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]

All I have to say about "people are complicated" is that in real life, if my husband strayed, he'd be dead dead dead in three minutes, because our understanding of what marriage means is that you don't ever betray it with another person. Even when separated. Even if the person you could betray it with is someone you've had the hots for since forever. I do understand that other people have different standards (poly relationships come to mind), but in my experience, once you know you can trust the other person in your marriage to be there, then you know it's forever. The HEA, as it were.

[gehayi.livejournal.com]

"People are complicated" means that people don't always react the same way to the same situation, both in fiction and in real life. They have different reactions and often different motives. I think that fiction should reflect that.

You seem to be reacting as if infidelity in a story in some way applies to real-life marriage. And to me, that doesn't make sense. A writer does what's right for the story, and that means being true to the characters, even if they do something that is immoral or illegal. Even if the readers don't like it.

but in my experience, once you know you can trust the other person in your marriage to be there, then you know it's forever

Your quote makes me think of my parents. They were passionately in love. Trusted each other implicitly. And absolutely, positively could not live together. They both had extremely bad tempers. They fought constantly.

They divorced before I was born. And remarried. And divorced again. The second time took.

Love is wonderful. Trust is wonderful. But they don't fix everything. And they don't guarantee a happy ending.

You do raise an issue that I hadn't thought of, though--that of readers wanting uber-fidelity and happy-ever-afters to validate their choices or their morals. That might be the reason that so many romance readers insist on scrupulous fidelity even when it's grossly out of character for the fictional person concerned.

That might also be why fidelity in fiction and HEAs in romance aren't that important to me. I just want to read a good and believable story, whether the morals and behavior are those I agree or not.

[the-sea-to.livejournal.com]

A writer does what's right for the story, and that means being true to the characters, even if they do something that is immoral or illegal. Even if the readers don't like it.

Well said. I tend not to be a 15thC Florentine sculptor, monk or nobleman. So I tend not to behave like them, nor expect their behavior to impact on my everyday life.

BTW E's told me your current novel is great! so congrats and good luck placing it!

[anderyn.livejournal.com]

As I said below, this is only true for what I would call "romance novels" -- the ones where an HEA is everything, and the main characters ARE committed to each other. They are an escape from reality into an "ideal" world where that is true. I realize that real people are complex and that the HEA is not attainable in real life (at least not the romance-land kind -- I feel that I have had as close to one as I can get, considering that I've been married for 31 years and we still love each other very much, though a lot of those years weren't all that much fun due to childcare, job woes, and all of the rest of real life. And, seriously, part of why we've been happy together is that we are we, and not just two people living together -- we made a choice to make our lives one, and so we make that choice every day over and over again.)

I have a different standard of what makes a book good when I'm reading a romance, because, while I appreciate a good plot and excellent setting and wonderful characters in anything I read, a good romance makes me believe that the world is good and love can conquer, etc. etc. etc., at least as long as I am reading it. It takes a good author to do that, and keep all the other elements good, too, so I won't lie and say I love ALL romances. I don't. But when one is good, it is extra-specially good, with sugar sprinkles on top, because it comes with the built-in happy ending and all.

I do not expect other genre books to come with that HEA. Hell, I was just re-reading a book I adore last night, R. M. Meluch's "Queen's Squadron", where the secondary protagonist ended up with an uncertain death sentence (due to a toxic overdose while being tortured, he can die tomorrow, or anytime) and his heart broken, because his "from the losing side in the stellar war" torturer/lover had been executed for being a war criminal (which he WAS but he was also a very admirable person in his own way). So, yeah, I'm not just expecting any character not to be real and confusing in his or her own ways. I like all kinds of books as long as they present me with a compelling character or seven.

[mzcalypso.livejournal.com]

I think a lot of romance readers want the fidelity in their fiction because they've been hurt in real life and want to believe that yes, it could be real. They may be married to an alcoholic, or an abusive husband, but want to believe their 'bad boy' (god, I hate 'bad boys') can be redeemed. I had an aunt like that; two awful marriages and the self-esteem of a trashcan. Romances were her escape--sort of an emotional painkiller. And I think there's a certain value for there to be some books that do have such a formula, for people who are using them to cope with inescapably unhappy reality. Most of the people who post on this blog and others like it are far more introspective and comfortable with uncertainty than a lot of readers. Many people do read to have their own values confirmed. It's a shame if that is all they read for, but I don't like a book that glorifies values I find repulsive--I've put down books that had overtly mysogynistic or fundamentalist biases.

It's the sausage-factory mentality of publishers that wants a predictable, uniform 'product' that turns convention into formula. To force characterization into predictable formulas in order to aim the book at a particular market is bad for the book, the writer, and ultimately the readers.