# Promiscuous Heroines



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

What are your thoughts on female characters who sleep around? How do readers react? Do you write them, or do you have favorite examples?


----------



## Guest (Sep 11, 2017)

Depends what genre you are writing. If its romance, a promiscuous heroine is a huge no-go and you'll be shredded by reviewers. Other genres are more forgiving.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Tilly said:


> Depends what genre you are writing. If its romance, a promiscuous heroine is a huge no-go and you'll be shredded by reviewers. Other genres are more forgiving.


The one that I've written is Urban Fantasy, the heroine being one of the main reasons it's not in Paranormal Romance instead. I have to say I find that double standard annoying though...the guys can sleep around all they want, but not the women. Her love interest is pretty chaste in contrast, but I mostly did that to avoid perpetuating a stereotype.


----------



## wingsandwords (Nov 1, 2016)

I write urban fantasy with female heroines. I'm referring to my first series, Codex Blair.

Codex Blair features a female, pansexual heroine. She is attracted to moooooost of the people she interacts with. There's a fallen angel, Malphas, who she kisses and is frequently conflicted by how much she wants him. There's a shapeshifter she finds terribly attractive, but doesn't interact with beyond having a leadership conversation with him, he's mated already. There's a werewolf, Geoff, who she's attracted to, but she doesn't know him terribly well. There's a human medic, Shawn, who she sleeps with on a casual basis. There's Emily, a paladin who she works with regularly, that she's just started dating.

The only negative feedback I've gotten in any of the above, is homophobic comments on her relationship with Emily. -__- But no one cares that Blair is free with her sexuality. No one has called her a slut, or shamed her for experimenting with multiple people, or yelled about her being attracted to a lot of people.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

LilyBLily said:


> I doubt that's true anymore. And in urban fantasy, who even has time to sleep around? Aren't they all supposed to be very busy saving the universe from the Queen of Hell, or Satan Himself?


Oh, they find time  Conveniently slow elevators and such.



LilyBLily said:


> There's a huge difference between promiscuity and exercising free will, too. And when do you call a heroine promiscuous? If she has sex with two different people during a story? Or three? Or four? It all depends on the details, right?


The MC I've written has a reputation for sleeping with every vampire that comes her way (and never the same one twice until she meets her love interest), so that's why I ask the question. There's only two (almost three, but her love interest threatened to rearrange his face) within the context of the story, but the story timeline is only a couple of a weeks.



Lorri Moulton said:


> Even _Once Upon A Time_ had a line, where Granny accuses Ruby/Red of "sleeping her way down the eastern seaboard" and that was Disney/ABC.
> 
> https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=p5TCeBXqhYc


Hey, if it's ok for Disney there shouldn't be a problem.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Aw, thanks Lorri.


----------



## Kal241 (Jan 11, 2017)

paranormal_kitty said:


> I have to say I find that double standard annoying though...the guys can sleep around all they want, but not the women.


We actually studied this in a humanities class. They did a poll, and more girls had issues with female heroines who slept around than guys. I asked one of them about this, and she said, and I quote, "I read romance to escape real life. So when I read about some girl who makes the same mistakes I did in real life, I close the book." I assume she meant that some females don't like to read about a heroine who hooks up with a ton of guys because it reminds some of them that they do/did the same thing. The heroine can get off scott-free in fiction if they do this; in real life, there can be shame, bad experiences, and such from having a lot of partners.

Maybe that rubs some people wrong?


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Kal241 said:


> The heroine can get off scott-free in fiction if they do this; in real life, there can be shame, bad experiences, and such from having a lot of partners.
> 
> Maybe that rubs some people wrong?


I'd say if they're getting off scott-free (for anything), that's probably not great character development though. Or at least not realistic.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

wingsandwords said:


> I write urban fantasy with female heroines. I'm referring to my first series, Codex Blair.
> 
> Codex Blair features a female, pansexual heroine. She is attracted to moooooost of the people she interacts with. There's a fallen angel, Malphas, who she kisses and is frequently conflicted by how much she wants him. There's a shapeshifter she finds terribly attractive, but doesn't interact with beyond having a leadership conversation with him, he's mated already. There's a werewolf, Geoff, who she's attracted to, but she doesn't know him terribly well. There's a human medic, Shawn, who she sleeps with on a casual basis. There's Emily, a paladin who she works with regularly, that she's just started dating.
> 
> The only negative feedback I've gotten in any of the above, is homophobic comments on her relationship with Emily. -__- But no one cares that Blair is free with her sexuality. No one has called her a slut, or shamed her for experimenting with multiple people, or yelled about her being attracted to a lot of people.


Oh, I didn't see your comment somehow. That's really encouraging that you're in the same genre and haven't been eaten alive in the reviews for this. I've been worried about it, but not enough to change the character.


