LONDON – Mills & Boon romance novels should come with a health warning, according to a report published in an academic journal.
Blaming romance novels for unprotected sex, unwanted pregnancies, unrealistic sexual expectations and relationship breakdowns, author and psychologist Susan Quilliam wrote in the Journal of Family Planning and Reproductive Health Care that “what we see in our consulting rooms is more likely to be informed by Mills & Boon than by the Family Planning Association”.
Her comments follow a recent claim that romance novels can “dangerously unbalance” their readers, with psychologist Juli Slattery saying she was seeing “more and more women who are clinically addicted to romantic books” and that “for many women, these novels really do promote dissatisfaction with their real relationships”.
Writing in the latest issue of the academic magazine, published by the British Medical Journal, Ms Quilliam said: “We want women to be aware of their own desires rather than be ‘awakened’.”
In a statement, Mills & Boon said: “Mills & Boon is synonymous with the romantic fiction genre, which is of course an enjoyable means of escaping everyday life but not a guide to reality.
“Our readers are intelligent enough to understand the difference, just as the many fans of rom coms and chick flicks would not choose to mirror in their lives what they see on film.” The Guardian
It’s strange, but the drug addict doesn’t get hanged. It’s the drug trafficker that gets hanged. But if it’s a drunk driver that’s involved in a accident, the bartender who mixed his drinks doesn’t get punished. Is it fair to blame Mills & Boon for “dangerously unbalanced” readers? What about “unprotected sex, unwanted pregnancies, unrealistic sexual expectations and relationship breakdown”. Mills & Boon at fault again? As the Cantonese would say, “like that also can?”.
But at least, Mills & Boon can argue its case. Almost every form of entertainment offers an escape from reality. How can we blame unrealistic expectations and relationship breakdown on the entertainment industry? But in some of the more sheltered societies, regulations that aim at protecting the public from misleading information cannot be challenged. Aestehtic doctors/dentists are not allowed to show their cases to potential patients. This is to prevent these helpless individuals from being misled by the doctor’s best cases. The results are not always as perfect, but wouldn’t any intelligent adult be aware of that? Wouldn’t any prudent and responsible practitioner give a disclaimer to protect himself? Wouldn’t any practitioner be concerned about legal action in case of gross misrepresentation?
We don’t even need to look hard to find spas and beauty centres advertising with before and after pictures which are obviously photoshopped. Are their customers duped into expecting the same results? Obviously not. Advertising itself is being viewed as a form of entertainment. Like Mills & Boon, advertisements offer an escape from reality as well. Over the years of media evolution, audiences all over the world have grown to laugh at advertisements. They may or may not buy the product immediately, but the product, service or message being advertised will certainly make an impression.
So do you see all the uneducated Thai peasants out there behaving like lunatics after watching these videos? Do you see women trying to drag the “prominence” from their tummies to their breasts after consuming that drink being advertised? As if a disclaimer is even necessary. I guess they must have added the disclaimer just to add more punch to the humour.
Protect the innocent (ignorant)? I see it more likely for their educated people to behave like lunatics when they hear something from the Election Commission or someone in Dubai. What about you, the consumer? Is there a need to protect you from being misled by a large, representative sample of unedited before and after pictures from a practitioner who is, anyway, accountable for the outcome? Isn’t it strange that some of the experts in developed countries often give far less credit to the innocent public’s intelligence than is due?
