Conference turris::womannotes-v1

    
    
    	Heavy......I'd have to think on that....
    
    	You mention, in the last paragraph, that you sometimes are the
    	assertive one, and get the ball rolling ???, I wish more women
    	were like you. I myself tend to be shy, although lately, I've
    	tried to overcome that.  BAck to the base note..... 
    
    		I think I would have to read that a little more closely,
    	before I comment...
    
    			Mike
    

    
    No relationship in my experience has ever followed this particular
    course.  I've certainly run into enough relationships that go right from
    step 1 to step 3.  At least it seems that way.  I've never heard
    it described as all that pleasant, either (given that neither
    participant actually thought they were raped).
    
    I don't know where this notion of romance popped up.  I've never
    thought much of it, myself.  Although I'm a fan of swashbucklers,
    which have some of this kind of thing in them, so I don't know...
    
    The ideal thing, of course, is when your eyes kind of meet and quite
    suddenly you can't keep your hands off each other, but you could
    get old waiting for that to happen.  I've been the pouncer and the
    pounced upon, and I never really noticed anything different one
    way or the other.  Of course, at times like that I tend sort of
    get caught up in the moment...
    
    DFW

    I think that little girls who spend a lot of time reading this type
    of romance may get dissapointed with real life when they grow up.
     In these stories the heroine is always spectacularly beautiful,
    and the hero is always really good at heart (but only misunderstood
    because of problems in his earlier life which *she* manages to overcome
    to reach the wonderful human hiding inside.)  In real life most
    women are not beautiful and most men who appear to be mean turn
    out to be even meaner when you get to know them better.  I think
    these books are totally unrealistic and anyone who tries to use
    them for a guideline when conducting real romance will be severly
    buffeted around by real life.
    
    As to who makes the first move, I've never felt comfortable being
    the one.  I think that partly it's because I'm at the tail end of
    the generation of women who wasn't *supposed* to make the first
    move (I'm 37), and so I didn't get any practice in when I was in
    school.  I think men my age and over are more used to dealing with
    rejection because they started out at an earlier age having to ask
    girls out, and to dance, etc.  Also, I've always gotten the impression
    that other people (co-workers, friends, relatives, assorted onlookers)
    are more lenient towards men who stick out their necks to try to
    "get" a woman they like, and get rejected.  No one seems to think
    the worst of him.  But, if a woman really "goes after" a man and
    he rejects her, I've always felt that people were saying and thinking
    things like, "She threw herself at him and he wasn't interested.
     She should have known better." etc.  
    
    Lorna
    

    RE.3 >IN REAL LIFE MOST WOMEN ARE NOT BEAUTIFUL
    
    As Robert Heinlein said, "All women are beautiful, some
    are prettier than others."
                                     
    Nowadays most people are too preoccupied with surface details.
    (What? Guilty as charged) I meet a lot of pretty ,shallow 
    people, the kind who spend two hours a day developing
    their bodies and two minutes a day stretching their minds.
    

    Re .3, I agree that personality is a lot more important than physical
    beauty, however, if you've ever read any romances you will realize
    that most heroines are described as being *physically* beautiful.
     This type of book rarely, if ever, delves into what's going on
    in the character's minds.
    
    To say that all women are beautiful, you may as well say that all
    human's are beautiful.  That, unfortunately, is not true, either
    physically or mentally.  There are, to be sure, plain people with
    beautiful minds, and beautiful people with uninteresting minds.
     But, there are also people who aren't beautiful at all, either
    mentally or physically.
    
    Lorna
    

    I never read the Harlequins, but I used to enjoy the gothic romances,
    which were of much the same stamp (if a bit less explicit than the
    latest crop of bodice-rippers). Most of them depended on the idea that
    there was such a thing as True Love, something that was completely
    unrelated to the individuals involved, that struck like lightning, and
    that could make bad men good and plain women beautiful (somehow they
    never seemed to want to make plain men handsome and bad women good - I
    wonder why that was?). 
    
