First contact: 1) The heroine’s POV

Inspired by Jay Kristoff’s guest entry @YA Highway about writing outside your gender, I decided to examine how well (or not) modern romance authors dealt with differences between the heroine’s point of view and the hero’s. I specifically intended to question the part concerning “how we perceive the opposite gender”.

Now, I’m not denying there is a difference, let alone that these differences have frozen into well-oiled stereotypes… For example, as you will notice in the examples below, it’s true that female writers are obsessed with eyes. Even when they can’t tell the colour, they have to say so, or take a guess at it. But the fact remains for me―and authors should think about it when they write, rather than head straight to cliches―that your heroine ought to notice first whatever’s most striking about your hero: eyes usually work if the heroine sees him close up, but not all beautiful men need special or beautiful eyes.

But before I say more, let’s have some fun… (The books were chosen randomly among titles I liked.)

His gaze was cold and grim, and it sent frightening impressions running through her head.
Gray eyes so pale they were almost silver. Eyes that knew no mercy.
Crisp brown hair whose tendency to curl hadn’t quite been tamed by a no-nonsense cut. A man who made his own rules and answered to no one.
Hard muscle and sinewy strength. A physical animal.
Brutal cheekbones and a ruthless jaw. No softness there. Not even a speck of the gentler emotions. This man was a conqueror, designed by nature to make war.

- Nobody’s Baby But Mine, Susan Elizabeth Phillips (Avon, 1997)

That’s beginning with gusto! So, I love SEP’s stories and writing. And what’s funniest in that excerpt is that the whole description actually serves, even more than to tell us how hot the hero looks, to create tension in the scene, make the heroine’s expectations clash as harshly as possible with reality, and explain the absolute, hilarious awkwardness that follows… Don’t take it literally.

With his tie loosened and the top button of his white shirt undone, long sleeves rolled halfway up his forearms, Annie’s new boss―and her brother’s best friend from their high school days―was scary handsome. With his thick dark hair, deep brown eyes, and that face like a movie star, he was TDH to the max.

- Force of Nature, Suzanne Brockmann (Ballantine Books, 2007)

TDH = Tall, Dark and Handsome

Forearms… *drools*

He was a tall, long-limbed young man, she saw in the ample light from the window. And very blond. He was probably blue-eyed too, though there was not quite enough light to enable her to verify that theory. She could see quite enough of him, though, to guess that he was by far too handsome for his own good.

- Slightly Scandalous, Mary Balogh (Dell, 2003)

A little change of tone for this historical romance… But of course, she notices his general stature before she tries and guess at his eye colour, since that’s what we usually do when we see someone for the first time.

He was wearing a biker jacket in spite of the heat, and his long legs were covered in leather as well. He had steel-toed shitkicker boots on, and he moved like a predator.
Beth craned her neck to look up at his face.
God, he was gorgeous.
His jaw was a straight shot of bone, his lips full, the hollows under his cheeks casting heavy shadows. His hair was straight and black, falling to his shoulders from a widow’s peak, and he had the shadow of a dark beard.

- Dark Lover, J. R. Ward (Signet, 2005)

Personal taste: I’m not a fan of Ward’s vampires’ looks. I cannot for the life of me imagine a man being gorgeous who’s huge (height-wise, not… you know, although of course this one hero is both) and without body hair (which we learn when he undress). Very tall guys just don’t do it for me, nor does hairlessness. That’s why, maybe, you shouldn’t always be too specific, and rather leave details to the reader’s imagination.

Her first impression of the man had been fragmented. Compelling eyes, fair coloring, a well-shaped, mobile mouth. It wasn’t until she stepped away that she realized he was the handsomest man she had ever seen. His longish hair shimmered with every blond shade from gilt to dark gold, and the bone structure or his face make angels weep with envy.

- Angel Rogue, Mary Jo Putney (Topaz, 1990)

The heroine meets the hero by falling on top of him. Which explains that her first impression of him focuses on his face.

Besides being even more handsome than she had thought, he was at least six feet three inches tall, broad shouldered and athletically muscular. His thick dark hair was coffee brown, beautifully cut and styled. Masculine strength was carved into every feature of his proud profile, from the straight dark brows to the arrogant jut of his chin and jaw. His mouth was firm, but sensually molded.

