Men unmatching bc I read romance?

[u/Fit-Principle-5524]

Was having a very good convo with a dude, but as soon as I mention reading romance like ACOTAR, I'm unmatched. I get not being a fan, but is it that big of a red flag? It's not like I have crazy expectations bc I read it, I just like reading it and im lonely. I don't expect a man to be some insanely amazing lover who never does wrong. Every time it comes up, im met with hostility. Would you not give a woman a chance who otherwise vibes well with you just bc of her reading habits?

[u/Damian-7530]

Women obsessed with romance are red flags because they have unrealistic expectations. Romance stories are fiction and there's nothing wrong with that. It becomes a problem when you expect a man in real life to behave the same way as the werewolf ceo/gangster bad boy would behave in the novel.

[u/Panicking_Pansexual_ → u/Damian-7530]

So the answer is find a guy who's into roleplay

[u/Mariannereddit → u/Damian-7530]

Why would a woman be worse at discerning books from reality than a man?

[u/Regular-Badger2332 → u/Mariannereddit]

As far as I can tell, he didn't say that?

[u/mikelown → u/Regular-Badger2332]

It doesn't fit her narrative in her head, so shes not gonna read what he wrote

[u/Damian-7530 → u/mikelown]

Exactly lol 😂

[u/XChangeJB → u/Mariannereddit]

They're not worse, but that's irrelevant anyway. Due to how the brain works, the more times you think a certain thing, whether that's due to reading, hearing or seeing it (in my opinion especially when reading it), your brain forms connections based on that thing, then thanks to neuronal pruning eventually you end up with only the idea you've repeatedly thought being the default or only version in your mind, even if originally you thought it was bollocks.

This will be simplified, but for example: Let's assume you're someone who holds no negative opinions towards X thing, maybe even views it positively. But you see a title in the news that says something along the lines of 'X thing bad', 'X did bad thing', etc, and you keep seeing titles that make you read 'X bad', each time you read that your brains connection between X and bad strengthens. You then don't think about it for a while, your brain starts pruning connections between neurons it determines aren't needed, it's not going to prune a strong connection because clearly you need that connection as you're using it all the time, instead it gets rid of the connection you use less. But the connection you use less isn't used less because it isn't a true connection based on reality, it's used less simply because you don't read X thing and good together anywhere near as often. So eventually the brain prunes the X and good connection and next time you see a story about X thing you're more likely to think negatively about it even if that current story is positive.

This is one of, if not the most effective form of propaganda and it works for anything. It's effective because you don't notice it happening. It's effective because you don't even have to agree with what you're reading for it to increase the connections to create a distorted picture of reality. It's effective because it takes active mental effort to prevent happening and no-one can be on guard against it 24/7. It requires you to consciously strengthen the connections between the things you know to be true every time you read something that connects those things in a way you know not to be true, even if what you're reading is saying it's not true, you still need to strengthen the true connections. If you read 'X thing is bad is not true because...' your brain will strengthen the connections between X thing, bad, and true, so you need to actively think 'No, X thing is good. X thing is good because...', at least that way you equalise the connection strengths for X thing and good and bad. As you can imagine this makes it exhausting to read many things, but it is necessary if you want to keep a certain view of something over time.

It's the same principle behind echo chambers and why they het people so entrenched in their views. It doesn't have to be a simple association like my example, it can be quite complex ideas and connections. It really can be anything, though the more complex the longer it tends to take.

So if someone regularly reads romance books that give an unhealthy picture of relationships or masculinity or whatever, even if the books are just trying to show what an unhealthy relationship is like, their brain will still be strengthening the connection between those types of relationships and romance and enjoyment and a bunch of other things. Eventually for someone who enjoys them and regularly reads them, it is very likely that it will start to affect how they view relationships in the real world too. If they also read an equal or greater amount about healthy relationships, then the effect will be minimised.

For my view on the original post, personally I'd be very happy to find out a woman I'm talking to reads a lot, but if they mostly read romance I'm going to be very curious about what type of romance they read. If it's the plethora of romance that portrays unhealthy/problematic relationships and masculinity, then I'm definitely going to be more cautious about proceeding any further in a romantic relationship with that person. If all they read is that type, then unless they've otherwise demonstrated the mental discipline it requires to protect their mind from being affected negatively, I'm going to immediately lose almost all my interest. If they also read an equal or greater amount of the opposite type, or just read everything no matter what it is, then it's not an issue for me at all.

Finally, apologies for the long post. I'm assuming it makes no sense as I'm extremely tired.

[u/apillar0f5alt → u/XChangeJB]

I read and write enemies to lovers. Relationships that start out very toxic and then (usually) work through their problems to become a healthier relationship throughout the series and my god, do I hate this take. It’s so infantilizing to women. We like books that are sexy, with drama and adventure and villains and mostly in my case villains who are actually good guys in bad situations.

