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

[rwday.livejournal.com]

Wow, talk about timely. I was just ranting about this on my wordpress blog, because I started really thinking about Ashes and how certain characters' actions will not suit the portion of the reading audience that believes once two people in a romance meet, they should be forever faithful no matter what.

Real relationships are complex, real people are complicated. I don't understand readers wanting cardboard cutout characters who aren't allowed to explore their sexuality or make a mistake once in a while.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

Couldn't agree more, and have added a link to your post, too.

Mistakes! YES! Growth! All very important things.

[the-sea-to.livejournal.com]

YES YES YES YES YES!

(quietly in case the headache has not gone)

[rwday.livejournal.com]

Thanks for the pimpage. My post is really just me trying to work some stuff out by writing it down, so not really as geared for conversation as Jessewave's.

I think what the push for fidelity/monogamy points out is that a lot of these m/m readers are women. Women generally value fidelity. Men (in general, obviously there are exceptions) not so much. The committed gay couples I know, which is admittedly a small sample, may value emotional fidelity, but from what I've seen, they're more open to a sexual exploration outside the relationship than a straight couple might be. That doesn't mean they don't still love their partners, they just look at how that love manifests differently.

I happen to believe personally in fidelity. I made a promise, and I take that seriously. But I know other married couples who did not include monogamy in their vows and have open relationships, and while their love may look differently than mine, it's no less love for all that.

[erastes.livejournal.com]

oops, sorry!

[rwday.livejournal.com]

No reason to be sorry! I'm glad of the conversation, just saying that the post is kind of rambling and disjointed where hers has cool (and relevant) questions to answer.