- Double Standards, Judith McNaught (Pocket Books, 1984)

Save from the 6’3″ cliche (really? who actually likes tall men?), this passage nails it for me. From the general (height, build, body type) to the particular (brows, jaw, mouth), and more evocative than purely descriptive. The readers are left to imagine for themselves what a “proud profile” looks like, or “beautifully cut and styled hair”. I guess each person has their own notion of what that may mean.

At first glance, he was an average looking, a mild-mannered, dark-haired, Clark Kent kind of guy with horn-rimmed glasses in a beat-up nothing-colored jacket; the only notable thing about him was Andrew’s “Bitch” baseball cap that he’d swiped from her back at Clea’s.
On second glance, the glint in his eye and the set of his jaw made her twitch.

- Faking It, Jennifer Crusie (St. Martin’s Press, 2002)

Another favourite of mine. A description that practically tells you more about the heroine than the hero she’s looking at. In the end, we don’t have a very clear image of what he looks like, but more of what she sees in him, what she likes about him.

Handsome, too. Tall, although not overly so, with warm brown hair and a rather pleasing smile. And a twinkle in his eyes as well, the color of which she couldn’t quite determine in the dim night air.

- On the Way to the Wedding, Julia Quinn (Avon, 2006)

Typical Quinn. The recognition (that the hero’s hot) is instantaneous, but measured. We’re in a Regency world, after all, so you couldn’t get away with things like, “What a sexy beast!” I also like that this author plays with two levels of handsomeness: the objective one, which is immediately apparent but in itself never enough to fall for, and the subjective, passionate one the characters acquire as their feelings develop.

So how do you like that? Overdose of supremely handsome men? But that’s the stuff heroes are made of, you know… I was reminded while compiling these excerpts of a jeering comment made on some MMA blog about Lori Foster’s description of her hero in one of her SBC Fighters books. Men, or any kind of ignorant people will thus often trash romance under the pretext that it’s mushy/syrupy. As if. Scared of a woman who knows what she likes, guys? Scared of a woman who calls a penis a penis? Scared of a woman who judges a man by looks? Who’s the mushiest gender now?


Since I brought up the topic of MMA, here’s a telling example: over a week ago, Strikeforce featured the women’s title fight in bantamweight division (126-135 pounds), and while my boyfriend was trying to defend women’s MMA to his friend, the latter seemed more interested in debating on how “pretty” Coenen and Tate were (or weren’t). Unfortunately, I think it’s an accepted fact that men will always issue a judgement of the opposite sex’s appearance, no matter their position or the context, while they’re used to women not commenting men’s looks nearly so much. The irony is that when we do, men call us “women” and claim not to understand all this stupid romantic stuff… Next time I catch my guy friends discussing who’s hot and who’s not, I’ll be sure to laugh at their corny, sentimental souls.

What makes a good hero description? Do you believe that there are general rules of what a woman sees first in a man? What do you think of the handsome hero stereotype?


Double Standards, by Judith McNaught (review)

I officially love Judith McNaught (at least her contemporary romance). Which will not deter me from criticizing her. As a matter of fact, I suspect that I love her writing even more because I know I love it in spite of everything that riles me about it. McNaught doesn’t rub me the right way. And yet, I still get caught up in her stories and feel for her characters and know exactly what she’s talking about. At the same time as she defends opinions which I strongly disagree with, she manages to write the love stories that are closest to my heart and my experience, to tell me all over again how I fell in love. Hell, gimme more.

Self-made multimillionaire playboy CEO Nick Sinclair falls in love with small-town, virginal secretary Lauren Danner. Welcome to Ms. McNaught’s world! I don’t even know why I like it. And in a way, I don’t. I’d like to convince you that this isn’t what the novel is about, that the jet set gatherings, designer clothes, jewelry and charity balls are only there for show, for fun, kind of like reading about the gowns the princess wears in a fairytale… But that’s not even what irked me. What did are the infamous “double standards” the title tells of. You’d expect in a romance novel written by a woman, such a title announces the questioning, ridiculing and final destruction of said double standards. You’d expect the author to be in earnest when she puts the words in her hero’s mouth:

We don’t want or expect a woman to be inexperienced. We’re liberated too, you know. You have the same physical desires I do, Lauren, and you have the right to satisfy them with whomever you wish.

