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

[anderyn.livejournal.com]

Okay, as a romance reader, to ME, once the protagonists of the book meet and commit to each other, THEN they must be faithful. If the hero has fucked every person he's met, it's a bit gross (Duke of Slut, anyone?), but even then, I can still believe that once he finds TWU WUV he won't stray as long as I believe in that TWU WUV. I think, for me, this comes down to how I think about marriage -- in real life -- it is a commitment to be with that person given in front of God and everyone, and you don't break that promise. You just don't. So if someone is breaking marriage vows, I get unhappy and think of that as unfaithfulness. (I know men can't get married to each other in historical romances, but I feel that a commitment is just as sacred for them, since that's all they can legally have.) I don't think of having more than one spouse (if one has died, or divorce has happened) or having had previous lovers as being unfaithful, either, as long as the having other lovers ends once a commitment is made.

(Edited to add a bit of clarity to my last statement)

[erastes.livejournal.com]

But that didn't happen in Standish, and I thought you enjoyed it anyway?

[anderyn.livejournal.com]

I did enjoy Standish, make no mistake. But I don't think of it as a "romance" in the same terms as a romance novel. I think of it as a historical novel, with erotic overtones. Hee. Now you've got me genre-izing. But when I think of reading a "romance novel", I think of it as having that HEA, and having the main couple be faithful to each other. I don't expect that in other novels (which aren't "romances"), which can have triads/quads/puppy piles if that's what makes the writer happy. I actually like that kind of thing, but it's not to my liking in a "romance".

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Ah - now that's it, I think. Gehayi has been saying that there seems to be a "new" genre which is falling between the cracks. Not romance and not Literature and not porn, so that's probably the rub - good point, hun!

[the-sea-to.livejournal.com]

THAT IS SOME OF US!

Cannot say DRM is romance. People tend to live slightly longer in Romances (at least until they get to shag their son's boyfriends best-friend/object of lust anyhoo)

[the-sea-to.livejournal.com]

YES YES YES YES YES

. I think of it as a historical novel, with erotic overtones

See! This is why pigeonholing (not directed at you sweetie) is BAD!

EXACTLY WHAT I WAS SAYING ABOUT STANDISH BEFORE! I AM NOT ALONE!!!!!