    I've always been fond of the fantasy of winning someone from wrong
    to right by the power of love, but I admit it's a dangerous fantasy.
    The first thing to remember is that even if you can win someone
    over to a less wicked way of life, that doesn't guarantee that the
    person will love you for it. And, as a number of battered wives
    have discovered, sometimes love doesn't seem to make a dent on the
    undesired behavior at all.

    When it comes down to it, the main reason that I don't really want to
    experience a gothic romance is that I can't be - and don't want to be -
    a gothic heroine. They're either strong and brave beyond imagining,
    or gentle and loving to an extent that makes Melanie Wilkes look
    tough. Either they are skilled at everything they touch, and are
    the toast of high society, or they are shy and modest, with artistic
    talents and the ability to soothe their respective Rochesters. I
    couldn't live up to the standards of the super-women, nor could
    I be as meek as the gentle ones; so, being unable to take the part
    of heroine, I must forego the hero!
    
    -b

    Brava, Lorna. (.5)  Well put.  
    
    What if all tried a very radical kind of love - compassion,
    realistic expections and humility before each other.  Whew!  That's
    grounds for pouncing or being pounced.  
    
    Ever wonder if fantisizing is actually a drug?  Seriously; it has
    been shown that we can make painkillers within the body.  Ever
    wonder what your endorphines are doing in those rapturous moments.
    
    Wendy

    That's my kind of high!
    
    Seriously, though -- I don't think Harlequin-type romances do any
    long-term damage unless they're reinforced by your life experiences. I
    was addicted to them from about 16-24 (frankly, I read them to get off,
    pretty much the same way boys my age were reading Playboy), but as I
    grew up I found men like that less and less exciting and situations
    like that not only less and less likely but less and less thrilling. I
    like my life straight, like my Scotch. 
    
    Although the initial summary of this kind of plot is on the whole
    fairly accurate, I feel obliged to point out that in relatively
    few of the books of this genre are *both* hero and heroine extremely
    phsyically beautiful.  The Plain Elaine (Jane gets picked on enough
    here!) who wins the gorgeous lifeguard and the beautiful woman who
    sees the true gentle-man underneath a harsh and repellent exterior
    are by far more common. 
    
    The transition from "heroine is pounced upon and doesn't like" to
    "heroine is pounced upon and likes" is often accomplished through the
    realization of exactly what Lorna expressed in .5 -- that physical
    prettiness, his or hers, is only skin deep. Often there is a second
    person of the same sex as the unattractive one who is portrayed as both
    beautiful and charming, but who turns out to be evil, manipulative,
    cruel, or weak.  

    The danger lies not so much in their portrayal of the people and
    personalities as it does in their belief in True Love that Conquers
    All and justifies most any kind of disloyalty or betrayal of others.
    Women who really believe this tend to wind up with violent and/or
    philandering partners. The kind of love expressed by .7, based on
    compassion, realistic expectations, and humility, doesn't appear.
    
    Whew! I didn't expect to run on like this!
    
    --bonnie
    

    Now my question is - does TRUE LOVE even exist?  Or if it does,
    does it just last until the honeymoon is over and real life sets
    in?  I'd like to see a follow-up to some of these books, say 5-10
    years from the time "true love" sets in and there are bills to be
    paid and kids to raise and so many problems...
    
    When I refer to true love, I guess I mean the kind of love described
    in all books of this genre...I read them sometimes when "real life"
    is getting to me - I think that is their main purpose in being.
    I think I could sit down and read a dozen right now - "real life"
    is getting to me at the moment.

    I guess my problem with the Harlequin view of the world (I read
    them in less enlightened days) is that they never show hero and
    heroine coping the realities of day to day life.  People who get
    addicted to these fantasies often end up looking around at their
    lives and wondering where the high passion is.  Romance novels don't
    tell you that high passion only happens once in a while -- the rest
    of the time, if you are lucky, you have friendship, trust and
    contentedness. 

    Exactly right! They aren't so much wrong as they are inadequate --
    misleading by omission. Certainly high passion does happen
    intermittently in a long-term relationship!
    
    But when day to day life is getting you down -- something that can
    easily happen when you have kids (or don't have them) and jobs (or lack
    thereof) and maybe health problems and not enough love -- I see nothing
    wrong with turning to a good romantic romance to cheer yourself up and
    remind yourself that moments of high passion will come again. People
    don't make fun of people who read travel books when they can't go
    on vacation.
    
