RE: Reading secular romance

RE: Reading secular romance (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Theology] >> Morality & Ethics

Message

MrFribbles -> RE: Reading secular romance (5/13/2008 7:05:24 PM)
quote: ANYTHING that measures the opposite sex against an unobtainable standard degrades the opposite sex regardless of how believable it is. I agree, gengwall. On a somewhat related note, that's one reason I detest so many of our commercials out there, where everyone is good looking, everyone has perfect hair, and everyone is either 20-something and having fun, or a successful business person... But I digress. I would agree with the general vibe I'm picking up in these responses that one of the biggest problems with romance literature is not the sexual lust (though, of course, that can be and often is a problem), but the false expectations it sets up as to what a relationship should be. Though I have not read very many romance novels, I feel they set women up to subconsciously think they deserve the kind of relationship they read about, where the man is great looking, the sex is great, and the money is plentiful. And when their real lives don't quite live up to what they've read about for so long, well, someone must have messed up. So either they blame themselves, blame their spouses, or blame God. Any way you slice it, not good. So while I'm not sure if I can say they are inherently bad, I would advise anyone who asked me to steer clear of the genre, especially if I knew they were the kind of person who was easily influenced by the idea of romance and love.

rnershigh -> RE: Reading secular romance (5/13/2008 7:43:06 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gengwall quote: ORIGINAL: rnershigh I dunno about that. Maybe some women will come away with unrealistic expectations after reading a romance. But most know these are just fiction and the stories and characters aren't supposed to accurately reflect reality in any way. There is nothing wrong with reading romance books. Nothing. I view all the books I read (not just romance genre) in this way, it's only fiction and I will suspend disbelief in how things ought to really be to enjoy the few moments I am reading. Take the statement above and replace "reading a romance" with "viewing porn", plus a few other gender and gramatical changes, and here is what you get: quote: Maybe some men will come away with unrealistic expectations after viewing porn. But most know these are just fiction and the stories and characters aren't supposed to accurately reflect reality in any way. I view all the porn I look at (not just the magazine genre) in this way, it's only fiction and I will suspend disbelief in how things ought to really be to enjoy the few moments I am looking. Does the fact that it is unrealistic make porn any less degrading and sinful? Do you really believe that to "suspend disbelief in how things ought to really be to enjoy the few moments" that a man looks at porn makes porn ok? This is where the problem lies and romance novels can have as detrimental an effect on relationships as porn can. ANYTHING that measures the opposite sex against an unobtainable standard degrades the opposite sex regardless of how believable it is. Have you even read a romance novel before? While I agree that someone who is easily swayed by a romance novel (like others have noted, develop an unrealistic expectation regarding relationships and love) shouldn't read a romance novel. Not if it's going to be detrimental in how they view those subjects. I belong to a romance forum, most of the women are romance readers (although that is not the only types of books they read). No way does any of the women I have conversed with have impossible expectations when it comes to men and love and relationships. As I said before, the romance genre encompasses a wide range of subgenres. To make a sweeping generalization that romance=porn for women is inaccurate. I stated already there is a subgenre that I would definitely consider "porn for women" and that is erotica. Romance in general is NOT porn for women and I am offended that you would say that, especially as I still read romance and no, I don't get turn on and no, I don't have high and unrealistic expectations from what I think men should be like, how love should be, how a marriage should work, or a relationship between men and women should be like. You get my point.[8D] Sometimes I want to read a story that ends HEA and everything is all peachy keen and totally NOT realistic and accurately reflecting real-world relationships. I read romance because they generally all end "happy" and yes, that's not realistic but sometimes I want to read a fictional relationship. I read other genres (sci-fi, or fantasy, or mystery, etc) for other reasons, but romance I read for the UN-realistic romance.lol. It's fantasy. Fiction. Not real and I don't expect anything more or less other than that the romance author utilizes the tried and true cliches typically found in romance. You know, the obscenely good-looking hero or heroine. The big, dramatic "misunderstanding" that keeps them apart. The HEA that comes at the end.

