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

Re: Outlander discussion/spoilers ho!

[midnitemaraud-r.livejournal.com]

It's simple. Frank was a bad guy because Frank wasn't Jamie. :-P If you don't like Jamie, you're definitely not going to like the novels.

No, Frank wasn't a bad person, he did accept Brianna fully, and in pretty much all ways, what happened wasn't his fault. Not to mention that Claire didn't intend to fall in love with Jamie any more than she intended to go back in time in the first place. He totally gets blamed unfairly. That's how it goes. In the Harry Potter fandom, Ron is vilified by Harry/Hermione shippers and Ginny is vilified by Harry/Draco shippers. It's the way of the OTP (generally, as there are always exceptions.)

It's not always a rational thing, but in fantasy, (fiction) rationality isn't usually a necessary component, and in fact, I think many authors (not all of course) are hoping for the reader to become so invested that they are able (and willing!) to suspend disbelief on some level. Whether it's about character traits and personality, sexual encounters, or time- or faster-than-light travel, there's always some circumstance where our brain says "hmmmm..." but we keep reading (or watching) anyway. (Look at Merlin! Ridiculously anachronistic, not to mention it rips the King Arthur legend to shreds, and the writing is questionable, but none of that matters to me. I find it entertaining. Granted I've only seen the first 5 eps so far, but, still.)

I love the Outlander novels (and the Lord John books) and I love Jamie and Claire, but I'm not in it for the shipping. That's not where I'm invested. For me, I enjoy the story as well as the characters, and I can forgive Jamie and Claire and even Brianna their over-the-topness and faults. (though I do get occasionally indignant when they act stupidly - stupidly being relative of course.) Lord John is actually my favorite character, so I was thrilled when he got his own stories, but I can't imagine reading them without having read the Outlander books first. I fell in love with him there, so I had no trouble adjusting to the new novels. Not knowing his history (or his future) probably makes a difference.

Re: Outlander discussion/spoilers ho!

[lee-rowan.livejournal.com]

I read one of the Lord John books and picked up Outlander from that direction. He's my favorite character in that universe, and I can't see what he sees in Jamie, either. Alpha males make me bilious.

Re: Outlander discussion/spoilers ho!

[lferion]

I did the same -- and while I own all of the Outlander books, I read them for the Lord John bits. Jamie&Claire don't interest me at all except in how they relate to John, and I frequently want to shake the both of them.