    --bonnie, who still reads them despite enlightenment
     

    I wonder what it's like to ingest a steady diet of Harlequins and
    soap operas?  I wonder what kinds of changes go on inside a person
    whose main stimuation comes from this kind of input.
    
    A friend told me to read them to get turned on...didn't work for
    me!  I could never get very far without dying of boredom, so my
    friend gave me a book with all the sexy parts *marked*!  It just didn't
    do it for me...I ended up rolling on the floor laughing every time.
                                                          
    I like regular historical novels as long as they aren't gothics
    in disguise, but I find myself skipping the so-called sexy parts
    because they seem so contrived.  (Is that what comes of too much
    time spent buried in VAX manuals? :-)  ).
    
        Chacun a son gout!
        
        [To each her own tastes!]

    Re .12, it doesn't come from spending too much time buried in Vax
    manuals because I find harlequins boring, too, and I've *never*
    read a vax manual!!
    
    I think it might come from spending too much time reading what I
    think of as real literature, but as you said, each to his/her own
      :-)
    
    Lorna
    

    It doesn't do anything sexually for me any more either, just
    occasionally reminds me that there is frivolity and romance in the
    world. Hey, I was only a teenager!
    
    I can't comment on the steady diet aspects, or the 'good literature'
    aspects (let's face it, Anna Karenina, magnificent book that it
    is, has a soap-opera plot), being that I always read anything I
    could get my hands on, whether it was classic or science fiction
    or Harlequin or a cereal box . . . 
    
    Though after reading a VAX manual I don't see how anybody could
    find *ANYTHING* boring!
    
    --bonnie
      

    But in the Harlequins, the only women you see "scheming" to get
    their man are the "bad girls."  If you think you're at the "tail
    end" of the women raised to believe that the man should make the
    first move and you're 39, think again;  this 24-year-old was raised
    that way too.  So every time I take that dreaded first step, I feel
    like I'm doing something wrong.  Luckily for me I'm too impatient
    to wait for the guys to get the hints.  But I still feel like I'm
    bucking tradition, every single time.
    
    Sometimes I think it would be nice to sit and wait around for some
    man to do the work, like it's "supposed" to be, but then again,
    I think it would be an awfully long wait :-)
    
    Lee

    
    	re: Lee,
    
    	Some men don't get the chance 8*)....
    
    			Mike
    

    Yes, Lee (and others), whether or not you enjoy reading romances, you
    can certainly wind up crippled if you take them as a guideline for
    behavior. This is a definite problem with the genre.
    
    This raises the question of why we assume that behavior presented in TV
    and novels (in the widest sense) is behavior that we should repeat,
    even when the people around us often say that TV and novels don't
    reflect life as it really is?  Certainly nothing I saw on TV ever
    looked remotely like my family and social circle when I was growing
    up (not too many TV shows about non-farm families in Montana!),
    and compared to my friends, I didn't even watch it that much. 
    Yet when I got married I often found myself behaving as though
    I expected those TV cliches to be true. 
    
    This was quite a shock since I've always considered myself an
    intelligent person who was above that kind of influence.  
    
    Why do we believe this kind of ****?
    
    --bonnie
    

    Re .15, Lee, please I'm *37* not 39 (I *need* those 2 extra years
    to get used to turning 40 :) )!!  But, I really did kind of think
    I was at the tail end of the generation of women who were raised
    to believe that men should always be the one to make the first move.
     I was kind of hoping things had changed.  I'm sorry to hear that
    at 24 you feel as though you were still raised the same way.  I
    always like to think that things are getting better (for women).
    
    On another note, according to some of the stories I've heard from
    male friends there are some women out there who aren't afraid to
    make the first move!!  (BUT, I'm not sure how well it's usually
    received.  I get the impression that men, despite what they say,
    really like to be the pursuers.  For example, while a man may find
    it exciting for a woman to ask him to sleep with her, would the
    same man like a woman to ask him to marry her?  When it comes to
    the serious stuff I think men still like to be the ones to ask.)
    