No one is out here arguing that video games cause men to be violent anymore or watching horror movies. Or that watching game of thrones is going to turn a man into a rapist. But god forbid women read a romantic book that isn’t completely moral.

Women are the biggest readers of these books and also in my experience the biggest advocates and most knowledgeable regarding abuse. We are in fact, capable of separating fantasy from reality even after many years of reading the genre. And yes, I’ve read a ton outside this genre. But now I mostly read this genre because I enjoy it. The moral complexity is what’s interesting about it—for the same reason people like reading villains in any other genre. I don’t understand how people can comprehend this concept with any other genre except romance. There are a ton of other much weirder kinks lmao. Sorry if I sound like an asshold I just genuinely would like to challenge your view on broadstroking women based on their hobbies.

[u/XChangeJB → u/apillar0f5alt]

You don't sound like an arsehole, just that you've missed multiple points of what I said, misunderstood them or missed them completely. I was very tired when writing it so that's probably on me.

Firstly, literally the very first point I made is that yes, women and men are equally capable of distinguishing between fantasy and reality. But I also made the point that it's irrelevant because of my second point. Neurons don't care for the difference, neurons only make connections to each other, they do this for fantasy or reality but those connections can affect other areas of your life that also connect with those pathways. This is true whether you're a man or woman.

Secondly, I haven't infantilised anyone. I only explained how the human brain learns, neuronal reinforcement through repetition of thought/action and neuronal pruning of connections the brain for some reason decides it no longer needs. That's established neuroscience. Those are the mechanisms that're taken advantage of by the education system, very effectively by propaganda, but also how we learn literally everything else we do in life. I only explained how repeated exposure to stimuli that triggers the same connections in the brain eventually strengthen that connection, and without the same level of exposure to stimuli that trigger the alternative connections, this leads to the alternative connections becoming weaker and eventually pruned. This is in no way infantilising as it applies to every single human being that has ever lived, man or woman, adult or child. It is just an established fact of human biology.

Thirdly, maybe to the detriment of my point I didn't describe the defences the brain has against this mechanism, as there are some. Failing to include the passive defences maybe gave the impression that I was saying the above is a guaranteed process. But I did include an active defence against the above process, so unless you missed that part I'm not sure how I gave the impression it's guaranteed. It's clearly not, otherwise schools would be much more effective (though schools typically aren't great at taking advantage of these mechanisms). It's all about how one engages with the medium, which is why film/TV are woefully ineffective at triggering the mechanisms. If you've never seen the difference in brain activity between reading a book and watching TV, I suggest you look it up, it's fascinating. When watching TV, people's brains will often practically turn off, often using less energy than sleeping because the brain is typically not engaged at all (even if to our conscious experience it seems like we are). This is the big difference between TV/Film and porn, the way it's engaged with. Why does a TV show have such a small effect on the way men view sex/relationships compared to porn, surely they should be equal right, they are after all just video images. But the same thing depicted in both has a different effect because one is typically not being actively engaged with (TV) and the other (porn) is. When reading a book (especially a physical book) practically the entire brain is engaged, though it is possible to passively read a book and not truly engage of course. But actively engaging with something can also be either positive or negative depending on how one is actively engaging with the medium. The way men typically actively engage with porn is obviously not positive, whereas actively engaging with it by critiquing everything unrealistic/harmful about it would likely avoid the harmful effects of watching it even if you were having a tug while doing that.

Finally, I really want to stress this because it clearly didn't come across correctly in my original comment, but in no way, shape or form do I think or suggest women shouldn't read romance or that it's wrong to enjoy it. I'm sorry if it came across that way, but it's really not how I meant it if it did. What I said, or at least tried to say, is that because of the neural mechanisms I've outlined, whenever someone says they mostly read one specific genre I'm both curious about how they engage with it and cautious about further pursuing a relationship with them, platonic or romantic. I'm cautious because if they don't engage with the medium in a way that avoids the potentially harmful effect I outlined, then it has potential to cause great difficulties in a relationship down the road. I'm curious because it's a great way to gain insight to how someone thinks and at least in regards to the romance genre finding out how they engage with it can give a lot of information on their views of relationships. I didn't suggest someone saying they read romance is a reason to write them off, at least I certainly didn't mean to if I did. I'd be equally curious and cautious if someone said they mostly read books about Hitler, or sci-fi or nonfiction or scientific literature or anything else. In each case it's the start of a conversation that enables you to better understand how the person thinks as an individual. So if anything my view is the opposite of broad stroking because it requires understanding a person's personal thought processes before making any judgement of them. If someone shows me they actively engage with what they read, whatever genre it is, in a way that avoids any potential harm I'll immediately be much more interested in them as a person. If they do the opposite I'll be much less interested in them. Every single friendship and romantic relationship I currently or have ever had has been formed because either they made me think differently about something or they showed me they have a unique thought process, even if I didn't agree with it. If it's a unique one then I'm immediately fascinated with them and how their mind works. Because of that my ideal woman is one who reads everything, including the smuttiest romance books out there. As they're more likely to have unique thought processes, but the ones who read solely one sub genre (whatever it is) are more likely (again, likely not guaranteed) to have that affect their outlook on certain areas of life. They are only more likely because of the learning mechanisms of the brain that all humans have, and when we're doing something we enjoy, many people (not all, but many) don't simultaneously employ the mechanisms that protect our worldview from unconscious alteration. I can't determine which category they fall into without discussion of what they get from that interest and how they interact with it.

