Men and the romance genre

[Spice_Weasel]

@jsgoddess

I had a male HS friend who loved reading romances. He was hilarious to talk to about them. He was always bitching about the heroes “My god! He’s disgusting! On page 32 he had lice! Just telling me that he got rid of them is not enough. I can’t read this!” That was about a book by, I think, Julie Garwood. He never finished it. But he definitely read others and we’d all argue about the relative merits of so-and-so hero and such-and-such heroine. Great fun.

That sounds awesome. I would definitely read more romance novels if I had someone to trash-talk them with. Most of them I end up skimming, not just for sex but the lynchpin moments, but god they are so predictable. It can be done well, but it just so rarely is. And stuff like 50 Shades of Grey I’ve been really tempted to read just for hilarity’s sake.

I also know at least one dude who loves romance. He recommended a romance movie to me the other day and my husband I were collectively unimpressed. But I love that he loved it, and he always has a way of explaining his love for things that makes you feel silly for not feeling the same way.

[kayaker]

The movie Same Time Next Year was released in 1978. It was the last “romance” movie I’ve seen. (I’m a male) When I think about why that is the case, the word “syrupy” springs to mind.

[MichaelEmouse]

1. socialization e.g.: even if* women are biologically more likely to take on nurturing roles, they get socialized into nurturing roles whereas men get socialized into other roles and many men would risk considerable status by being interested in it or it simply not be presented much to them. A girl being interested in boys’ stuff is a tomboy. A boy being interested in girls’ stuff is a sissy/wimp/target and upbringing can stay with people.

2. Perhaps what is thought of as romance is really romance aimed at a subset of women. This has two aspects: 2.1) If mostly appeals to women but that doesn’t mean it appeals to most women. E.g.: Twilight fans are majority female but it does not follow that most girls/women are fans of it. 2.2) It may be that men’s romance story needs are addressed in a way that is not usually thought of as romance (and I don’t mean porn). To take an analogous example: Ballet and dancing are mainly female interests yet if you look at kung fu/choreographed fighting movies, they resemble dancing. Same basic need but addressed in a different form.

3. Market share. If a majority of the people who want romance movies are women, it may not be worth it to make male-specific romance movies and they can just watch the ones made with women in mind. In the same way, I’m sure that there’s quite a few women who like action movies and perhaps they tend to have somewhat different preferences when it comes to action movies but it may not be worth it to make one specifically for women; they could just watch the ones made with men in mind.

*I said “if”.

[DrDeth]

@Shodan

Women don’t consume porn nearly as much as men (yes, yes, I know all the female Dopers are going to chime in with repeated posts about how they love porn, but they aren’t typical and most porn is for men and everybody knows it and I don’t need a damn cite),

Have you ever read a “bodice ripper romance”? It is porn. A lot of very explicit sex. Not as many four letter words used to describe it, but it’s porn.

[Spice_Weasel]

@Hector_St_Clare

Well, pregnancy is part of it, but I think the bigger problem was that (in many societies, historically) women could face a wide range of socially imposed penalties (up to death by stoning, in some cultures) for adultery and/or premarital sex.

Well, I sort of meant to imply those consequences were a lot easier to be punished for with objective evidence that you had sex - i.e. a baby. I think in the absence of birth control it was a lot easier for women to be ‘‘caught’’ doing these things.

[wonky]

@MichaelEmouse

2. Perhaps what is thought of as romance is really romance aimed at a subset of women. This has two aspects: 2.1) If mostly appeals to women but that doesn’t mean it appeals to most women. E.g.: Twilight fans are majority female but it does not follow that most girls/women are fans of it. 2.2) It may be that men’s romance story needs are addressed in a way that is not usually thought of as romance (and I don’t mean porn). To take an analogous example: Ballet and dancing are mainly female interests yet if you look at kung fu/choreographed fighting movies, they resemble dancing. Same basic need but addressed in a different form.

