Edit: His name is Mark Manson, sorry for the typo

31 comments

  3. Sure, there’s some relatable stuff between the two. Some of them have a plot, some of them have bad sex, a lot of them are sexist and kinda gross.

    But men read romance/erotica and women watch porn. Neither belongs to one gender.

  5. Translation, “I don’t like to read them myself and here’s a comment to demean or be dismissive of women because I was asked a question.” – Mark Mason

  6. I don’t see why it has to be limited to women?

    I am sure men can get aroused by reading romantic novels just as I can get aroused by watching traditional porn when the mood hits.

    People are different, maybe more women prefer romance novels as their method but its certainly not sex exclusive as the quote seems to suggest.

  7. Somehow, maybe.

    Personally, sexual descriptions in written fiction give me a lot more than visual stimulation.
    Or just coming up with my own scenarios in my head. That’s a lot better than pornography.

    But I don’t read romance novels lol.
    Ususally just action with some steamy sex scenes in between maybe.

  8. I disagree with it because it gracelessly generalize the preferences of women as a group as though we all have the same experiences or opinions about text-based vs image-based sexual media and gracelessly generalizes men in the opposite direction by implication with the same flaw in reasoning. It may all be on the spectrum of pornography, but the “for women” bit is sexist and stupid.

  10. I disagree. There’s tons of romance novels that don’t have sex scenes and are just a wonderful love story.

  12. I think porn is also porn for women, lol – people acting like women don’t watch porn is weird to me.

  13. Pornography for women is pornography. A romance novel is a romance novel. Erotica is a mix? 🤷🏼‍♀️

  14. I kind of agree with the statement. I don’t particularly care for romance novels but I have read a couple. They really are rather like soft porn in many ways.

    I actually think that real porn would be more popular with women if there was more romance instead of a pizza guy showing up and getting busy 2 minutes after he arrives.

  15. Romance novels often portray men as vulnerable,interested in love and with a desire to please women…basically the opposite of the majority of pornography.

  17. I agree to an extent.

    The main issue I take with this is noone actually gets AIDS, raped, tortured, dies or any other possible horrible scenarios.

  18. Here I am, thinking that pornography was pornography for women. Jokes aside, it can be spicy and I actually use both text and video for that purpose.

  19. Reductive and demeaning, probably misogynistic. Sounds like someone who doesn’t read romance novels.

  20. Okay and….? It’s not like it’s easy to find pornography online that appeals to women so what’s wrong with find a media that appeals to us?

  22. Only some romance contain smut…General romance novels for women aren’t porn because not all are explicit, just romance blown out of proportion

  23. Sorry, but I’ve read romance novels without sex scenes.

    Also, I looked for this quote for context and I found this long article of him teaching “how to attract a woman.” And as someone who loves romance, he is not quite accurate because I know that what I read in books is fiction and therefore I don’t sit in a bar, wait for a guy with sexy body built to talk to me or look for a handsome asshole turns out to have a sweet personality.

    The other parts of the article is kind of positive but I feel like he’s just trying to be funny with this quote. 👀

  24. I would really need more context on this one.

    On one hand this could be a dismissive statement toward the romance novel

    On the other hand, this could be some type of criticism on how pornography is sold to women as romance novels

    I don’t read a lot of romance so it’s hard for me to say directly, but I do think that romance is often a way to package soft core pornography in a way that differentiates it from visual porn or even erotica and allows us to call it by a more respectable and accepted title.

  25. I can think of two ways to read this statement:

    1) “Hey, do y’all realize those romance novels can be DIRTY?! They’re porn, not delicate books that are just about feelings.” This one is interesting insofar as it acknowledges women can be sexual beings and do consume porn. It’s also true, romance novels are often pretty hot, and some are definitely outright porn! It’s reductive and inaccurate in that not all romance novels – not most in my experience – are really porn; many have no explicit sex, and in most sex is a pretty small part of the book.

    2) “We men like watching porn, you know, people having sex. Women like to read about people having FEELINGS; that’s the equivalent of porn to a woman.” This is sexist, outmoded, and essentialist. This old XKCD comic is pertinent: https://xkcd.com/714/

  26. I worked at a remote mine in the Northwest Territories. I was one of 15 women at a minesite of 300, and there was only smutty romance novels on the few bookshelves out there. Some of them were…well used

  27. Nope. Pornography that women like to watch is pornography for women. Romance novels are romance novels.

  29. This need way more context. He is trying to highlight the difference in sexual attraction between women and men. Also, it was written in the early 2000’s, so some opinions might’ve changed by now. Taking a random quote from a book and asking for opinions without context doesn’t really guarantee a fruitful discussion.

  30. Romance novels typically depict sexual intercourse at some point in the story with great detail. A woman reading this would be aroused, like a man watching a porn feeling aroused. Except men don’t need a setting etc etc so feel aroused.

  31. I think men could enjoy romance novels too. It’s porn for those that need more of a mental stimulation to be turned on.

Leave a Reply
You May Also Like