Sex in Romance?
There’s been some interesting talk over at the Romance Divas forum that’s had me thinking. (Always dangerous) But, hey, I love to hear people’s opinions. 
So I thought I’d bring the topic here:
Sex in romance. 
When I pick up a romance novel–particularly a contemporary romance novel–it’s pretty much a given to me that the hero and heroine will have sex at some point in the story. Am I right? Of course I am. Ah, but is it the reason that I read romance? Well, uh, no.
Huh?
Ooops. Sorry. But when I read a romance novel, I read it for the “feeling or rush of falling in love”. Yes, sappy, but that’s me. Queen of Sap. In fact, I’ve been known to re-read the “first meet parts” of books or the parts where the hero first realizes the heroine is getting under his skin but he doesn’t know why yet. I adore that stuff!
I’ve read some very talented authors who’ve written romance novels–we’re not talking sweet or inspirational romances–and kept the sex scenes off screen. And I enjoyed them just as much as the ones who kept the bedroom door open.
But I know everybody has a differing opinion on this. I would love to hear what you have to say on the subject.
So… do you think a sex scene is necessary in a contemporary romance? (Not Sweet or Inspirational romances) I’m talking, you go buy a 100K word contemporary romance book, read it, and find there the sex is off screen.
You…
a) immediately ask for a refund
b) are so disappointed you vow never to read another contemporary book again
c) shrug, but gossip about the book here at any and all writing forums anyway
d) barely noticed because you weren’t looking for the sex scene to begin with
Seriously, folks, if you picked up a traditional contemporary romance novel and there was no sex, would you feel gypped?
The doctor is in. And I’m listening…
[...] crit partner Jennifer Shirk is blogging about sex & romance today at Passionate Critters. Check it [...]
Hey, Doc:
I also read romance for the romance, not necessarily the sex. How the relationship develops — the emotional connection between the hero and heroine is what makes me drool. If I just wanted to read sex, I’d buy erotica.
Saw the big S word on your blog and had to follow you over here. =)
Seriously, my answer would probably be d. While I do like the build up, sexual tension, the sizzle of awareness, the foreplay so to speak, I don’t need the scene in full graphic detail to feel satisfied. Matter of fact, I’ve read some books where I skim over the actual act. Sometimes because it is played out too graphically (either of the C words jar me. Who knew I was a closet prude?) or because there are just too many sex scenes per book and it becomes repetitive. How many times am I supposed to read ‘touched her intimately’ without wanting to yak?
But judging by the romantica-erotic explosion, I’m becoming a minority.
Let me go on the record, first of all, by admitting I’m an old fart.
So I don’t read a book for the sex it provides. I’m not a voyeur and I’m just not into seeing other people have sex. Like you, Jennifer, I enjoy the thrill of the hunt, but I really don’t need to see the kill (or whatever you want to call it. Thrust of the sword? LOL).
OTOH, I feel that if I create a lot of sexual tension in my own books, the reader would expect to see the fruition of all that tension. So it’s not fair to close the door on my characters. My goal, in that case, is not to titillate (interesting word, isn’t it?) but to provide some kind of closure.
Otherwise, I keep the sex at a minimum. It’s more interesting–to this old fart, anyway–to watch the growth of romantic relationship rather than the growth of “his impressive member”.
Damn, I hate to say it (cause as writers don’t we hear this all the time?) but…
It’s all in the execution.
If you build me up to thinking I’m going to get a hot sex scene - don’t disappoint me.
If the author does a great job of sexual tension and it fits the story to keep the “deed” off screen, then I’m okay with that too.
I too, love the hunt, the rush of falling in love - but sometimes that means sex.
I know, I know - I can’t have it both ways.
D. I don’t read for sex. I got married for that. *snerk* And the overabundance of sex in most romances these days is what’s really driven me to read so much outside the genre. Take YA for example - great stories, compelling characters, imaginative plots, very little, if any, sex.
D. I’m not looking for sex when I read. I’m looking for a good story.
And DD’s right. It’s all in the execution.
Not opposed to sex in romance novels but I don’t read for that. And if it’s there, I prefer tasteful, sexy, sensual to gratuitously graphic.
Having said that, it’s all about the romance, the relationship, the feelings. Done right, the emotion can carry the story and the deed is not necessary. I think too many authors rely on describing the deed because they aren’t able to capture the essence of the emotions.