The rest of your post is also good, but I wanted to highlight this part. I agree. I think the target is absolutely a subset of women. It’s a fairly sizable subset, and the subset is not uniform or without a lot of cynicism and introspection, but it’s a subset.

[Spice_Weasel]

@jsgoddess

The rest of your post is also good, but I wanted to highlight this part. I agree. I think the target is absolutely a subset of women. It’s a fairly sizable subset, and the subset is not uniform or without a lot of cynicism and introspection, but it’s a subset.

I’m curious what that subset would be.

I think it can’t also be ignored that women read more novels than men, period. A Doper recently posted this figure - men only make up 20% of the fiction market.

[wonky]

@Spice_Weasel

I’m curious what that subset would be.

I just mean it as “Women who read romance novels” is a subset of “Women who read novels” which is a subset of “Women who read.”

I wasn’t trying for any demographic designation, like likely to be white, with kids, aged 28 to 42.

Though I have wondered before if there is any cause and effect in my lack of interest in romance generally and my lack of interest in other stereotypically girly pursuits. Or maybe a correlation. Or maybe I’m on crack.

[Shodan]

@DrDeth

Have you ever read a “bodice ripper romance”? It is porn. A lot of very explicit sex. Not as many four letter words used to describe it, but it’s porn.

The point is that it includes elements (the “romance” part of the title) that make it attractive to women. Those elements are absent from male-oriented porn, which is why male-oriented porn is never described in terms of its romance elements.

“Love’s Stormy Surrender” is a different kind of production from “Anal Schoolgirls”.

Regards,
Shodan

I made the titles up. So sue me.

[Spice_Weasel]

@jsgoddess

I just mean it as “Women who read romance novels” is a subset of “Women who read novels” which is a subset of “Women who read.”

I wasn’t trying for any demographic designation, like likely to be white, with kids, aged 28 to 42.

Though I have wondered before if there is any cause and effect in my lack of interest in romance generally and my lack of interest in other stereotypically girly pursuits. Or maybe a correlation. Or maybe I’m on crack.

I only meant I was curious what percentage of the general population of women actually read romance novels. My Google-fu is weak today.

I’m not interested in most stereotypically girly pursuits either, but I’m also not sure I’d say I’m interested in romance as a genre, except to write it. It’s weird. I can list a handful of romance movies I’ve loved, but I do not go out of my way to see them. The only romance book I can list is Shards of Honor.

[wonky]

@Spice_Weasel

I only meant I was curious what percentage of the general population of women actually read romance novels. My Google-fu is weak today.

I’m not interested in most stereotypically girly pursuits either, but I’m also not sure I’d say I’m interested in romance as a genre, except to write it. It’s weird. I can list a handful of romance movies I’ve loved, but I do not go out of my way to see them. The only romance book I can list is Shards of Honor.

Good book.

These are the only stats I see: http://eweb.rwanational.org/eWeb/dynamicpage.aspx?webcode=StatisticsReader

I also found an article with this interesting quote:

Romance novels are attractive not just because they are a gratifying escape but also because they sometimes feel like a respite from from the significant hostility that a lot of literature shows women.

As Maria Bustillos put it in a 2012 essay, even when they are limited by the periods in which they are written, “Romance novels are feminist documents. They’re written almost exclusively by women, for women, and are concerned with women: their relations in family, love and marriage, their place in society and the world, and their dreams for the future.”

I had thought about commenting earlier that romance novels are one of the few genres that is generally from a female POV (the others are cozy mysteries and often urban fantasies).

[Hello_Again]

@jsgoddess

Women are given kudos for being pretty, so “female” romance books are often all about how pretty the heroine is and how she doesn’t have to do anything else. .

This literally could not be less true. The heroine of a romance novel is generally attractive, but the novel’s plot centers around her capability, emotional and sexual growth, and ability/resourcefulness to resolve difficulties with or without the partnership of the hero.