gengwall -> RE: Reading secular romance (5/14/2008 10:27:08 AM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rnershigh Have you even read a romance novel before? Have you ever looked at porn? quote: While I agree that someone who is easily swayed by a romance novel (like others have noted, develop an unrealistic expectation regarding relationships and love) shouldn't read a romance novel. Not if it's going to be detrimental in how they view those subjects. I belong to a romance forum, most of the women are romance readers (although that is not the only types of books they read). No way does any of the women I have conversed with have impossible expectations when it comes to men and love and relationships. So you can read their minds, can ya? That's special. quote: As I said before, the romance genre encompasses a wide range of subgenres. To make a sweeping generalization that romance=porn for women is inaccurate. I stated already there is a subgenre that I would definitely consider "porn for women" and that is erotica. Romance in general is NOT porn for women and I am offended that you would say that, especially as I still read romance and no, I don't get turn on and no, I don't have high and unrealistic expectations from what I think men should be like, how love should be, how a marriage should work, or a relationship between men and women should be like. You get my point.[8D] How do you define porn and lust? I think we have very different ideas of what is pornographic and lustful BTW - are you married?

rnershigh -> RE: Reading secular romance (5/14/2008 3:38:11 PM)
Okay, I will respond once more to you and then I'm finished. It's obvious you haven't read a romance novel or you wouldn't be asking me these questions. No, I haven't. No, I'm not. Anything else you'd like to know? My height and weight?[8\|] Look, if romance books causes a person to have problems or leads them away from God, it's a problem and NO then I don't think that person should read romance books. It's not a problem with the romance genre in general. It's a problem with the PERSON. If reading a romance book is going to cause a Christian woman (or man, yes, there are men that read romance too) to stumble then yes I think they should stay away from them and refrain from reading romance books. But if a Christian man or woman does not, there is no reason why they shouldn't enjoy reading a good romance book in their spare time if they choose to do so.

gengwall -> RE: Reading secular romance (5/14/2008 3:50:33 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: rnershigh Okay, I will respond once more to you and then I'm finished. It's obvious you haven't read a romance novel or you wouldn't be asking me these questions. No, I haven't. No, I'm not. Anything else you'd like to know? My height and weight?[8\|] Look, if romance books causes a person to have problems or leads them away from God, it's a problem and NO then I don't think that person should read romance books. It's not a problem with the romance genre in general. It's a problem with the PERSON. If reading a romance book is going to cause a Christian woman (or man, yes, there are men that read romance too) to stumble then yes I think they should stay away from them and refrain from reading romance books. But if a Christian man or woman does not, there is no reason why they shouldn't enjoy reading a good romance book in their spare time if they choose to do so. And I will now get to my obvious point since you don't seem to grasp it by my parallelism. Lust, by definition, is a desire for ANYTHING forbidden. In the realm of porn addiction, we define pornography in two ways - anything that has arrousal as either its inherent intent or its personal effect. Your response only addresses the latter. Just because you don't lust by reading a romance novel doesn't mean that the intent of a romance novel is not to induce lust. The desire, or even contemplation, for any kind of romantic relationship outside of your marriage is lustful and the inherent intent of romance novels is to stir up romantic feelings in you for someone other than your spouse or some relationship other than your marriage. To put it bluntly, the intent (and typical effect) of a romance novel is to lead the reader in an indulgence in a romantic fantasy, which is just as much a betrayal of ones spouse or future spouse as the indulgence in a sexual fantasy, no matter how unrealistic or fictionalized. It is, in fact, pornography, whether you recognize it or not. Since you are not married, the same rules never-the-less apply regarding your future spouse. Pornography is just as sinful for the single person as it is for the married person. It all falls under the umbrella of "immoralities" that Paul talks about in 1 Cor 7, behaviors for which marriage is the only defense and absolution.

