I like the Late, Late Show with Craig Ferguson on after Letterman on CBS. I stay up a lot of nights just to watch Ferguson vamp his way through whatever topic he's chosen to discuss--he doesn't script anything, just stands there and talks. And the other night (Tuesday, this week, to be exact) he was talking about pornography.
Mostly he discussed internet porn, but almost inevitably, when he went off on the tangent (his whole 'monologue' is pretty much one tangent after another) on the difference between porn for men and porn for women, he hit on that old saw about romance novels--"Anything with Fabio on the cover"--being porn for women.
Of course, Ferguson being on at 11:30 p.m. or later, depending on your time zone, I'm sure not many were watching, but still...there it was again. That old preconcieved notion.
And of course, I immediately started trying to come up with a rebuttal--not that I would ever get round to sending one. You notice I'm not even blogging about it here until the Second Day after he mentioned it. Anyway, I quickly ran into a wall. I wasn't sure how I wanted to rebut. (Is that a word?) Because the first thing I thought was: Romance novels are not porn for women.
We're not to the wall yet. That first thought led me to trying to define the difference between porn and romance. One of our lovely romance authors (and I would give her name if I could remember who it was) has said something to the effect that romance is about relationships, porn is about mechanics.
I think that's a pretty good definition. (Still not to the wall.) But, it's hard to deny that romance has sex in it, because romance is about romantic relationships, and sexual attraction, sexual tension and actual sexual activity is all wrapped up in those kinds of relationships. It's a big part. Which of course is how romance gets it's "porn for women" label.
Which leads at last to the wall. Because the second thing I thought was: So what?
There's a whole continuum of sexuality in romance novels, from nothing more than heated looks or chaste kisses to hot monkey sex whilst hanging from chandeliers. And that's before we get into the romantica and erotica and all the rest that's becoming so popular these days.
If a woman wants to read erotica--or anything else that's out there--why shouldn't she? It involves no one but the person who wrote it, and the person who's reading it. (Okay, there are editors and stuff, but still, while they're editing, you're still talking just two--one wrote, one's reading.) Mr. Ferguson said that he thinks sex should be "just a bit nasty, and private." How much more private can you get than you and a book?
Can we discuss this in a calm and reasonable manner? What's your opinion? Does it matter if people think of romance as 'porn for women'? Why?
Do you think we're going to get anyone to change his/her mind? If so, how?
2 comments:
Sure, it bothers me if people think romance is porn for women, but that means they haven't read any so they don't know what they're talking about and their ignorance is showing. In the last couple of weeks I've heard the terms "bodice ripper" and "trashy romance novel" used, so it seems useless to fight it. Besides, if it's a man who think romance if porn for women, then who cares what he thinks? He probably hasn't read any romance novels. Men are all about body parts and visuals anyway. But if it's a woman who think romance is porn for women, then that's something to maybe worry about, although again, it probably means she hasn't read many, if any at all. So who cares what she thinks? We can write until we drop dead and we aren't going to change the small minds of ignorant people.
I just roll my eyes and figure they haven't read enough romance to be a good enough judge, or the books they've read aren't illustrative of the diverse genre that IS romance.
Post a Comment