There's this idea--and it's been coming up more and more lately--that romances (movies? novels?) are equivalent to porn. That men get unrealistic ideas from porn, and women get unrealistic ideas from romances.
First of all... usually when people say this I'm not sure which romances they're talking about. Romance novels? Which ones--there's a huge variety out there. Have they ever read any? Or do they mean movies? Fred and Gingers? Moonstruck? Meg Ryan's oeuvre?
Second... pornography is pretty much only about sex; romances are about a whole bunch of things, sometimes including sex. If we're going to compare, then we need to compare like with like. There already exists a female equivalent to porn, it's called erotica. 50 Shades of Gray.
If romance novels are female fantasies, then the male equivalent is something like entourage or Californication. Cause there's more than just a fantasy element--there's also plot and character and growth and story.
Porns are a means to an end: To ejaculate. Romances are not that utilitarian.
5 comments:
"Romances are not that utilitarian." I love this!
Basically, there are people who look for any way to put down Romances. Your comments are completely true.
Plus if a Man writes a Romance, then critics gush about how Sensitive he is, how Progressive and In Touch With His Feminine Side. But when women write romances, well, that's just women and we know they don't write Important Work, and it's just for women, and we know women don't think Deep Thoughts.
Makes me feel kinda stabby.
Hoo - scary. I definitely don't trust Hollywood to examine this subject.
Splitting the technical details between porn and fantasy romance is missing the point. The mechanics matter not. You identified the problem (imho) here: "That men get unrealistic ideas from porn, and women get unrealistic ideas from romances." And these unrealistic EXPECTATIONS diminish their chances to form successful, healthy, balanced, realistic relationships.
I'm pretty sure this happens, so I DO think there is a common thread connecting the two genres.
Actually, even the way I stated it is incorrect. I'm assuming that only men watch porn and only women read fantasy romance. D'OH!
So, to rephrase, I believe both these genres of film/book can possibly have negative effects on the audience in terms of their relationships. Of course there can be exceptions too. I'm only talking about the general standards I've witnessed in both genres. Fwiw.
@Skye - Yes the sexism exhibited around romance novels is legendary.
@JJJ - Actually it's an independent film, by the star Gordon-Levitt. I haven't seen it, but I believe it's without the "hollywood ending."
@Aluwings:
(a) There's a chicken-egg problem. Do some people like to pee in sex because they saw it in a porn? Or did pee-porn get made because the need was already out there? Those things are very hard to tease apart.
(b) Not all expectations are bad. Porn I've seen shows women getting head, as well as receiving--doesn't that set a good expectation?
(c) The one thing I've concluded after media / political studies is that humans are complicated. And art is complicated. We are much more complex than this reductionist argument implies. The relationship between humans and media is complex and hard to study.
Think of every single influence that happens to a person from the time they're born, until the time they start dating/marry. That is a huge amount and variety of input. So I just don't see how someone can make such a simplified point. I think it undersells how interesting and complex we are. (And we are the ones who turn around and create the porns and romances--so they reflect that complexity.)
And if I look at the women and men who I personally know, I just don't see what you're seeing.
Post a Comment