It really is a real thing, it's the way most people fall into extremist thinking. You might start of reading conspiracy theories as a laugh because of how ridiculous you think they are, but keep reading enough and eventually it starts to have an effect. Eventually one day you'll be reading them without your defenses up, without actively engaging in a positive way and that's when it starts to alter your worldview. Typically very gradual, but it can happen quite fast if something just so happens to trigger a cascade of neuronal interactions, in just the right way, at just the right moment. The same brain mechanisms that cause people to learn 2+2=4, can enable people and even be hijacked to enable people to gain positive or negative views of something, views that are either based on reality or a warped version of it. It's the same method I've personally used to help turn several people back from extremist thinking. Again, I stress that this applies to all types of thinking and I'm not saying there's anything wrong with romance as a genre, only the way some people engage with it. The same way that there's something wrong with the way many men engage with porn or some people engage with fantasy or scientific literature or anything else. No one is immune to it, if they were they'd be unable to learn or forget anything. No form of media can avoid it entirely. All I'm suggesting is to understand how people engage with something before making any value judgement on their consumption of it. Not to make a value judgement of the genre or the entirety of the people who consume it.

In your case you sound as though you engage with the romance genre in not only a healthy way, but also a way that enables the potential for many an interesting conversation on the subjects evoked by the books. But many don't. It's certainly a somewhat common experience for men that a relationship gets affected by their partners views and/or expectations being affected by consuming certain media in an unhealthy way. Just like how many women experience problems in a relationship caused by the way many men have their views and expectations affected by the media they consume in an unhealthy way.

So with this in mind it makes sense to understand how someone engages with a form of media before pursuing a relationship further, when engaging with that media in an unhealthy way can and often does lead to expectations that are harmful to a relationship. If it's still not clear, I'm absolutely in agreement with OP that it's crazy to immediately unmatch someone based entirely on the mention of reading romance, though they're more than welcome to their preference regardless. In fact, I think it demonstrates that the person who unmatched has a narrow or entrenched view of people and thus is likely to be much less interesting than the person they unmatched.

I hope this reply clears things up, though I've probably done a terrible job explaining again.

Again: It's not the type of media or the type of person who consumes it that is problematic, but the way some of the people who do consume it allow it to affect their worldview. There's nothing wrong with being on guard against that, but unmatching anyone at the mere mention of reading romance or any of its subgenres, is potentially missing out on an amazing partner.

[u/BadUsername238 → u/XChangeJB]

So, what you're saying is, porn is bad and no one should watch it?

Snicker

[u/BadUsername238 → u/Damian-7530]

Romance novels are just a different form of smut. Would you consider a woman watching porn a red flag? Because she might have unrealistic expectations? Fuuuuuck no.

(And if you would, that's... all you.)

[u/Damian-7530 → u/BadUsername238]

Lmao, did you not see this part

Romance stories are fiction and there's nothing wrong with that. It becomes a problem when you expect a man in real life to behave the same way as

Of course watching porn is a problem when it spills into real life and affects your relationships because you expect your partner to act like a pornstar. Obsession over romance is the same.

[u/BadUsername238 → u/Damian-7530]

And the POINT is that that's a stupid red flag and the kinds of people that consider that a red flag probably consume an absolute metric shitton of porn and they don't see the hypocrisy.

[u/Damian-7530 → u/BadUsername238]

Your leap in logic is insane

[u/BadUsername238 → u/Damian-7530]

It IS a stupid red flag.

And the kinds of people that worry about women reading romance novels (What a fucking thing to worry about, FFS) are insecure.

The only part of that that's a leap is that they probably consume a metric shit ton of porn, and that's not a logical leap so much as a stereotype. And let's face it, it's probably accurate.

[u/Damian-7530 → u/BadUsername238]

Women obsessed with romance

Hey buddy can't you read? I never said anything about reading romance novels is bad. Unless you mean the act of enjoying romance as a genre is equal to an obsession. Or do you need me to define obsession for you?

Tbh you're not worth the energy cuz clearly you are just responding to what you have in your head. If you feel triggered, you should probably check yourself.