Right.. the men characters always having relationships with so MANY women while the female...

That's because, in the Harlequin World, men are attractive studs for being totally promiscuous, but women are used goods when they do it. It's all spelled out in the Harlequin Patriarchal Handbook for Relations Between the Sexes. Men, the "superior beings," are incapable of resisting their lustful urges because they will become effeminate sissy boys if they don't get laid on a regular basis. Women, the "inferior beings," can only be with one male, and have to give themselves completely and abjectly to said chosen male, and her heart can only beat for him. Keep these simple rules in mind, and YOU TOO can write these tender tales of subjugation and utter loss of critical faculties.

It's not a wholy unreasonably portrayal based on the fact that men and women are, quite literally, hardwired differently. It's a hormonally driven developmental difference that starts in the womb. Women, as a general rule, are more into emotional relationships and sex is a way to deepen that bond. It is easier for them to remain celibate, especially if they are in love. They truly may not feel desire for another man. And that's one reason I truly hate Harlequin's stereotype that a woman can be brought to her knees, wholy against her will, and reduced to a puppet with no will of her own by a single kiss. The fact is, emotions are a big part of a woman's turn on.

Men, on the otherhand, are visually stimulated and there is little emotion in basic lust which is only concerned with physical pleasure. That is why sensually dressed women can sometimes make it uncomfortable for even happily married men, and even more so for singles. If a guy lets his lust control him, a playboy lifestyle is to be expected but that brings up the male Harlequin fallacy I hate - It doesn't matter how uncomfortable a guy is, they are not animals and CAN control themselves! And we should never condone the, "I can't stop myself (bear with me while I rape you; you'll probably like it by the time I'm done)!" bullshit. "No." means, "No!". No excuses.

But based on that, its not an unbelievable portrayal, even though I still consider it unreasonable that these novels would continue to give playboys such a positive image in Harlequins. The fact is, RL statistics show that marriages of couples who engaged in premarital sex have a higher failure rate over those who waited (not to mention all the other risks that Harlequins never bother to address. STDs, for example. So unromantic. Let's pretend they don't exist), so its really sad to see all these misleading stories implying things so completly different from reality to people who may not know better. Its even sadder that the romantic novels that actually set good examples are the minority in the genre.