- Double Standards, Judith McNaught (Pocket Books, 1984)

Sadly, double standards are here reduced to an accessory device for the love story. We soon find out that the hero’s liberated view on female desire only betrays the fact that he has never loved a woman, and that the double standards he eventually pulls on Lauren are the sure sign of his true love for her. Because a man who loves you only wants you for himself. And a woman who’s worthy of love talks like this:

I can’t handle casual, indiscriminate sex, and what’s more, I don’t like people who can―people like you! [...]
I can’t detach my emotions from my body, hop into bed and have a wonderful time, and then forget about it. I’d want you to care, and I’d care.

- Double Standards, Judith McNaught (Pocket Books, 1984)

from the Delhi (India) Slutwalk

Now let’s get this straight: I’m all for exclusive relationships, fidelity, and emotional involvement. Not even because I think it’s right, but because that’s the way I happen to be and feel; pretty much like Lauren Danner, you could say. That’s what makes me even more furious. How people like Judith McNaught can (seem to) separate and oppose, virginity/fidelity/emotions/love on the one hand, and experience/promiscuity/sex drive/indifference on the other! What if a person has been committed and faithful to every single person they’ve been with, except they’ve been with several over time? It happens to women just as much as to men.

But much more importantly, casual or uncommitted sex never has to mean it’s indiscriminate or emotionless. You can care a lot, and adore a person for who they are, (and both be single and horny,) without wanting to settle down and start a family with them―which for me is the only reason why you would ever commit. Just because you’re going to have more lovers than husbands doesn’t imply you’re ready to welcome the whole world in your bed! The suggestion of which is so stupid, so absurd, so insulting, so degrading and misogynistic it should never cross any sensible person’s mind. Just because I can handle uncommitted sex doesn’t mean that I’m an easy lay, or that I don’t have feelings!

And don’t you dare tell me that I brought it upon myself. When I hear people say, “Men will respect you more if you don’t have sex too easily,” I think of two things: 1) Such men have serious respect issues and I want nothing whatsoever to do with those woman-hating jerks; 2) Who defines what “easily” is? Do you calculate it in terms of days you’ve known the guy, proofs of love he’s given you, or intensity of your own feelings? If you think I have sex “easily”, you can go talk to all the guys I’ve turned down and ask them how “easy” they think I am… I’m going to be a little nasty, but: before you go about congratulating yourself on how hard you are to get, think of how many men/women have actually made a sincere effort to “get” you. It’s easy to be a virgin when there’s nobody (good enough) to give your virginity to.

[/rant] And yet I loved Double Standards. Well, yes, because if you forget about the sly and, after all, incidental implications of Lauren and Nick’s quarrel over how to handle sex, then I fully and delightfully believe in McNaught’s contemporary love stories. They are the irrefutable argument against all the trash talk that wants to portray romance fiction as an unrealistic, distorted take on love promoting dissatisfaction in real life*. Case in point: there are so many uncanny common points between my own story and Nick and Lauren’s, starting with the main plot itself…

Woman looking for a serious relationship and a family meets womanizing man who won’t promise her more than a casual affair. Woman falls for man and contrives to make man fall for her. She succeeds, happy ever after, the end. Reading McNaught for me is like reading about us, and I never get tired of it. On top of that, I must give her credit for objectively mastering the art of twisting, wrenching and cajoling a reader’s heart. Although her stories are quite predictable, especially once you’ve read a few, somehow it doesn’t stop me from discovering each new one with the enthusiasm and anxiety of the first time. Another evidence that experience and knowledge do not “spoil” anything that’s truly worthwhile…

Since I’m on that again, I’d like to clarify one last thing regarding my stance towards sex. I’ve just expressed my support for a feminist friend’s opinion against prostitution on her Facebook wall. Just because I defend women’s sexual freedom and the equality of women’s sexual desires with men’s, doesn’t make me unaware of the pernicious, unwanted effects a certain kind of sexual liberation has on women. “Is women’s sexual liberation meant to actually free women, or to free men of guilt?” I said. Sexual liberation hardly helps us if it only consists in turning old taboos into new trends, instead of analysing what these taboos meant and implied, and going from there to build a whole new set of values for women and men‘s sexuality.

