Common romance tropes I dislike

Every major genre in fiction and nonfiction encompasses common tropes that become strong enough to form their own sub-genres. In fiction, the romance genre probably leads the pack in sheer quantity of sub-genres. Some I flatly dislike.

1. Secret baby romance. The all-too-common scenario goes like this: hero and heroine have a fling, usually a one night stand, that results in an unplanned pregnancy. The heroine fails to inform the hero of the consequences of their night of indulgence and becomes the stereotypical unwed mother struggling to provide for herself and her baby. The hero discovers he's a father and, despite the philandering interval, decides that he wants the responsibility of parenthood and expresses determination to marry the mother of his child.

I always wonder why the heroine doesn't take the logical step of informing the hero sooner. A child is a huge (and expensive) responsibility. After all, it takes two to make a baby and both parents have the obligation or duty to provide for that child. In many stories, years pass. The kid's walking and talking, going to school, etc., before the hero learns that he's a father. Of course, the hero's initial reaction tends toward anger. I understand that. I'd be furious at the deception, too.

Generally, there's no good reason for that deception. Sometimes the heroine doesn't know who the hero is, not even his name, hence the frequently encountered one-night-stand scenario which I find both ludicrous and despicable. Sometimes the heroine believes the hero is dead. That usually happens in romances that cross into the military sub-genre. It's a more credible reason: soldiers, sailors, and airmen do get deployed and they do perish in service to their country.

2. Fake engagement/fake marriage romance. This standard plot device concerns the desperation of a protagonist to deceive certain people (or everyone) in order to avoid scandal, improve his or her public image, or receive an inheritance or promotion. I'm not a fan of deception in general, but those scenarios leave a bad taste in my mouth.

The first reason (avoiding scandal) works best in historical fiction when, in polite society, a lady went to great lengths to protect her reputation. In those days when securing a good match in terms of financial stability factored larger than emotional attachment, the collusion between the hero and heroine to protect the latter from character assassination or from unwanted suitors at least makes sense. In contemporary fiction, however, relaxed social mores laugh at youthful peccadillos, and scandals erupt and fizzle with startling speed.

The second reason for the deception usually involves a womanizing lecher for a hero whom the heroine simply cannot resist, despite his habitual, ingrained, and demeaning attitude toward and treatment of women. Would such a man, upon spending time with the often randomly picked heroine, experience a complete change of heart and devote himself solely to her? Perhaps I'm too practical, but I doubt it. Past behavior is a good indicator of future behavior.

The last reason simply smacks of dishonesty and manipulation, especially when that manipulation occurs from beyond the grave via the specifications of someone's last will and testament. While that may fly in historical fiction, I doubt such terms of inheritance pass legal muster these days. Perhaps I'm just too naive or idealistic, but for matters of promotion, marital status seems an unlikely and unfair consideration that has nothing to do with whether a candidate can do the job.

3. BDSM. Yes, I'm fully aware there is a thriving subculture steeped in a mixture of kinky sex, pain, and humiliation. Most books in this category easily blur the lines between romance and erotica and focus on the pleasure and happiness the hero and heroine receive from an intimate relationship between a "dom" (usually the male) and a "sub" (usually the female).

I'm also aware of the strides modern society has made in recognizing women as fully functioning human beings rather than subhuman creatures with more hair than wit. The major problems I see with BDSM romances are the lack of consent and degradation presented as something wonderful and desirable.

I take issue with other tropes, but more with specific stories than with the sub-genres in general. "Dubcon" (dubious consent) and "noncon" (non-consent, which is a euphemistic term for rape) haven't yet become tropes in themselves, although they appear regularly within the entire genre. Their popularity endures, said to arise from early exploration of female sexuality and giving women, via the heroines, permission to enjoy bedroom intimacy without shame or responsibility.

I'm not entirely sure I accept that rationale, but I do know that consent factors largely in societal attitudes toward women and their relationships. To take away consent is to deny one's basic humanity.