stateofgrace -> RE: Reading secular romance (5/14/2008 4:24:12 PM)
gengwall: FYI, regarding your first question. rnershigh may not have, but I have. I became a Christian when I was 20 and I was in art school at the time. Certain things were considered "edgy" in art school and prior to having a relationship with Jesus, I was certainly curious about those kind of things. There has been a time or two that I have stumbled upon "late night movies" post meeting Jesus, which only confirmed my earlier perception that such films were horribly acted, horribly written, unsubtle attempts to cram as many immoral "encounters" as possible into a treadbare plot. But...I'm a woman, and maybe that sort of thing doesn't have the same impact on me as it does a typical man. Romance is a very wide and varied genre which includes classic authors like Jane Austen (although her books are not limited to romance); more recent "classic" authors like Georgette Heyer, Mary Stuart, and Victoria Holt; settings in historical periods; settings in fantasy; settings in contemporary America; inspirational/Christian authors; pagan authors; etc. Some romance authors write explicit books. Some do not. It would be inaccurate and incorrect to classify all romance novels as pornography. I also consider it spreading false testimony against those novelists who aren't writing that kind of content. I see an assumption being made about women that often isn't accurate. quote: The desire, or even contemplation, for any kind of romantic relationship outside of your marriage is lustful and the inherent intent of romance novels is to stir up romantic feelings in you for someone other than your spouse or some relationship other than your marriage. To put it bluntly, the intent (and typical effect) of a romance novel is to lead the reader in an indulgence in a romantic fantasy This assumes that the reader is fantasizing about themselves being in the place of the heroine. I don't fantasize myself in the place of a heroine in a romance novel any more than I put myself in the place of a female starship captain in a scifi novel. To me characters in novels are "third person" not "first person." I can only speak for myself regarding this particular issue, but I am not interested in projecting myself into some kind of fantasy life. I myself have brought up the "high expectations" point in other conversations on these forums, and it was in regards to a Christian-themed romance which has been a long-term bestseller (regularly appearing on Amazon's top 100 romance sales list) and of which a good many forums members are likely fans. In fact, it's based on the story of Hosea, and the hero is even symbolic of God's love for us (so you can imagine how wonderful/perfect that character is).

StephK -> RE: Reading secular romance (5/14/2008 4:25:14 PM)
Not all romance novels induce those thoughts or desires. It's fiction. I've not read the genre in a long time due to my poor choices and changing tastes in what I like. I did go and look at some of the better written romance novels and they are not on the same level as the bodice rippers. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/aug/10/books.booksnews

gengwall -> RE: Reading secular romance (5/14/2008 4:32:59 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stateofgrace gengwall: FYI, regarding your first question. rnershigh may not have, but I have. I became a Christian when I was 20 and I was in art school at the time. Certain things were considered "edgy" in art school and prior to having a relationship with Jesus, I was certainly curious about those kind of things. There has been a time or two that I have stumbled upon "late night movies" post meeting Jesus, which only confirmed my earlier perception that such films were horribly acted, horribly written, unsubtle attempts to cram as many immoral "encounters" as possible into a treadbare plot. But...I'm a woman, and maybe that sort of thing doesn't have the same impact on me as it does a typical man. Romance is a very wide and varied genre which includes classic authors like Jane Austen (although her books are not limited to romance); more recent "classic" authors like Georgette Heyer, Mary Stuart, and Victoria Holt; settings in historical periods; settings in fantasy; settings in contemporary America; inspirational/Christian authors; pagan authors; etc. Some romance authors write explicit books. Some do not. It would be inaccurate and incorrect to classify all romance novels as pornography. I also consider it spreading false testimony against those novelists who aren't writing that kind of content. I myself have brought up the "high expectations" point in other conversations on these forums, and it was in regards to a Christian-themed romance which has been a long-term bestseller (regularly appearing on Amazon's top 100 romance sales list) and of which a good many forums members are likely fans. In fact, it's based on the story of Hosea, and the hero is even symbolic of God's love for us (so you can imagine how wonderful/perfect that character is). I was being slightly hyperbolic to make the point, which is that romance novels are not as innocent as many here want to make them. I think we all need to better scrutinize what we "think on". Agreed?

