I’m not willing to say it IS that, but the people with the “journal article” (which was “internally peer-reviewed” and had 0 math or research design) sure didn’t make any case for a causal relationship, either.

As to people’s ability to distinguish fantasy from reality and my speculation above, I’d hypothesize that amateur BDSM erotica contains at least as low of rates of mentioning safe sex, and more mention of sex with strangers; but that the readers who frequent that and admit to it have a HIGHER rate of actually practicing safe sex than romance novel readers.

I also don’t have access to the articles (being only a librarian-appreciator and not a librarian) that are cited by the Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Sex article, which I assume contain the “recent survey” that gives them their information. Maybe it’s more solid than it seems from this secondary article that reads more like a private blog post (the author writes in the first person perspective and talks about personal experiences IN A JOURNAL ARTICLE for god’s sake) than a piece of science.

I don’t care one way or another about the romance genre, but I do care about fluffy pieces of what-ifs and speculation being badly reported on as legitimate social science.

Reading Bouricius’ book did give me a lot more insight in the romance genre and laid to rest some of the stereotypes that I had previously had about the genre. However, I didn’t start reading romance immediately. One day, after I had been hired, I was walking down the stacks in our library and decided it was time for me to try out a romance book. I gave it a shot and to my surprise, really enjoyed it. Now I’m hooked. Obviously it’s not for everyone but I find it very relaxing to read a romance novel at night after battling with stubborn SQL queries all day. I particularly enjoy the ones with a lot of witty banter.

I do admit that the romance covers can be scary. However, I grit my teeth and read them in public anyway since I feel it’s cowardly to let public perception sway my reading choices.

Since when do librarians judge the reading tastes of other people? I am so gobsmacked I have no words to describe my feelings. This kind of judgment from a librarian is just, just…wow…

The romances read were from the 1980s during the heyday of the Bodice Ripper. Today’s romance features plenty of gloving up. From my reading, most of the characters who don’t sheath the mighty wang find themselves with a baby on the way by the end of the book.

Before you diss the genre completely, take the reading challenge. I’m sure Sarah at http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com can give you the list that is usually recommended to those who need education about the genre.

I double-dog-dare you to post your experience or reviews on your blog.

Just in case you missed it above, here’s the URL that debunks the entire study:

http://www.smartbitchestrashybooks.com/index.php/weblog/comments/romances-according-to-susan-quilliam-dont-have-enough-condoms/

As for me, I love reading romance novels. They are like candy, only with no calories. Light, fluffy, and an easy read. They also pretty much always are going to have a happy ending and, for me anyways, I HATE books that don’t have happy endings. I never feel more cheated when I get through a giant book and it has an ending that sucks. All I want to do is throw the book through the nearest window and get back the time I just wasted. Books (well fiction, anyways) for me are to escape the real world of bills, student loans, and horrible crappy things on the news. It better have a happy ending! However, I definitely know that they are not a shining example of reality. But that can be said for a lot of mass produced media these days… seen a movie lately?

The survey from Psychol Women Q says “…Publication year ranged from 1981 to 1996, with 54 (69.2%) of the novels published after 1990, when awareness of HIV and other STD among heterosexuals was relatively high.”

If the article was published in 2000, I’m assuming the study was done sometime between 1996 and 1998.

I think for an more accurate look at “modern” romance novels, a new study needs to be done. The 2000 study had “…two female coders [record] the title, author, publisher, publication year, page number of the first instance of sexual intercourse, whether the characters discussed using a condom, whether the characters used a condom, the sex of the character who initiated the discussion or use, and the reason for condom use if given (e.g., birth control, disease prevention).”

A new study should also look at notes from authors. I’m seeing that more and more. Some authors will specifically state that condoms aren’t mentioned in their work; but readers in real life should practice safe sex.

http://www.npr.org/blogs/monkeysee/2011/07/07/137675779/romance-fiction-and-womens-health-a-dose-of-skepticism?sc=tw&cc=share

These studies are really not scientifically legit, and assuming that romance readers are unable to distinguish fantasy from reality is infantilizing and insulting. It’s not an assumption we make about readers of, say, spy thrillers.

Have you ever read a romance novel? The ones about the alpha male dominating the innocent virgin are almost all gone, relics of the 1970s and 80s. Heroines in romance novels today have real lives and hard decisions. They fight custody battles with their ex-husbands, struggle to pay their mortgages, battle breast cancer, and yes, fall in love. AND they use condoms.