Romance Novel Men

[Byron]

What are thoughts on the classic "Romance Novel Hero?" These books have been described as basically porn for women. They are also sources of valuable information on fundamentals and vibe. (I am including tv show characters that also fit this stereotype, such as Damon Salvatore)
Pros
-Generally excellent body fundamentals
- Striking fashion, either stylish or different and tasteful
- Muscular, toned bodies
- Some have long hair, some not, most are clean shaved or have stubble
- Mysterious and have Byronic qualities, almost always strong and silent type.
-Ambitious/and or have positions of power
-always very good looking facially (this is hard to change but can be done with facial hair and hairstyles)
- Never are the nice guys or supplicate

Some cons to consider
- Sometimes antisocial or awkward socially (usually to highlight vulnerability)
- Can be too edgy or slightly scary
- Doesn't fit with all personalities (but can be tailored to)

That's all of the cons I can think of.
One other thing (not good or bad) is that they have a brooding vibe normally, the whole high energy Van Wilder thing is not a part of this.
Thoughts on this idea of the ideal attractive man?

 

[PinotNoir]

Chase has actually dived rather deep into this with the "byronic hero" (a term I never knew about until reading these articles):

https://www.girlschase.com/search/node/Byronic

Personally, I've never read a typical romance novel. I've read plenty of romantic novels, but not like the 100s littering countless walls in every store with half-naked guys on the covers. Really, I feel like I ought to, to learn more about what a woman wants/desires, but of course, the subject is never interesting to me, and I feel that it may be a "false" perception. I may be focused on the chiseled muscles or something, while that's not what's really turning the women on. Mainly, I already have enough books to read, and I don't want to waste a week reading one I know that I'll hate (at least based on the summaries that I have read).

Have you read any? If so, what books did you read?

I think this year I'll force myself to read one...

 

[Byron]

I've read a few but I never really want to but lately I've seen them as learning experiences. Yeah I've seen the 100s of them I usually read the backs to get the idea of the guy but I've made myself read a few. They taught me a lot on presentation and how to tie everything together, it was fascinating and it also gave insights on the female mind but other then that I kind of had to choke them down. Eat your veggies!
-youngbyron

 

[Achilles]

Displaying Byronic traits, which you may find in these novels, is important. The cons you list aren't all that bad, and you can and should tailor your Byronic traits to the woman in question. When, how, and whether or not you should display a particular Byronic trait are things to consider. I recently did a post about cynicism, which although is a Byronic trait, I've shed, especially after reading Chase's article on the subject.

The thing I'd be wary about when it comes to Romance novels is whether or not the novel is written by a male. Most men, even romance authors, do not fully understand the female psyche. Their characters may have traits that the author believes is what women want. If you're finding Byronic characters, then that may not be the case. If you're finding classic Southern gentlemen who do everything the woman wants and try to court her by indulging her, then obviously stay away from those kind of novels. More importantly, as Chase has brought up in an older article, what women say they want and what they really want are two different things altogether. Women may say they want this or that after watching a romantic film or reading a romance novel, but the men they bed are often very different than those men.

I also don't have the time to read romance novels, but I do think it's a good idea to look into them if you have the time, along with checking out other works of fiction, despite the genre, that make women swoon. Research is always a plus.