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]

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.