“[...] You said there was nothing promiscuous about a woman satisfying her biological―”
“I know what I said, dammit!”
“Then why do you look so angry? You didn’t lie to me, did you?”
“I didn’t lie,” he said, slamming the bottle onto the bar and reaching for a glass from the cabinet. “I believed it at the time.”
“Why?” she goaded.
“Because it was convenient to believe it,” he bit out.

- Double Standards, Judith McNaught (Pocket Books, 1984)

This is where, perhaps, Ms. McNaught almost redeems herself. It was convenient for Nick to believe that women were naturally as eager for sex as he was, because it spared him the trouble to wonder what they actually wanted, and made it possible for him to do whatever he liked without feeling responsible or guilty. If women’s liberation means that men can go on wanting what they’ve always wanted, except women now have to want it too, then it’s no liberation at all. Women’s true liberation―and in that way perhaps Double Standards can still claim to a slight tinge of feminism―means that it’s now up to women to set the rules, and to men to respect them.

How do you feel about Judith McNaught’s books? Is modern romance’s treatment of sex satisfying for women? Are you as happy as a McNaught heroine?

* Thanks to the Modern Princesses for the link: Romance novels can be as addictive as pornography (Caution! BS inside)


Sex on the first date

The truth was that she wanted him. And he wanted her. They both knew it.

- Perfect, Judith McNaught (Pocket Books, 1993)

Though virginity remains a key concept in much modern romance, you’ll often find the paradoxical cliche of a life-changing sex encounter. In other words, falling in love, as much where the heroine as the hero is concerned, often comes after making love. From a purely logical viewpoint, it is hard to reconcile with the idea of saving oneself for the right one, and if I have to choose, I’d pick the second proposition any day. In the real world of actual experience, the feeling of “the right one” does usually dawn on you after sex―not before.

First of all, slight digression: I don’t have a problem with casual sex, one-night stands and fuck friends type relationships. In truth, it kind of bugs me when people see sex as the simple consequence of lust, and therefore judge all “uncommitted” sex as the plain unwillingness or inability to reign in one’s lusts. Not only do I claim that there are many other, more spiritual reasons to have sex than lust, but I also must point out that there is a huge gap between consenting to sex and having one’s lust out of control. It’s not like we immediately have to jump anyone who stirs in us the faintest trace of desire… Even people who go for casual sex know the place and time, and are capable of being faithful. Abstinence to me is pretty much like fasting: I certainly don’t think it’s wrong or ridiculous, but I’m not sure what sense it makes as a permanent lifestyle.

However, digression over, this post will focus on serious relationships and commitments. When you’re debating within yourself whether to consider a relationship as serious, and whether to commit, you need to know the other person well, and to know yourself well too: what you like, what you want, how you respond to who the other person is. I don’t think anyone will argue with that. So, in my opinion, there is just one way to know someone, and test your own reactions. You thought I was going to say sex? I was only going to say any extreme or intimate situation. But since most of such situations won’t happen except rarely, you’d either have to wait a very long time, or… sex. Sex is the simplest, most immediate, quickest and safest way to get to know someone behind the facade.

The title of this blog takes me back to the matter of dates, which I feel, perhaps wrongly, are a very cultural thing. A North American thing, to be specific. Not that I have never gone on dates while I lived in Europe, but I don’t think I have ever had sex with anyone who’s asked me on a date. In my experience, dates happen when nothing else is happening, namely no conversation, no spark, no mutual interest. The second reason why I distrust dates is that they show you everything but the real person. Someone who’s asking you on a date is probably making an effort, and whatever they will try in order to enchant you that night won’t reflect what they are like in everyday life. The reasons why people are so hard to read in social or well-defined contexts can be traced to three types of behaviour:

Avril Lavigne in her Don't Tell Me vid

1) The consummate, manipulative charmer who only wants to get in your pants. They aren’t always that easy to spot, especially if you are inexperienced and have low self-esteem issues. They will normally leave you alone when they see they can’t have you, but that might come as a nasty surprise if you’ve had enough time to fantasize about your new admirer… (Avril Lavigne might think of Don’t Tell Me as an empowering song, but she still sounds pretty pissed off, and rightly so.) Give him what he wants the first night and he’ll tell you everything before you can work up any silly dream in your romantic head. Before you can get hurt.

