John Storey’s (2012) analysis of romance novels uses various scholars’ interpretation to illuminate the gender stereotypes present in these novels. Rosalind Coward’s (1984) exploration of what constitutes female desire was quite interesting in that it showed that feminists and non-feminist women enjoy romance novels because of the fantasies associated with them. She argues that while while our subjectivity and identity inform our desires, female desire is still “lured by discourses which sustain male privilege” (Coward, 1984 in Storey, 2012). Coward (1984) points out that in romance novels female sexuality is seen to be passive and is only activated by male sexuality. She calls this “regressive” and “pre-adolescent”. While this remains true of romance novels, it is important to note that this mostly relates to constructions of white female sexuality. This construct, which closely relates to Victorian-era perceptions of femininity, excludes women of colour.

Black female sexuality was in fact constructed as parallel to white femininity. While white females were taught to be passive and seen as pure and dainty, black women were thought to be lascivious and hypersexual. Black female sexuality did not fit the feminine ideal and as such black women were considered to be unfeminine. This notion disrupts the depiction of women in romance novels. While women’s sexuality is portrayed as passive in these novels, this analysis ignores the depiction of black female sexuality which could not be considered pure and/or passive.

The absence of an intersectional analysis does not however render the argument unnecessary. Romance novels still do portray an ideal that sustains male privilege and this should be tackled.

References
Storey, John (2012). Cultural Theory and Popular Culture: A Reader, 6th edition. Harlow: Pearson Education.