    Lorna
    

    I tried pouncing upon my quite-liberated husband a couple of times
    and was amazed that the result was, shall we say, unsuccessful.
    He appeared cooperative but gave indisputable evidence that the
    tactic was somewhat less than stimulating, if you know what I mean.
    
    I was furious with him for a couple of weeks until I realized that
    I had, indeed, pounced, with all the subtlety of a cat lunching
    on a mouse.  Or of a slightly drunk college freshman out to make
    it with every girl he dates.  I hadn't liked it when I was the girl
    in question and I still don't like it when a man, even my man, just
    grabs me.  Why should I expect him to like it when I grab him?
    
    Now I pounce more subtly -- I curl up in his lap and purr. The results
    are far better!
    
    --bonnie, purring

    In my opinion, women should have been more aggressive in the area
    of initiating relationships years ago. I can imagine that there
    have been many thousands of relationships that never were, because
    the woman didn't want to be, or thought it was impropper to be
    assertive and the guy never knew she was interested. As a matter
    of fact, my wife was the one that introduced herself to me.
    
    A woman that is overly assertive may upset some men, but then again
    they would only be experiencing what women have been going through
    right along, right????
    
    
    Steve

    I'm someone who has a hard time making the first move with
    someone I don't know.  With me it's not a matter of man/woman role
    expectations, because I don't date men.  It's just old-fashioned
    insecurity about rejection.  I'm working on it, because there's
    no growth without risk and it's rather irresponsible to leave it
    all to everyone else.  I expect that men learn to cover up their
    insecurity or blunder through it in order to live up their
    expectations for manly behavior.  Women, on the whole, are not 
    forced to do that, so it's easier to sit back and wait.  Spurning
    the advances of someone you don't care for is a lot easier on the
    ego than being the "spurnee".  
    
    Once I have a relationship, the situation is quite different, 
    and I feel very comfortable with expressing myself and "pouncing"
    as I feel inclined.  The subtleties here tend to reflect what's
    going on overall in the relationship.  If someone has all the
    responsibility for initiating everything, I think it's often a
    reflection of a real imbalance in the relationship.  
    An equal relationship implies shared desire/responsibility/etc.,
    but I expect that's another discussion...

    I'm not sure the harlequin hero is such a pouncer -- at least
    not in the 'forties movies -- There was an interplay between the characters
    that was unmistakeable.  Can someone quote me a novel so that I
    can see what kind of situation is being referred to.

    
    re .21 :
    
        I would agree that within a relationship it doesn't really matter
    who is doing the "pouncing" as long as it is well timed, considerate
    and subtle (though sometimes an "unsubtle" pounce could be well
    recieved) - with my ex-wife I was constantly expected to do the
    "pouncing" and, to be honest, at the latter stages of the marriage,
    I was almost certainly going to be rejected so I gave up - more
    equality of "pouncing" could have saved the day ! (though I doubt
    it).
    
        In these so called liberated days, I'm afraid I'm not really
    much of a "pouncer" as I find it difficult to read the signs that
    the "heroine" would like to be "pounced" upon and I suppose a sign
    hung round the neck saying  *please pounce on me*  would be too much
    to expect. I would therefore implore these "heroines" that if they wish
    to "pounce" (remembering consideration, subtlety and timing) then
    most "heroes" would be only too pleased to be on the receiving end
    - that is of course if he is a true "hero" and not an absolute "bounder"
    who is already placing his affections elsewhere.

    happy "pouncing",
    
    Steve

    RE: .22 -- 
    
    You bring out the excellent point that the romance genre (movies
    or books) shows so many styles of pouncing and being pounced upon,
    for both male and female, that our discussion here covers only
    generalities.  Too, the literary quality of the book varies from
    the truly excellent to the barely passing.
    
    However, if you were to go down to your local Woolworth's store and
    pick at random from their book rack any 5 books bearing the Harlequin
    label, the odds are that the majority would show a dominating, often
    harsh and usually misunderstood hero (usually striking but not
    necessarily handsome) and a heroine (also not necessarily beautiful;
    this, at least, has changed from the 50's) who, however independent she
    may be in her own life, really wants to wind up flat on her back
    underneath a man who will take charge. She's either tired of making her
    own decisions or never learned how to make them. 
    
