Lets talk about sex (again)

[erastes]

Jessewave has an interesting discussion going (I love Jessewave's Blog because she so often has interesting discussions) about "m/m" and the level of sex and emotional impact within them. E.g. what do people like? When is too much? Etc etc. Pop along and add your two cents.

What interested me was the promiscuity section. I've seen this discussed on many a het romance forum and I am gobsmacked that most people don't want promiscuity in their book, or unfaithfulness at least. They don't want any unfaithfulness at all from their heroes once they've met "the one."  I find this baffling, really.  Unfaithfulness (as I said in the discussion) is a standard romance trope.

I mean - look at Gone with the Wind (to pull one title from the ether) if Scarlett had remained "true" to either Ashley or Rhett it would have been a much smaller, and a much lesser book. She wouldn't have got married twice for a start.

In these discussions of both types (m/f and m/m) people say they won't read on if someone is unfaithful--they'd certainly not have got far with Standish then, with Rafe and his brain in his breeches.

Do you agree?  Do you think it's because people think--deep down--that a Rake can't ever be reformed and that the HEA won't last?

So after you've commented on Wave's discussion, pop back and talk to me about unfaithfulness, will ya?

ETA: R W Day is also discussing this, purely co-incidentally, so go and chat to her too!!

Comments

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Part of it, I think, is that I dislike too much of the "genre" tag. If GWTW was published today it would be forced to be put into one pigeon hole or another, as people seem obsessed with sticking labels on everything.

I think RW Day's post (added to the main post) sums it up better than I could ever say, it's almost impossible in some cases to force your characters to be faithful as they wander about separated from the "one" that they love. Men simply aren't going to say "oh no! I must be true to my sweetheart" they are going to take what's offered, and yes that's a generalisation, but largely true, specially if they think they can get away with it.

Oh yes, I agree with you about the "discarded" part, I generally make 'em leave or kill them off, but some people say they won't read any unfaithfulness. I can only say it would make Transgressions a very very dull book if my protags kept themselves purely for each other when the Civil War tears them apart!!

[the-sea-to.livejournal.com]

yes. genre = hate.

Do not care what genre a book is. care that it is a good story. If yes, will read. If not, will probably still read (ridiculous reading speed to blame there) but will hate it and tell all how horrible it is.

ETA: Still want the WHALES TORN APART BY WAR story pls.

[rwday.livejournal.com]

ome people say they won't read any unfaithfulness

How does that even work? When I pick up a book at the library or off a bookshelf, I read what's on the back, or maybe the first three or four pages as a way to decide if it's something I'll be interested in and rarely does the back cover blurb indicate infidelity. Do these people expect novels to be loaded down with warning labels like fanfic?

[anderyn.livejournal.com]

No, but usually you can figure it out, particularly if you are, like me, an end-reader and a spoiler whore. (I read reviews of romances, in particular, to find out if I might like a book before I go into the store, because I have been burned by so many many many bad writers that I will not just go will-y-nill-y into the romance aisles without at least a recommendation. Of course, if I have read someone's work and loved it, I will look at their stuff, but there are very very few (maybe only one?) romance writers who I would auto-buy without checking first.)