Stupid Mainstream Journalists Writing Dreck About Romances, continued

Yes, there are more silly articles continuing the summer fashion of mainstream journalists hating on romances. One from the LA Times claims romances are bad for women’s sexual health because they don’t show use of condoms. The comments rightly blast the study as 1) not recent (done in 2000), 2) including books published as long ago as 1981 (pre-AIDS), and 3) surveying only 78 college students (not the main bulk of romance readers or even a statistically valid sample). Other commenters throw the ball back to the article writer, pointing out the use of the outdated term "bodice ripper" (which correctly applies only to some historical romances published in the 1970s), and the contradictions between the article's beginning and its conclusion.

If that’s not enough, a British-written article in the Guardian quotes the same flawed outdated study and includes a patronizing suggestion that the lower class women who seek public health help are too stupid to know fiction from reality. It’s a shame mainstream journalists prefer to seek out ridiculous so-called professionals willing to pontificate on subjects they know nothing about. The comments on this one are priceless, well worth reading (unlike the article itself).

Some link back to high times at our beloved Smart Bitches Trashy Books, such as these laugh riot classics: The Playboy Sheikh’s Virgin Stable Girl and Pregnesia.

Do not drink any beverages while reading these, for you will spew.

Leave it to NPR online to publish a balanced, careful analysis of the study, pointing out in convincing detail all the scientific flaws, the prejudice against women, and the true ignorance the psychologist shows about romance fiction. In particular, the most telling part is her description of men asking women not to use a condom, and persuading them to have abortions. Huh? She's the one confusing romance fiction with romance reality, for the scenes she's talking about never take place in romances. They happen in real life.

Not to beat a dead horse here, but it's already hot enough outside in July. Do we need to be made hot under the collar by these continuous nonsense claims about romances? A tiny percentage of people even read one book a year, let alone one work of fiction. Psychologists need to look elsewhere for causation of society's ills, and let us lie back under the summer sun (well-protected by high SPF sunblock, of course) and enjoy reading our romances in peace.

No More Scarlet Letters

We all know the theme of The Scarlet Letter, the classic novel by Nathaniel Hawthorne, or think we do. It’s about a Puritan woman in 17th century Boston, who is punished by her community for having a child out of wedlock. Hester Prynne holds out, though, and will not name the father, and all kinds of complications ensue. The Puritans have been called the American Taliban; their extreme persecution of anyone who deviated from a joyless and seemingly pious existence is well known. Punishing a woman for having sex outside of marriage was all part of the program. It’s easy in a society that has no effective birth control to identify women who are having sex because usually women get pregnant as a result and thus cannot deny the evidence. Meanwhile, the men involved slink away. That’s why The Scarlet Letter is not a romance. In romances, men voluntarily own up to their love and their responsibilities. No wonder women prefer to read romances rather than classic American novels. Classics usually detail miserable situations that don’t end well. Romances can be miserable as the story develops, but they always end happily.

Writing in the 19th century, Hawthorne vividly describes how women are punished for having sex and men evade responsibility. The lover who won’t speak out and share the blame does a pretty good job of killing himself out of self-loathing, but he doesn’t want to lose the good opinion of his community and reveal what he really is. His hypocrisy (he’s a minister, the 19th century equivalent of a charismatic politician) and his cowardice don’t help the woman he seduced, who has a baby she can’t pretend does not exist. Hawthorne rings lots of changes on the complications of guilt, revenge, and most of all, social obloquy, which is why this novel still can speak to us today.

Blaming women for behavior engaged in by both sexes has substantially subsided in this country though it still exists. Only a few decades ago, women had to hide unmarried pregnancy. We’re not totally over that, but pregnant unwed girls no longer have to make long visits to some hitherto unknown “aunt” many states away, there to give birth in secret and give up their babies to adoption. Our society has at least evolved that far. The “secret baby” theme so popular in romance novels of recent years acknowledges how hard it is to be a single mother, and yet how right it is to keep one’s baby if one wants to, regardless of the circumstances of conception. We now face the problem that many men still do not own up to their moral responsibility in procreating. Today, a lot of men owe back child support, which is a scandal in itself. Too bad we can’t have those men wear scarlet letters. At least in romances, men are eager and loving fathers. No wonder we read romances. In romances, life goes right, and it’s important to note that life goes right for both women and men in these tales. They both end up happy, and that’s the true happy ending for which we all hope.