I've been thinking about this topic ever since Jen Lyon (no, I didn't paste the exact blog post--get over it and look around her site!) asked this question on her blog site: How old were you when you read your first romance? What was the title the book? Now, she might not have worded it that way, but that was in essence the question.
Most of us started reading romance in our teen years, some of us were as young as twelve to about age sixteen. Some of us started with the 'sweet' romance of Barbara Cartland and the 1970's version Harlequin with Janet Daily, to the hot and sexy romance of Rosemary Rogers. One of my most favorite romances wasn't even considered a romance, Crocodile on the Sandbank by Elizabeth Peters. (yes, there are two different sites here) *sigh* Radcliffe Emerson and Amelia Peabody still send chills down my spine as their romance survived through the years of archaeological digs, Ramses (their precocious son), WWI, and all sorts of adventures. Though this smattering of blog readers read a variety of romance, NONE OF US WERE PROMISCUOUS BECAUSE OF OUR READING CHOICES.
Hm, interesting. Living smack dab in the heart of the bible belt, I remember preachers, teachers, and bible thumpers droning on and on about the evils of romance. So if romance is so evil and causes girls and young women to fantasize about the perfect man and meaningful relationships, why didn't we become one of the growing statistics of teenage pregnancies?
Could it be because we wanted to believe in true love? Could it be because we learned to respect ourselves and wouldn't succumb to the a quick roll in the hay? Could it be because we really believed that there was a Mr. Right or a knight in shining armor somewhere out there? Could it be because we believed in a Happily Ever After?
Granted, this was a very small smattering of blog responders, but I thought and thought about this for awhile. With the sky-rocketing teenage pregnancy issue in this country--Oklahoma is right near the top--could reading romances be a better birth control than simply handing young women pills or condoms?
Am I simply delusional or could I have hit on something? If nothing else, I'd love to see young women and men reading more and if they happen to read romances then there truly is the power of love.
What do you all think?
Cindy, I think you have something there! You should write an article on this for the RWR. That would be an interesting article, I bet.
ReplyDeleteI can't remember what my first romance was. I started reading my mother's books when I was about 8. She read more mainstream (at the time) than genre, but most good mainstream books have romance, too.
Sorry, I didn't mean Cindy. I meant Margaret! Eeek! My mind is already going and it's not even 10am.
ReplyDeleteLOL, Edie! I was going to comment about it, but you caught it! I know you read a lot of blogs, sometimes it's hard keeping them straight.
ReplyDeleteGlad you enjoyed the blog. I just found the idea very interesting.
I think you might have stumbled onto something. It would interesting to see if that would hold true. Reading romance could have a positive effect on teens as long as a parent is there. I say that because I think teens can get the wrong impression and expect real people to be like their heros/heroines. Which, IMO, is impossible to reach. As long as a parent is there to tell them there is a difference between fantasy and reality, I think it would work.
ReplyDelete:D
I'd rather see teens reading - even if it's romance - than spending all day glued to their video games or texting people on their cell phones.
ReplyDeleteAs for me, I may have read one or two romances in my life, and I can't recall which ones. Personally, they aren't my cup of tea. That has nothing to do with the writing or the story, it is because I am the most non-romantic person on the planet.
I don't know, Kira. I think teens DO know the difference between fantasy and reality. They see reality every day and escape into fantasy.
ReplyDeleteBut, then again, it depends on the kid.
Hey, Jody.
ReplyDeleteI'm excited when I see anyone reading! :-) I love the Harry Potter books, but what J.K. Rowling did was provide a reading outlet for a forgotten group of kids, ages 8-14. Now, there are a slew of books that are for that reading level.
I hesitated to use the words READING LEVEL because I'm reading middle grade books and am truly enjoying them!
A good story is a good story - period!
ReplyDeleteOh, so true, Jody. Oh, so true.
ReplyDeleteI think I started out with Valley of the Dolls in Seventh Grade! LOL
ReplyDeleteBut first real romance I THINK was the Wolf and the Dove by K Woodewiss.
The ONLY thing negative I can really remember is having unrealistic expectations for men!
Ah, but those unrealistic expectations worked, didn't they? You learn not to settle, but to find 'twue wuv'. :-)
ReplyDeleteNo man has ever lived up to my expectations. Hence, the reason I am single again and do not date.
ReplyDeleteSince I do not read romance, I cannot blame books for my unrealistic expectations. I suspect I must take responsibility for that myself.
Damn. I hate it when that happens.
Hehehe.
ReplyDeleteWell, you still have Murray.
i am lmao. awesome post.
ReplyDeletegreat blog. i'm following you now.
you should check out mine. i do author interviews with give-a-ways, amongst other things books and writing.
nice to meet you.
xo
Hey, Kelly!
ReplyDeleteNice to meet you! Thanks for stopping by and glad you enjoyed my post.