50 Shades of Grey (book & movie) followed the same formulaistic plot to breathless reviews (and profits). If, in your fantasy, you’re going to be ravished, it’s acceptable if he’s a Billionaire; but, if he’s a guy living in a decrepit double-wide, who lacks dental insurance, then the fantasy becomes a revenge plot novel (e.g., a Death Wish for Girls).

In reviewing Nick Hornby's About A Boy, in 1998 for the Toronto Sun, Heather Mallick came to a realization:

But there are very few novels written about men who would not be played in a movie by Bruce Willis. Ordinary men are not represented in fiction. It has only just occurred to me how destructive this must be for men.

As rotten as it may be for women to have to look at endless images of unreally sexed-up women, how terrible it must be for men who are force-fed a diet of action men and high-earners.

Face it, if I want to be more attractive, I can help things along by, for one thing, quitting stuffing my face. I have that option.

But if I look at the way men are represented in the endless novels I am sent for review, I know this: If you men want to be more attractive, you have to foil the blowing up of American embassies worldwide or you have to earn at least US$200,000 a year. You have to be expensive meat.

I suspect that "taming" the men in romance novels will not fix the dearth of ordinary guys in fiction. Women will still not fantasize about Pajama Boy. The billionaire, former CIA or Special Forces, venture capitalist will remain the staple of women's erotic fiction - even if he no longer looms over her and is less "rapey."

In the Twilight Saga, the author goes to great lengths to describe in detail the two male characters that fight for Bella.

However, Stephenie Meye also goes to great lengths to describe Bella in the most vague and generic way.

She does play the sexual differences pretty well. One is a forever young vampire that can read minds, the other is an overly tanned werewolf who is pretty much a hairless -except where it counts- stud; all the while the female lead's unique power is being a quivering, pulsating lump of flesh whose mind cannot be read.

PS The blurb for McIntosh in the LAT is: "Jonathan McIntosh is a culture critic and filmmaker. His video essay project focusing on the intersections of masculinity, politics and entertainment can be viewed on the Pop Culture Detective YouTube channel."

In other words, an underlying message is probably: "My SJW-friendly videos *should* be my ticket to fame and fortune. And boohoo, they're not!"

A couple of neuroscience researchers analyzed 15000 (!) Harlequin romance novels and tabulated the professions of the male leads. I wrote about their results here:

https://chicagoboyz.net/archives/42398.html

When someone says the word "intersection", and they aren't talking about streets or vectors, you know that a lot of nonsense is about to follow.

Romantic novels and rom-com movies are "porn" for women, made exclusively for women. They hit the reptile-brain stimulus for love and relationships, just like regular pornography does for men. And just like porn for men, they are completely fantasy-based and unrealistic. The trouble I see is that most women seem incapable of understanding and admitting that.

In both romance novels and movies, the hero needs to show forth intense love, special qualities, and power/heroics. The girl, on the other hand, while often pretty, often (usually) does not need to show forth any special positive qualities. Will she cook great food for the guy? Old fashioned. Will she stand by her man through thick and thin? Only if a monster is after them both. Is she good with kids or able to build a great social life for them or plays the piano? No. There is no evidence for any such good qualities for the girl and in fact she may prove, by dumping her current fiance, that she is untrustworthy. He must love her just because.

Women just have to be taught to be attracted to short, balding, overweight dudes who live with their parents.

"Overly-masculine" problem solved.

I used to have a bunch of photoshopped romance novel covers. Sadly I can't put my hand on them right now. But in that vein:

'The paralegal and the platypuys' A torrid tale of semi-aquatic love

It's at least possible that the genre is dying... As is its cousin, televised daytime serial drama. (That happens: There are no cop shows on radio anymore, and haven't been for sixty or seventy years.)

Who will mourn the dying form? It's okay by me.

It's at least possible that the genre is dying... As is its cousin, televised daytime serial drama.

The genre is only dying in name only. In reality, it has assimilated the Young Adult section.

Hence now you see why the YA genre now has teens and their mothers lining up as fans.