2) The guy for whom gallantry has become second nature. He’s not as hypocritical and goal-driven as the first type, so it can last reaaally long before either of you finds out what the other one actually is like and wants. Having preconceived ideas about what a woman needs and wishes for tells little about what respect he feels for you as an individual, though. Get it over with and see what he’s truly ready to give, before he captures enough of your heart to break it.

Romeo + Juliet movie, 1996

3) The creepy weirdo who’s learnt enough social conventions and manners to present a neutral appearance in public. Everybody actually has quirks and bad habits, and we’re all hiding them behind what is considered the socially acceptable norm. Win an entry to his bed and to hide he will be able no more, before you fancy yourself in love with a person who doesn’t exist.

Notes: these are ideal types, and people won’t always be so bad as what I described, or they’ll be a mix of the three. But really transparent types seldom exist, and it’s probably better that way, for social order’s sake. More importantly, these scenarios only apply to people you feel attracted to; so when I say, “give him what he wants”, it also translates as, “get what you want from him”. If you’re not attracted to someone, we’re not even having this discussion: forget it entirely. You can develop a lot of things for someone, including friendly or sisterly love, but sexual attraction? Just don’t count on it.

Sex tells you everything you need to know about a person, and I don’t mean whether he gives good or bad sex―that is completely irrelevant. Being literally, physically naked makes it that much harder for a person to pretend. And seeing another person naked forces you to deal with them in ways otherwise honest, too. Love is not a feeling for gala days. Love is a feeling for better and for worse, for the stark naked, imperfect truth. The way someone makes love to you will tell you more about who they are than months, perhaps years of going out and talking will do. Which is why I’m just saying: if you don’t want to fall in love with the wrong person and have your heart broken to pieces, have sex with them first.

© Andrzej Tylkowski

I’ve put this blog under the “Faith” category because all in all, the subject matter is mainly spiritual and metaphysical. ;) My vision of sex explains why I think it’s difficult to keep ex-boyfriends as regular friends: you know them a little too well, and not in a good way (since it didn’t work out). It also explains why I believe that no matter how old, deep, long-lasting and open a friendship is, it never quite matches carnal knowledge. I guess I write romance for this reason: sexual love is the supreme relationship, far exceeding biology and contract alike.

Do you think that people would be luckier in love if they cared more about the sexual part of it? Does your experience validate or invalidate my theory? Is there any theoretical downside to safe, consensual sex that you can think of? (Because I can’t.)


Sexual division of labor in modern romance

I didn’t expect to be writing about that this week, but the reminder of romance clichés in the Modern Princesses’ blog about Beyond Heaving Bosoms, combined with the two first short stories of the contest on LesRomantiques.com, brought about this interrogation. Indeed, modern romance is full of dukes, earls or uncommonly wealthy commoners, of sheiks and billionaires and successful businessmen. That’s for heroes. Heroines, on the other hand, are much more ordinary people: employees, subordinates, freelancers. Thank God we see more and more businesswomen, as well as heiresses in historicals, but that cannot hide the general pattern that tends to place men in positions at least as powerful as women.

In Remember When, by Judith McNaught, the main female character is “an executive with a large and growing corporation”. An inspiring role model, huh? But of course her male counterpart then had to be “the aggressive, enigmatic entrepreneur who had made history by putting together a very large, very profitable conglomerate before he was thirty years old.” It wouldn’t do to have the man appear socially inferior to the woman. Although the author gives a surprisingly standpoint feminist reason for that:

“I thought women were more interested these days in discovering how high they can climb on the corporate ladder.”
“We are, but unlike men, we’re learning early that we can’t define ourselves by our success or lack of it at work. We want more from life than that, and we have more to give than that.”

- Remember When, Judith McNaught (Pocket Books, 1996)

It sounds almost like an argument by Lynne Farrow, which I had hated back when I’d first read it:

Observing and evaluating life routines must be the occupation of the comparatively idle, those with less responsibilities, i.e., men. Similarly, an old joke points at the delusionary importance men invest their work with: the head of the family reports to his friends, “I make the big decisions in the family like whether Red China should be admitted to the UN and my wife makes the small ones like if we need a new car and what school the kids should go to.”