I reject categorically the proposition that “pretty and passive” is the demeanor of the majority of romance heroines or that any of the most popular authors use this approach. If the heroine starts that way, she learns over the course of the book its the absolute wrong way to be, and is more valued for her later uppityness/capability than she was for her earlier passivity. If you have an example of a modern bestselling romance novel (written after 1980) in which the plot centers on a woman who earns love over the course of the book by being pretty and passive, I’d like to know the title.

The simple answer is a 100% social-cultural one: hetero men don’t read romance novels because they don’t need to experience simulated nurturing or appreciation. They’re nurtured by the women in their lives and their contributions are generally recognized as valuable in the real world.

[Spice_Weasel]

@jsgoddess

Good book.

These are the only stats I see: http://eweb.rwanational.org/eWeb/dynamicpage.aspx?webcode=StatisticsReader

I also found an article with this interesting quote:

I had thought about commenting earlier that romance novels are one of the few genres that is generally from a female POV (the others are cozy mysteries and often urban fantasies).

Now THAT is an interesting insight. I never thought about it that way.

[Hello_Again]

@jsgoddess

I had thought about commenting earlier that romance novels are one of the few genres that is generally from a female POV (the others are cozy mysteries and often urban fantasies).

Also untrue. Romance novels normally devote 1/3 to 1/2 to the male POV. It would be extremely unusual for a romance novel not to include substantial portions in the male POV.

[Thudlow_Boink]

Not long ago I was looking around to see if there were any “romance novels for men,” and I didn’t really come up with much. And yet, “Boy meets girl; boy loses girl; boy gets girl” is a well-known cliché of a formula.

[Voyager]

I don’t read them, but in my understanding the viewpoint character of a romance novel is almost always the woman. Mean certainly read novels with female viewpoint characters, but that the woman’s goal is romance makes me think these would be relatively less appealing.

Here is a good test: are there gay romance novels? If there are, they would be from the male point of view and show that there is nothing particularly feminine about romance. If not, there might be some sex-based barriers.

[Maggie_the_Ocelot]

@Voyager

I don’t read them, but in my understanding the viewpoint character of a romance novel is almost always the woman. Mean certainly read novels with female viewpoint characters, but that the woman’s goal is romance makes me think these would be relatively less appealing.

Here is a good test: are there gay romance novels? If there are, they would be from the male point of view and show that there is nothing particularly feminine about romance. If not, there might be some sex-based barriers.

I was about to comment on this aspect!! Yeas, there is a growing market for m/m romance novels. HOWEVER - they are almost all written by women, for women.

[Spice_Weasel]

@Voyager

Here is a good test: are there gay romance novels? If there are, they would be from the male point of view and show that there is nothing particularly feminine about romance. If not, there might be some sex-based barriers.

Yes, there absolutely are. Many of them written by women, about men.

[wonky]

@Hello_Again

This literally could not be less true. The heroine of a romance novel is generally attractive, but the novel’s plot centers around her capability, emotional and sexual growth, and ability/resourcefulness to resolve difficulties with or without the partnership of the hero.

I find that rarely to be the case. Most of the ones I’ve encountered have women who are pretty, often incredibly, indescribably beautiful, but who have something “wrong” with them in a societal sense. The hero sees her, becomes smitten, and off they go.

Sometimes they are only incredibly, indescribably beautiful in one aspect, and sometimes they are incredibly beautiful but strangely no one can see it but the hero. Or you might get a librarian taking her glasses off transformation moment.

Even in a book like The Lass Wore Black where the heroine was badly scarred in an accident and wears a veil that obscures her face, it turns out the hero saw her when she was younger and oh, she’s not quite as badly scarred as you might have thought.

[Maggie_the_Ocelot]

Question for the men who have been participating - what genre would you put Brokeback Mountain into? Because it is IMO totally a romance (though one that doesn’t end with the couple together.)