My personal history is filled with a number of extrordinary men, that appeared quite ordinary at first glance. Like my father, twice awarded the silver star in the Pacific War, and my uncle who flew 35 missions over Nazi Germany as a ball turret gunner in a B17.

Never forget that your genetic linage is filled with stone cold alpha killers. We wouldn't be here today talking about it, if it were not.

...and my uncle who flew 35 missions over Nazi Germany as a ball turret gunner in a B17. ~ Isab at March 26, 2018 12:24 PM

An airman's life in World War II was, on average, shorter than an infantryman's.

And the ball turret gunner had the worst job of the entire B-17 crew.

"The Death of the Ball Turret Gunner" by Randall Jarrell.

Two things everyone needs to remember:

Chances are that romance novels are just as bad for women as porn is bad for men - in both cases, the consumers get false expectations of how much gratification they're entitled to, and over time, that will make them more unhappy in the real world. Like little kids who watch too much "kid-friendly" TV. Even "Sesame Street," after all, implies that kids and adults should be on equal levels and that schoolwork shouldn't involve any work that's even slightly boring or time-consuming.

And, more importantly: Vampire romances have been the rage for years, but that does NOT mean that anyone would really be romantically attracted to a blood-drinker. In the same vein, romantic novels based on rape fantasies appeal to readers because the reader is in complete control and there is no danger of anything unwanted happening, however small; if the reader doesn't like that particular novel, she can put it back on the shelf and get one by some other writer. Therefore, it is wrong to assume that your wife or girlfriend wants you to twist her arm and force her, just because she might read such novels.

(And, I have to say, from the few I've flipped through, there is practically no emotional romance in recent romance novels at all - even the historical romances. I don't know why anyone pays for them these days - unless they already know a particular author's work pretty well, from library copies.)

✓ lenona at March 26, 2018 3:24 PM

✓ lenona at March 26, 2018 3:24 PM

And here I am taking testosterone supplements to balance out my hormones and be a functional male.* When did being a hormonally-imbalanced soy boy become OK?

*Note: I was a male in the first place, just not with sufficient testosterone.

His video essay project focusing on the intersections of masculinity, politics and entertainment can be viewed on the Pop Culture Detective YouTube channel."

http://www.jimjambo.com/NotThisCrapAgain.jpg

Like little kids who watch too much "kid-friendly" TV. Even "Sesame Street," after all, implies that kids and adults should be on equal levels.... ~ lenona at March 26, 2018 3:24 PM

Maybe that's why we're currently being lectured by a 17-year-old high school student on democracy and government.

'The keeper and the kept' A collection of bee keeper romances.

> why we're currently being
> lectured by a 17-year-old
> high school student

Well, honestly, y'know, "we're" not being lectured by anyone.

Commonfolk are imagining themselves to be more politically principled than they did just a few years ago. (I was talking about this as regards dating ina comment yesterday.) Enthusiasm that used to be spent on sitcoms and other entertainment is now being given to political and ethical posturing, most prominently on social media (if most obnoxiously on broadcast).

Ten or fifteen years ago, I used to remind people that if they were truly offended by Paris Hilton and Brittny Spears, all the had to do was stop paying attention... And those woman would essentially cease to exist. That's almost certainly the case with these teenagers (and their adult puppeteers) as well.

If you don't like them, and know that their arguments can be readily countermanded, why are you giving them attention? (None of us have any business worrying about how the "little people," the unwashed masses surrounding us, will transcode such signals. It's life's work enough to keep our own heads dialed in.)

Holy cow, the dating comment was today. Time flies when you get old

Let me put it another way. Watching Fox or CNN (even in an airport) is much like turning toward someone who shouts "Hey, Asshole!" on the street.

What happens when you take entertainment too seriously.

(That vertical sync roll coming out of the clip, because union labor.)

And those woman would essentially cease to exist. That's almost certainly the case with these teenagers (and their adult puppeteers) as well. ~ Crid at March 26, 2018 7:57 PM

Except ignoring Paris Hilton and Brittny Spears meant nothing more than some open time on your schedule to spend absorbing the latest pseudo-intellectual pablum dripping from PBS or NPR.