- “Feminism as anarchism”, Lynne Farrow (Quiet Rumours: An Anarcha-Feminist Reader)

There is, however, a very real tension for women between the refusal of their traditional roles on the basis of equality, and their natural distrust of men’s world: a world which has been built in exclusion of women, and is thus by definition hostile to us. I think Top Girls showed this paradox very clearly: how the feeling of power which derives from being “as good as men” combines with the feeling of defeat at becoming as bad as them. At some point Joyce sarcastically tells her sister something along the lines of: Would you have supported Hitler if he had been a woman, Hitlerina? Men’s world is based on exclusion and domination; can we realistically end the exclusion of women and their domination by men without transforming the world in the same move?

Feminism doesn’t mean female corporate power or a woman President; it means no corporate power and no Presidents.

- “Anarchism: The Feminist Connection”, Peggy Kornegger (The Second Wave, 1975)

When I started seriously reading romance, I had the vague and spontaneous intuition that the general social and professional inferiority heroines were kept in was feeding sexism and misogyny. Though no explicit message usually goes with it, the pattern seems to encourage women to put aside their personal ambition, and instead satisfy their aspiration for a good life through finding a husband with a well-paid job and an enviable status. I longed to see more heroines do well by themselves, heroines for whom marrying the man would improve nothing in terms of wealth, standing or power.

But then I had second thoughts. What if the poor-girl-marries-the-prince plots were a women’s invention, the only way for them to be loved for who they are, and nothing else? If you look at fairy tales in their original versions, the heroines who get to marry the prince are always princesses themselves, or at least noblewomen, whatever temporary state of destitution events have forced them into. I am sorry to say that stories featuring a richer, better-off and more beautiful woman are overwhelmingly fantasized and written by men, and why doubt it? Men always think they deserve the best, never mind all the poor, plain and awkward girls out there.

I was quite struck by Liz’s Open Letter to “Nice Guys” of the World, not least because I feel I have personally experienced that sort of veiled, twisted misogyny. Women are insensitive and shallow for not going for the “nice”, shy, unpopular guys, while it’s only fair for men to hit on us because we have nice hair, legs or butt. Or because we have money, connections and success. Where I’m getting at is, although I’ll welcome a greater diversity and equality in the main protagonists’ professions (female nannies and secretaries don’t turn me on, neither do corporate guys)―a process which might actually already be underway―I think it’s modern romance’s job to make sure that women in literature continue to get disinterested loving from men who are worth the big trouble of matrimony.

Do you find modern romance belittling to women in its gendered choice of careers? Have you read romance novels which turned the power relation upside down in a successful manner? (Off the top of my head: The Merchant’s Gift, by Julia London; The Charmer, by Madeline Hunter, The Girl with the Golden Gun, by Ann Major; First Lady, by SEP; Black Rose, by Nora Roberts…)


Virginity in the romance genre

As a follow-up to last week’s Opinion Blog, I wanted to go back on romance’s treatment of virginity. On her blog [ClitLit], Jodi makes accurate and interesting feminist analyses of the symbolic meaning behind the virgin status of heroines, in contrast with a hero whose virility depends on a vast experience in sexual matters. While her observations apply to many books, mainly within “category romance”*, they cannot be generalized to the entirety of what I call modern romance. In short, I’ll explain in this entry how I manage to reconcile my view of virginity as a sexist and heterosexist concept with my romance reading habits.

First of all, not all romance heroines are virgins, especially in contemporary stories. I will confess straight away that contemporary virgin heroines bug me, unless the author gives us a realistic, valid reason for it. In True Blood (adapted from Charlaine Harris’s novels), Sookie’s youth and her paranormal ability to hear people’s thoughts can both be considered as convincing justifications for her lack of sexual experience. In Beyond the Highland Mist, though, the issue is never tackled and thus left unsolved, to the reader’s great frustration. How come Adrienne, who is exceptionally beautiful and has even been engaged, is still a virgin?

The only reason I can think of is not nearly good enough for me, but at least may claim to avoid the sexist label. If I haven’t yet explicitly stated it, I’ll say again that romance is fundamentally idealistic (certainly an aspect worth confronting with the genre’s more realistic, “conservative” side). By that I mean that the good guys win, the bad guys lose, and genuine love is rewarded. In this perspective, the heroine’s virginity doesn’t imply her “purity” and ignorance so much as her good luck at finding the right man and orgasming the first time. It’s a woman’s fantasy, let’s not forget it.