    You'll find a connection between the quality of the writing and
    the degree of stereotyping -- the better writers avoid it, or at
    least display more subtle forms. 
    
    Romance fans tend to operate by author rather than title; here are
    a few you might recognize. I wouldn't say that these are the *best*
    of the genre, rather the most typical:
    
    Rosemary Rogers }  for what's going on in romance right now
    Violet Winspear }

    Victoria Holt   }  The queen of the romance-gothic: _Mistress_of_
                         Mellyn_ is one of her most popular.

    Mary Stewart    }  Romantic suspense -- try _Nine_Coaches_Waiting_
                    }    or _The_Ivy_Tree_ 
    
    It's interesting to note that all of these authors, in fact most
    of the most popular romance authors, are British, and Harelequin
    is a British press. (Actually I'm not sure about Rosemary Rogers.)
    One of the selling points often promoted by American presses is
    the wish that our society was *less* open and equal than it is and
    was *more structured and more romantic*. 

    I'd say on the whole works of romance are no more poorly written and no
    more lacking in intelligence and insight than your average bulk
    paperback -- certainly most people don't read detective novels for
    social comment, either. It's just a question of which set of
    stereotypes interest you more. 
    
    --bonnie

    I've often heard that many romance novels of the Harlequin
    genre are actually written by men using female pen-names.
    Some are written by teams of two or more writers.
    
    I've noticed that the covers of these books are almost guaranteed
    to have an illustration of a woman in a sheer dress, bent over
    backwards while a man kisses her.  Is this un-subtle message of
    submission really what the readers are looking for?  (Or is it
    as relevant to the text as the similarly-common appearance of half-naked
    women on the covers of science fiction novels, that is, not at all?)
    
    				Steve

    re .24   Romance writers
    
    You forgot Janet Dailey (sp?) . She was a big contributer to the
    "romance" novels, though I don't know if it was specifically Harlequin,
    before she started going for the larger and more explicit (and better
    money making) types of books. 
    
       .25  covers with bodice-rippers
    	recently the nude/semi-nude person on the cover has been the
    man.... is this equality?
    
    	.25 authors are really men and work in groups
    	I don't know specifically about that, but one author, Fern Michaels
    (sp?) is two women.  "60 minutes" had a segment on them about 5 years
    ago.  Two 40ish-50ish old, very middle suberbia women were a team.
    They would write the book and then get drunk to write the "hots" parts,
    because otherwise they were too embarrassed! The name came from
    the first name of one of the husbands and a plant that hung in the
    kitchen... I get a kick everytime I see another book by that "author".
    
    *****
    I've been reading romance novels off and on for about 5 years now (and
    it's only been in the past 2 yrs that I have admitted it...). For a
    long time there were about 2-3 variations of the story line (see note
    .0 for one of them). But there was a reason behind that. When you
    went to submit a story, the publisher would send you a list/outline
    of what the story was to do, how the characters were to act - you
    just filled in the pieces (this is according to an article in Writer's
    Magazine, a few years ago).
    
    Over the past year or so, this seems to have changed in some of
    the story-lines. Harlequin itself now has several different "brands",
    Harlequin presents, H. American series, H. Intrigue, H. Gothic,
    which seem to be written to different standards. 
    
    The more recent stories usually have a female in a more career-oriented
    role (vs. the heroine who is doing filing until the right man comes
    along and can take her away so she can have babies) and with a strong
    personality, so that even when the hero "pounces" she doesn't melt
    in his arms. In fact, some of the books have the woman as the
    "pouncer".
    
    I know that these books are not the greats of literature, but they can
    be fun for a short diversion and (the answer I always used to give when
    "caught" reading one of them) if you drop them in the pool/bathtub,
    it's no great loss! I also like reading the ones written by the
    English, Australian and New Zealand writers - the differences in terms,
    words and "stereo-types" can be very interesting at times! 
 