Those high school demagogues and their age cohort, on the other hand, will be voting in a few years. If you don't like President Trump, you're gonna like President Jay-Z even less.

Time flies when you get old ~ Crid at March 26, 2018 7:58 PM

Like the frog said, "Time's sure fun when you're having flies."

> will be voting in a few years

If you're compelled to worry, in an intrusively personal way, about the lifetime political vectors of everyone who "will be voting in a few years," then [A.] you're going to be a terribly busy fellow and [B.] your own social bearing must be tremendously potent and persuasive... As if, like, to spend 2 minutes with you at a cocktail party (or stadium appearance!) could awaken all who hear your words under a bold new dawn of insight and virtue.

I mean, come on. Getting cranked about stuff on TV is fun. You're being played, and by people who haven't earned your attention. If actually met a CNN producer at a cocktail party, you'd be very bored very soon and go off to flirt with the host's wife's little sister.

Not compelled to worry, just bemused by the whole thing. Okay, a little annoyed at the pretentious prick.

The bodice rippers are the "historicals". They used to all have the same plot, but have branched out.

Here was the basic plot:

Heroine is a feisty virgin with a milquetoast male friend or suitor. She does something scandalous, such as walk around the block without her nanny. She catches the eye of a dark and brooding and very rich lord, who decides to teach her a lesson by kidnapping and raping her. She gets pregnant and he insists on marriage but she doesn't want him to only want to marry her because she is pregnant. Milquetoast friend decides to kidnap her back! But, when he does it, it is an evil, horrific act. The wicked Duke/count/earl/whatever rescues her, and they get married. The epilogue is a couple years later, and they have toddlers and she is pregnant.

You can change their hair colors and the time and place but the plot is basically the same.

They've branched out a bit nowadays.

But the modern novels have always existed since I've been reading them, and they usually feature a manic pixie dreamgirl type in her 20s or 30s, fiercely independent and wanting to prove she doesn't need a man, falling for a rich man who gets her out of some predicament, usually financial or legal. They've been around for years and pay lip service to equality even though they fall back on the traditional tropes.

Conan, interesting. But weird because many, many novels have ordinary men in them. And good ones and bad ones. And a whole range.

Isn't a "feisty virgin" a contradiction in terms?

I mean— You wanna see some FEIST, Missy? Well c'mere for a sec....

Also, "manic pixie dreamgirl type" is an animal unseen here on Planet Realballs.

As Lenona was pointing out, pornography for men has some improbable fauna as well..., IJS.

@Nicolek,

At some point in the 1980s, those "Historical" romance novels went through a short rise of the "Cousincest" -yech- plot starring of the ugly, noble girl who is now a gorgeous woman reeling at the idea of having an arranged marriage with the snotty brat that teased her. And then she finds out that he's also hot.

No, they HAVE to be both feisty AND virgins. Their feistiness displays itself in fiercely showing their independence by visiting the market or something.

Yes Sixclaws I've seen a few of those.

As Lenona was pointing out, pornography for men has some improbable fauna as well..., IJS.

Flora too if you find the right videos

Conan, 17-year-olds are not "little kids." They can drive, they can work at least part-time, they even have the right to drop out of school. (I have to admit I don't know WHY they have that right, other than when the family is so poor that the teens need to support their parents.)

Btw, even in the 1990s (maybe even earlier), there were historical romances where the heroine was a widow, which, when well-written, could be very romantic indeed, for obvious reasons. (Of course, any romance that takes place in the present doesn't call for a virgin heroine, usually. Unless maybe when she's still a teen.)

Oh, and re "feisty virgins," there was one well-known novel from the early 1980s (it takes place in 1792 England) where the heroine is feisty in that even though she has no dowry, she refuses to marry anyone she considers too old, creepy, or just plain nasty. On top of that, while she's not too smart in one sense, she's smart enough not to risk marriage to the handsome, dashing rake without proof that he really loves her and won't desert her once she's pregnant. Now THAT'S smart.