And in the same vein, the hero is only experienced in so far as it ensures that he knows how to make the heroine climax, ie how to behave for her benefit. I am persuaded that a lot of men’s fantasies equally include a very experienced, very knowledgeable and capable female lover; simply because there is, at the core of every one of us, a desire to put ourselves in somebody else’s hands and let go, to be “served” and merely enjoy it. That’s fair enough, I suppose, but I do have a problem when this theme is too present in any novel. I have always loved reading because I could find strength and reason in books; impossible fantasies only appeal to me when they are overcome and demystified.

In historical romance, the heroine’s virginity bothers me a lot less, since I see it as a concession to earlier times’ customs, for realism’s sake. I have, in fact, been surprised at how little historical romance writers seem to value virginity, even when the historical setting would be a perfect pretext to glorify it. For starters, historical romance heroines lose their virginity before marriage way more often than not. When you know that there are still many people in today’s world who refuse premarital sex, this assuredly means something.

Talking about which, even in Judith McNaught’s Perfect, whose heroine is a minister’s virgin daughter, the happy ending seems to shed a positive light on the whole idea of sleeping with a near-stranger. Lust will conquer all… The explanation which is later given for premarital abstinence has nothing to do with any sort of purity whatsoever:

“I’m blushing, my talkative wife, because I’m remembering what was the longest, most painful month of my life and at the memory of what our wedding night was like as a result of one month’s abstinence.”
“It was beautiful,” she argued. “Special―like the very first time for both of us. [...]“

- Perfect, Judith McNaught (Pocket Books, 1993)

From personal experience, first time sex after a substantial interruption can indeed be pretty good, in a not-quite-holy sense… no comparison with the actual “first time” or “deflowering” (how I hate this word!).

But back to my historical heroines. Lisa Kleypas, whom I reviewed on Monday, is a very good example of a romance author who doesn’t regard virginity as sacred at all―one of the many reasons why I enjoy her writing. In Then Came You, the heroine’s got an illegitimate child. In Suddenly You, the heroine hires a man to lose her virginity and learn what sexual intercourse feels like (God, I love that). And in Mine Till Midnight, I realized something which could give an alternative perspective on the apparent unbalance between the ever-virginal heroine and the rake hero.

In that novel, Amelia has an emotional history. Before meeting the hero, she’s been in love with somebody else. The hero, on the other hand, might have had countless sexual encounters; he has never loved. And granted, this reproduces the old dichotomy between female/male and emotion/sex, yet… once again, if you look at it purely from a woman’s perspective, it’s much more self-satisfying to be somebody’s first love than somebody’s first fuck. Precisely because the physical part is not that big a deal.

I have never felt as if having a sexual history mattered in any essential ways. Emotional baggage, on the other hand, contributes to building a person’s identity. You could almost say that, if love is your reference, and not such a debatable and unclear thing as physical virginity, then the hero becomes the inexperienced one, while the heroine, through her ability to love different men in the course of her life, is much more of a “whole”, full-fledged person.

“[...] I think he’s always secretly hoped he could someday find a place where he would belong. But until he met you, it didn’t occur to him that it might not be a place he was looking for, but a person.”

- Mine Till Midnight, Lisa Kleypas (St Martin’s Press, 2007)

Lastly, I’d like to mention the cases of virginity in Sabrina Jeffries’ Regency novels. I enjoy this author for her general and unabashed acceptation of “sex”, which, I feel, effectively help weaken the meaning and importance of virginity (as I have attempted to demonstrate in last week’s entry). It is all good and well to rehabilitate and encourage free sexual intercourse, but might that not also be discriminating against people who are virgins, single, not dating, even potentially discriminating against homosexuality? Celebrating PIV sex as something “good” can appear to make other forms of sexuality seem secondary, or a sexuality without PIV seem inferior.

Well, in Sabrina Jeffries’s books, the heroines may be virgins, but they know about masturbation, or about the physical and biological process of sex. This reminds us that women don’t have to be ignorant for being chaste, that they don’t ultimately need a man to climax. Which is another point against virginity: shouldn’t a woman who knows her own body well, be perceived as more experienced than one who’s lived the intrusion of a penis in her vagina, but hasn’t learnt to love it?

