I haven’t read this book so I can’t say whether I would feel the same way about it, but this type of categorization is another reason why I tend not to read as much contemporary romance as other subgenres. I’ve noticed that these types of messages come across more strongly to me in contemporaries, on average that is. There are exceptions, of course.

Agreed. I get hyper-critical of characters in contemporaries while I don’t necessarily in the historicals. Irrational, yes, though I think my mind can justify the milksop doormat feminine heroine-type in the occasional historical. Granted, I don’t like the gender stereotypes that Jessica listed anywhere, but I have a much harder time swallowing them in contemporaries.

Why would anyone design romance cover art for the male gaze?

I have no idea.*

To be fair, maybe it’s the gay female gaze. Or the 22% of readers RWA says are men. Or the female-reader-who-self-inserts-into-the-story-and-has-exhibitionist-urges demographic? Regardless, I’ve never understood all the up-skirt shots on contemporary covers. (E.g. in this common cover shot the skirt is sometimes made shorter, sometimes longer.)

OTOH I don’t really get the man-titty covers either. So maybe it’s just me being unexpectedly prudish.

* ooh wait, I do remember reading the (possibly apocryphal) story that romance buyers were originally men, so the covers were designed to appeal to them. There we have it: the reason for all the cleavage shots on historicals and up-skirt shots on contemporaries. And shoe-fetishist shots on chick lit covers. And… where to stop?

Lucy is on her tiptoes, in high heels, while doing a complicated tango move with Jake. You can tell it’s tango because of the raised knee. There is no other possible explanation. Why else would Lucy repeat that Jake “really can dance” if it’s not of vital importance? It must be. And that’s why they’re dancing on the cover, too.

I guess I felt like some shorthands were being relied on to move the story and develop the characters.

•Upper class men = snobby/effeminate/artificial/conceited
•Working class = humble/masculine/natural
•Career/assertive woman/childfree = unfeminine/unfulfilled
•Vulnerable/traditional female occupation/mother/smallness/delicateness = feminine.

I haven’t read this book so I can’t say whether I would feel the same way about it, but this type of categorization is another reason why I tend not to read as much contemporary romance as other subgenres. I’ve noticed that these types of messages come across more strongly to me in contemporaries, on average that is. There are exceptions, of course.

Ugh. A good editor would have caught that. And how can hair look like butter? (Yellow and greasy? Hello, not sexy!)

I don’t read het as a rule, and this book reminds me of all the reasons I don’t. Stereoptypical gender roles and female authors reinforcing the patriarchy, I can really do without.

has to press into the woman’s belly

But, but, but then how can his masculinity snuggle perfectly against her femininity as if made for one another? (Srsly, I swear I’ve read that scene, and more than once.)

BTW, on the cover the heroine looks oddly tall. The strange up-skirt shot does her no favors.

You’re right! Everyone knows that the penis has to press into the woman’s belly! I read this on my Kindle, so I never even looked at the picture.

BTW, on the cover the heroine looks oddly tall. The strange up-skirt shot does her no favors. Looks like another case of cover art designed for the male gaze.