stateofgrace -> RE: Reading secular romance (5/14/2008 4:34:46 PM)
quote: think we all need to better scrutinize what we "think on". Agreed? Perhaps one can become too fixated on what one believes are other peoples' vices.

gengwall -> RE: Reading secular romance (5/14/2008 4:36:29 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StephK Not all romance novels induce those thoughts or desires. It's fiction. I've not read the genre in a long time due to my poor choices and changing tastes in what I like. I did go and look at some of the better written romance novels and they are not on the same level as the bodice rippers. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/aug/10/books.booksnews This perpetuates the false differences. Porn is fiction just like romance novels. Porn's intent is to induce sexual thoughts outside "the marriage bed". Whether or not it accomplishes that effect is irrelevant. Romance novels' intent is to induce romantic thoughts outside the marriage relationship. Whether or not it accomplishes that effect is irrelevant. Now, I know that romance is a wide genre, but let's all be serious, we all know exactly what types of stories we are talking about here. To your point though, being "fiction" does not make anything necessarily innocent.

stateofgrace -> RE: Reading secular romance (5/14/2008 4:37:49 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: StephK Not all romance novels induce those thoughts or desires. It's fiction. I've not read the genre in a long time due to my poor choices and changing tastes in what I like. I did go and look at some of the better written romance novels and they are not on the same level as the bodice rippers. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/aug/10/books.booksnews LOL, did you see how high "Gone with the Wind" is on that list? I absolutely abhor that book and film. I was trying to explain to my daughters the other day just why I hated it so much. IMO, Scarlett O'Hara is an anti-heroine. The only potentially positive quality she has is tenacity, which she tended to use towards less than honorable purposes.

gengwall -> RE: Reading secular romance (5/14/2008 4:39:53 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stateofgrace quote: think we all need to better scrutinize what we "think on". Agreed? Perhaps one can become too fixated on what one believes are other peoples' vices. ??? You lost me. I sense an accusation but can't quite figure out what the charge is.

StephK -> RE: Reading secular romance (5/14/2008 4:47:16 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: gengwall quote: ORIGINAL: StephK Not all romance novels induce those thoughts or desires. It's fiction. I've not read the genre in a long time due to my poor choices and changing tastes in what I like. I did go and look at some of the better written romance novels and they are not on the same level as the bodice rippers. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/aug/10/books.booksnews This perpetuates the false differences. Porn is fiction just like romance novels. Porn's intent is to induce sexual thoughts outside "the marriage bed". Whether or not it accomplishes that effect is irrelevant. Romance novels' intent is to induce romantic thoughts outside the marriage relationship. Whether or not it accomplishes that effect is irrelevant. Now, I know that romance is a wide genre, but let's all be serious, we all know exactly what types of stories we are talking about here. To your point though, being "fiction" does not make anything necessarily innocent. Have you read any of the books on that list? Most of those on that list are classic literature. Porn and the bodice rippers are not the same thing. As to the "fiction" issue, I'm working on the banned book list most of which are banned based on people's misconceptions. [;)]

StephK -> RE: Reading secular romance (5/14/2008 4:51:48 PM)
quote: ORIGINAL: stateofgrace quote: ORIGINAL: StephK Not all romance novels induce those thoughts or desires. It's fiction. I've not read the genre in a long time due to my poor choices and changing tastes in what I like. I did go and look at some of the better written romance novels and they are not on the same level as the bodice rippers. http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/aug/10/books.booksnews LOL, did you see how high "Gone with the Wind" is on that list? I absolutely abhor that book and film. I was trying to explain to my daughters the other day just why I hated it so much. IMO, Scarlett O'Hara is an anti-heroine. The only potentially positive quality she has is tenacity, which she tended to use towards less than honorable purposes. I was surprised it made the list. [:D]

Page: << < prev 1 [2]

Forum Software © ASPPlayground.NET Advanced Edition 2.5 ANSI