There were historical details that were astoundingly true, such as the fact that sometimes a man who got tired of his wife would auction her off on the block. (Illegal, yes, but it still happened back then - though I doubt it happened with UNMARRIED women.)

In "Who Stole Feminism?", C. H. Sommers had a piece on the romance novel, based on the Mother of All Romance Novels, "Gone With The Wind".
Basically, she said pretty much what has been said above, with a bit of additional data. At one point, enlightened women [presumably from the Seven Sisters] went into publishing and cleaned up the alpha male. Sales tanked.

In "Who Stole Feminism?", C. H. Sommers had a piece on the romance novel, based on the Mother of All Romance Novels, "Gone With The Wind".
Basically, she said pretty much what has been said above, with a bit of additional data. At one point, enlightened women [presumably from the Seven Sisters] went into publishing and cleaned up the alpha male. Sales tanked.

But weird because many, many novels have ordinary men in them. And good ones and bad ones. And a whole range. ~ NicoleK at March 27, 2018 3:35 AM

And how many of those "ordinary men" are the object of romantic fantasy by an attractive heroine?

--------------------------------------------------

17-year-olds are not "little kids." ~ lenona at March 27, 2018 10:02 AM

Never said they were.

However, those "little kids" who "who watch too much "kid-friendly" TV" that teaches them that they're on an equal level with adults someday grow up to be 17-year-olds who then think they can lecture older and more experienced adults on democracy and government.

And complain about their "old ass" parents and compare voting and government to using iMessage:

"At this point its like when your old-ass parent is like, ‘I don’t know how to send an iMessage’ and you’re like, ‘Ok give me the fucking phone’ and you take it and you get it done in one second. Sadly, that’s what we have to do with our government because our parents don’t know how to use a fucking democracy so we have to do it." ~ David Hogg (17-year-old Parkland shooting survivor and anti-gun activist)

Because if we'd just let the kids be in charge, they'd set things right in one second.

I also heard that Mr. Hogg is being bullied. If somebody actually pushes Mr. Hogg around, with those powerful interests behind him, the antagonist may very well wind up dead in an alleyway.

17 year olds do have the right to lecture.

You don’t have the obligation to listen.

You don’t have the obligation to listen. ~ Nicolek at March 28, 2018 6:08 AM

I'm sitting in my backyard enjoying a Spring day while taking an online class in Python programming.

Listening to Mr. Hogg is not the concern. He's a symptom, not the disease. A canary in the coal mine gasping for breath. Listening to the warning his ascendancy represents is the concern.

We have too many politicians, right and left, pandering to the loudest of their bases, sacrificing the concerns of the rest of us for the votes of a loud minority, lending validation to a demagogue's histrionics by doing so. If we're not mindful, a future Mr. Hogg will be our new overlord, if not in name, then in practice.

A timely reminder is that while he is loud and has a following, he is not experienced. His one significant experience in life is surviving a random shooting, mostly by chance - in not being targeted by the shooter - rather than by his own skills at evasion and counterattack.

Let us not forget that his is the voice of hysterics, not of reason. Let us not forget that to keep his podium, his voice must continue to be the voice of hysterics.

He had little credibility in any discussion of gun control before the shooting and less now. His is not a thoughtful argument in favor of gun control, but the voice of a hysterical victim shouting at those trying to determine what happened and why.

This is not how a country should be governed, by the voice of hysterical near-victims. Taking counsel of the sum of all fears does not make for good policy.

"You may take the most gallant sailor, the most intrepid airman, or the most audacious soldier, put them at a table together—what do you get? The sum of their fears." ~ Winston Spencer Churchill

And here's a "feisty virgin" from the 20th century: Almost any character played by...Doris Day. As columnist Ellen Goodman said, her image was of the "look but don't touch" kind. (Goodman was actually talking about a well-known controversy in the the Miss America pageant - and one could say Miss America is also about "feisty virgins" - but Goodman never would.