Let Sleeping Rogues Lie is also one of the extremely and surprisingly rare romance novels to feature a blow-job scene. This is perhaps explained by the fact that most modern romance focuses on the woman’s pleasure and orgasms, rather than the man’s. However, giving a blow-job is also a turn-on for many women out there, not least because it puts us in a position of power and control…

Which romance novels have you read that challenged traditional gender roles the most? What would you like to see more of between the heroine and hero in modern romance?

* Category romance consists in short novels issued monthly within well-defined categories, such as published by Harlequin or Mills & Boon, and can be considered as a specific romance subgenre.


Being a good wife

Katherine is the heroine’s best friend and ex-sister-in-law. She explains why her marriage to her friend’s brother went wrong:

I loved Ted when I married him, but I was so spoiled and immature that I couldn’t understand that loving someone means you make some sacrifices for him. [...] You see, I wanted to go back East and live in my sorority house like a coed, then spend summers and holidays with my husband. [...] Daddy, of course, told Ted that he would be happy to pay for all my expenses at Brookline, but Ted refused, which made me furious. I retaliated from that day forward by refusing to lift a finger at home. I didn’t cook another meal for him or do his laundry. So he did the cooking and grocery shopping, and he took our laundry over at Kealing’s Cleaners, all of which made everybody in town start talking about what a lousy wife I was.

- Perfect, Judith McNaught (Pocket Books, 1993)

When I first read that passage of Judith McNaught’s otherwise wonderful novel Perfect, the feminist in me went meh. That’s when you realize that in spite of her talent to weave and tell emotionally intelligent, intense stories, Ms. McNaught is clearly Texan and conservative. It would be easy to dismiss her idea of what a “good wife” is supposed to be as stereotyped and regressive. Except the more I think of it, and the closest to a life companion I become to my man too, the more willing I am to actually hear what the author is saying through Katherine’s words.

Her most accurate remark probably comes a few lines after those I’ve quoted, when Katherine explains Ted’s leniency towards her “uselessness” through the fact that he felt guilty for marrying her when she was so young and hadn’t yet lived for herself. This, I believe, considerably softens the apparent imperative of being a good wife. And while it doesn’t explicitly expresses it in feminist terms (McNaught is, after all, a Texan by choice), it both poses the problem and answers it with great accuracy. It isn’t so much the content of a housewife’s duties which is detrimental to women, but their lack of other opportunities, of other windows to the world.

My mom herself was caught in a kind of similar situation, becoming pregnant while she was still at university, and having to take care of a toddler (my sister) and a baby (me) after she graduated. It seemed natural not to jump into a career at once, especially since she didn’t have a clear sense of what she wanted to do. Unfortunately, when you’ve never had the opportunity to work, it’s only that much harder to start. Before you know it, you end up thirty-something and feeling as though you’ve been cheated of your rightful youth.

And that‘s the problem. Not what you do, but what you didn’t do. And while Judith McNaught initially seems to lay the blame for her marriage’s failure at Katherine’s door, she also recognizes that Ted is partly responsible for expecting a twenty-year-old woman to be a good wife. Stretch that only a little and you get: it’s hard (perhaps impossible?) to be a good wife when you’ve never been anything else, or when that’s all you can ever hope to be. In this light, whatever being a good wife may mean pales in comparison with what being a good wife necessarily requires: age, experience, opportunity, and freedom; all things men have traditionally been granted and women denied upon entering marriage.

illustration by Hablot K. Browne

‘I am afraid, dear, I was too young. I don’t mean in years only, but in experience, and thoughts, and everything. I was such a silly little creature! I am afraid it would have been better, if we had only loved each other as a boy and girl, and forgotten it. I have begun to think I was not fit to be a wife.’

- David Copperfield, Charles Dickens (1869)

I think it is also significant of McNaught’s position that Katherine, despite all her wrongs, is never depicted as a bad character (see Evil Ex), but always and throughout as the heroine’s dear best friend. There is no question that she loves and deserves Ted. All she needed was to grow up and understand what had happened. And after all, I like such a conclusion (much more optimistic and progressive than Dickens’). There are so many things to blame the institution of marriage for, but perhaps, surprisingly, from its own conception of commitment we can derive the necessity and urgency of women’s emancipation. Because nobody can truly give who isn’t whole in the first place.

What do you think of marriage? Do you believe that being a “good wife” or a “good husband” means something, and if so, what?


Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 147 other followers