    The thing that annoys me about some of these books is that they do seem
    to support some of the sexual myths we are now fighting
    against...whereas others are very well written and support the idea
    of equality between everyone.
    
    janet b.    

Lee, now I can believe what you were telling me about MIT going normal.
Didn't every male you pounced on breathe an intense sigh of relieve?
I got tons of positive feedback there. I met my hubby by making the
moves myself (gosh, he's always so horrified when I put personal things
in notes, so don't tell him I told you, OK?). The technique I found
best was to put us innocently in a position [watch it!] where things
could easily stay merely friendly, or turn to the more physical. For
instance, I invited myself over to his house to borrow records, because
I was on a taping binge [all truth]. Then I just watched for signals
(positive or negative). Then I pounced :-).

When I discuss this with men I feel comfortable discussing sex-things
with, they all say they don't mind having the moves put on them, as
long as the other person is paying attention to potential signals. But
that may just be a function of the sort of men I feel comfortable around...
	Mez

    Sheesh, how did I forget Janet Dailey? Blush. Well, I wasn't trying
    to be comprehensive, only illustrative. 
    
    Yes, there are men who write excellent romances under female pen
    names, just as there are a number of women writing detective stories
    and science fiction under male or neutral pen names. A number of
    popular writers are teams -- I've heard of a couple of husband and
    wife teams and more than one mother-daughter team. Unfortunately
    I've forgotten their names . . . 
    
    No, the cover has nothing at all to do with the content (often the
    people on the cover don't even look like the people in the book!),
    though the degree of body revealed on the cover is usually a clue to
    the degree of sex, which wildly among the different lines of romance.
    For example, the Second Chance at Love series is quite explicit, while
    the basic Harlequin presents is pretty tame. 
    
    --bonnie
    

    ...for a satisfying alternative to the romances, I like Lord Peter
    Wimsey and Harriet Vane.   He is thoroughly entrenched in upper-class
    British norms, and she is a refreshing scholar who keeps turning
    him down for several books!  The mysteries make great reading.
    
    Any other Wimsey/Vane fans out there?

    HERE!  I mean here..... I especailly love the last two when
    thet get engaged and married (Gaudy Night and ?) and the short
    story titled "Tallboys" where Harriet is trying to write another
    of her mystery novels while taking care of three small boys.
    
    Bonnie

    You mean Busman's Honeymoon, where they found a body in the basement
    the morning after . . . 
    
    They're too intellectual for me. I like my sex raw and unadulterated .
    . .
    
    --bonnie s.
    
    p.s. An aside here -- a number of times in the recent past I have been
    jumped on for my 'unliberated' and 'unenlightened' attitude towards
    sex.  Is there something wrong with being a bit on the raunchy
    side????? 
     

    not at all...hope you didn't feel jumped on by my note a ways back
    when I said the sexy parts make me laugh because they are ridiculous.
    That was not intended as a judgement.
    
    I think it's good to be able to admit in public that you (generic
    you) like something that's not "politically correct"!  :-)  
    
    (For years I hung out with a tofu and sprouts crowd and *never* could
    admit to my love for junk food, although I certainly indulged in
    health and junk food simultaneously.  I actually eat less junk food
    now, and have less trouble admitting in public that I like it, too!)  
    
    
    ;-)   Holly

    
    as for myself, I spent several teen-age years flipping through
    to get to the spicy parts (like in Judith Krantz' novels)...
    
    however, recently I am finding there is much more to modern
    romance - I rather recommend Richard Bach's The_Bridge_Across_Forever
    for those interested in hearts as well as bodies.
    
    

    re: .32 
    
    Contradictions?  No, there's plenty of straightforward, 'spicy' sex in
    the romance genre.  The trouble is, you have to read so much junk to
    get to the good parts that it got to where it wasn't worth the
    effort... I now read science fiction when I want a thrill. It's a rare
    space opera indeed that doesn't have half a dozen spacy spicy
    encounters. 
    
    The degree of heart and mind involved in the encounter of bodies
    appears to be a function of the writer's skill, not the genre of
    the story. I've read good, convincing, heartstopping romances as
    well as contemporary novels, sci-fi, womens, you name it. 
    
    --bonnie