so she wouldn’t give him her number. Older brother literally tries to pay her off.

    What makes it so incredibly disgusting is that, for some reason, this part is narrated(?) by the older brother’s internal dialogue, which is so just…ugh. He literally sees all women as bitches and sluts who try to sleep with him to get to his famous brother. The language he used not only made me uncomfortable, but it legitimately scared me. I thought, this is the kind of rhetoric that serial rapists/murderers use.

    AND THE HEROINE JUST LETS THEM ALL TREAT THIS OTHER WOMAN LIKE CRAP! Her main concern is simply getting everyone out so the media doesn’t find out. She has one passing thought of, ‘hmm, maybe I should make sure this girl didn’t get fired…tomorrow.”

    I didn’t even try to finish the book after this point.

    Oh, bonus? Shitty older brother gets his own book later in the series. It’ll take a goddamn miracle to ‘reform’ him.

Comments are closed.

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

↑ Back to Top