Today's Romance
Do You Want or Expect Explicit Sex Scenes in Every Romance Book You Read?
Stephanie Boyd, Armchair Interviews reviewer
I love a good classic romance–boy meets girl and they go through “stuff,” end up in love and live happily ever after. It is the “stuff” they go through that shows each author’s creativity as they develop their character’s world, locations, situations, etc., and put their individual spin on the classic story outline.
And it is in the “stuff” where the romance genre splits into multiple subgenres to meet every imaginable combination:
—paranormal (which has humans interacting with various different races including vampires, shifters, witches, psychics, ghost, various types of fae species, or even aliens)
—suspense, thrillers
—cozy mysteries
—westerns
—time travel, futuristic, or
—outright science fiction and even fantasy
—erotic romance.
I’m sure there are even some combinations I haven’t seen yet! And I read it all and love the variety that I can find just in the romance genre.
In the majority of the modern romance books, the romance between the primary couple progresses by the characters being put in situations where they come to know one another and develop a relationship.
—Some relationships develop rapidly but are still backed up by the characters finding things in common or something that keeps it somewhat believable (granted that this is fiction).
—Some of the relationships have built over time and the characters are just now realizing that they have the makings of a romantic relationship.
—Some relationships are built under extreme stress or danger that cause the couple to have to rely on one another and learn to trust to stay alive, or to get out of the situation.
And as the relationships develop the author has to deal with what level of intimacy he or she is going to have the couple delve into.
It is here, at the point where the intimacy level is displayed, that I am finding a disturbing trend–to me anyway. It seems that authors, editor, publicist, etc., believe that if the characters do not move to a sexual relationship full of graphic descriptions of their coupling, then the public will not buy the book. In my opinion there is already a category for this called “erotic romance,” and if I want a lot of graphic sex in the book, I can choose from the many choices in that genre.
But what do I choose if I want a sweet romance without excessively detailed descriptions illustrating more than I want to know about a couple’s intimate moments? I can accept and deal with the relationship that is going to be exclusive, moving into sexual temptation and some escalation of sexual conduct WHEN it fits the story and the maturing of the relationship. But many times I have been reading a romance and felt like I have encountered the mandatory sex section deemed necessary to sell the book. Some of these are even blatant enough that you could skip the whole section and not miss a beat in the story line! Why is this necessary?
Have you ever gone to an R-rated movie and left the theater wondering why the movie had to be rated R? Only one part had bad language, nudity or sex that earns the R rating. Does Hollywood think that we will only go to R-rated movies, or that rating a movie R makes it sell better? Then explain recent box office success with “Twilight,” the “Harry Potter” movies, all the animated kid’s movies that do remarkably well. Is this what is happening in books, too? Have we gotten to a point that publishing houses require a sex scene to think the book will sell well? Again explain the phenomena of the books which since they are targeted at teens, do not include the graphic sex scenes. Do the publishing houses think the remarkable success of those books is due only to a teen market? Do they not recognize that many adults also read and enjoyed those books?
Now granted these are not romances but I think you can see the point. Many readers do not have to have sex in books for them to sell and sell well! I actually think it is much more challenging for an author to write an outstanding romance and not have graphic sex. Without the pages used for the sex, the author has to create more story line or action, and in my mind that takes more creativity. The beauty of a really creative book is that it leaves much for our own imagination.
I read to be entertained and/or challenged. I don’t mind a tease or titillation but I don’t need graphic detail as my own imagination is pretty good! If I chose a story based on the book’s back blurb, and it doesn’t indicate that the relationship will be graphically sexual–I don’t want the surprise midway through the book. For me, this kind of surprise discourages me from reading further books by this author, even if the rest of the book is very good. I feel somewhat cheated out of pages of a good story if sex seems to have been inserted to fill out the page count.
Yes, size matters. If I am paying for a book that appears to be 350 pages, that is what I expect to get, but if 50 pages or even more seem inserted to “heat up” the book, then I don’t have 350 pages of the story. However, if the sex is a valid part of the story, integrated to illustrate a function of the relationship or the problem the couple faces, I still don’t like the surprise but I don’t feel cheated. On the other hand, if I am fully aware that the book will be sexually explicit by it being labeled as erotic and I still decide to read it that is okay. I knew what I was getting when I purchased the book.
Ponder these questions:
—Isn’t it fair to expect romances to be about the romance and not just sex?
—If romances are filled with sex, what is the difference between romance and erotic romance?
—Shouldn’t publishers make a better effort to limit the graphic descriptions in a book sold as a romance and not an erotic romance?
—Is it really asking too much for them to maintain this separation more clearly?
—Has it come to the point that a romance book means that there will be explicit and/or sex described in detail?
Surely I am not the last romance reader that wants a lot less sex and a bit more story in a good romance? Am I?