----------



## hjordisa (Sep 4, 2017)

Kal241 said:


> We actually studied this in a humanities class. They did a poll, and more girls had issues with female heroines who slept around than guys. I asked one of them about this, and she said, and I quote, "I read romance to escape real life. So when I read about some girl who makes the same mistakes I did in real life, I close the book." I assume she meant that some females don't like to read about a heroine who hooks up with a ton of guys because it reminds some of them that they do/did the same thing. The heroine can get off scott-free in fiction if they do this; in real life, there can be shame, bad experiences, and such from having a lot of partners.
> 
> Maybe that rubs some people wrong?


That's an interesting perspective. And understandable, if sad. It becomes a problem when they bring the same attitude against real people. In fact, that's where the shame comes from. From other people. It's not inherent. As for bad experiences, those can happen whether you're promiscuous or not, though I suppose moreso if you are. In fact, so can the shame. There's a lot of shame around whether you've slept with the right person, in the right, way, at the right time. Number of partners is just one measure of that.

Personally I like the idea of being promiscuous, but I'm just not. That seems like a weird thing to say, like I could if I wanted to right? But I'm just not attracted to people often enough to be promiscuous. So I tend to cheer on people/characters who are promiscuous and proud to own it.

I think you should go for it OP. I see a lot of people trying to change the narrative in this area. There's more of an audience for this sort of character than there has been in the past, and the more promiscuous heroines are created the more normal they'll become.


----------



## D A Bale (Oct 20, 2016)

My little mystery series has a female bartender that sleeps around some, but she's just so feisty most people love her.  There have been a couple of reviews that reference she's slutty, but they still liked the story overall.

If it's good enough for the gander, it's great for the goose.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

I write romance and I don't have patience for this crap. My girls sleep around... a lot. Not within the context of the romance, but as a part of who the characters are. I will NEVER write virgin characters because it's a trope that irritates the piss out of me. 

But many readers in the genre have different expectations. They're just not going to get those stories and characters from me.


----------



## wingsandwords (Nov 1, 2016)

paranormal_kitty said:


> Oh, I didn't see your comment somehow. That's really encouraging that you're in the same genre and haven't been eaten alive in the reviews for this. I've been worried about it, but not enough to change the character.


lol, no worries, I responded at almost the exact same time as you 

And yeah, I really don't think you have anything to worry about. The only comments I've gotten in any relation to romance/relationships are: everything's cool, but Blair's totally going to end up with Malphas in the end, right? Right - and I have other people thanking me for writing an UF where romance isn't in the limelight. They seem to really enjoy that it's just a passing thing that happens as the natural course of human interaction.


----------



## BiancaSommerland (Mar 8, 2011)

Getting bad reviews for a slutty character who totally owns her sexuality wouldn't necessarily be a bad thing. Personally, I'd grab a book if I saw reviews like that! lol

I think attitudes are shifting, so while you might get some resistance, you'd also get a ton of readers who are craving a different kind of heroine. There's place for the virgins and the experienced. I've written open relationships that actually did well. I think it depends on how well readers connect to the heroine. One they fall in love with, or admire, will be forgiven a lot.


----------



## kathrynoh (Oct 17, 2012)

I've just launched an urban fantasy series with a FMC who uses her sexual power as her main weapon. She's not overtly promiscuous in the story but she has a history  No complaints so far. You have a lot more leeway outside of romance because the relationship isn't the main focus.

At least when it comes to sex with vampires, depending on your world, you don't have to worry about diseases or unplanned pregnancies


----------



## IreneP (Jun 19, 2012)

I have a romance heroine with a promiscuous backstory. It's a reunion story, and I don't specifically address what she did during the breakup. I let my reader decide. It's a mixed bag. I had a judge in a contest eviscerate me, but I sold the book and it did okay for a debut. It was actually in print in bookstores for a while a few years back and I've gotten compliments on my "complex" character. 

It completely depends on the book, the writing, the audience. Why shouldn't we have female characters who explore their sexual nature the same a men do? I'm not saying there won't be push-back from certain readers, but... really? It's the 21st century, y'all.


----------



## kathrynoh (Oct 17, 2012)

Kal241 said:


> We actually studied this in a humanities class. They did a poll, and more girls had issues with female heroines who slept around than guys. I asked one of them about this, and she said, and I quote, "I read romance to escape real life. So when I read about some girl who makes the same mistakes I did in real life, I close the book." I assume she meant that some females don't like to read about a heroine who hooks up with a ton of guys because it reminds some of them that they do/did the same thing. The heroine can get off scott-free in fiction if they do this; in real life, there can be shame, bad experiences, and such from having a lot of partners.
> 
> Maybe that rubs some people wrong?


That is really sad. I don't think being promiscuous has to equate to making mistakes. I really the trope, especially in romance, that woman only sleeps around because she's been abused in the past. It's rarely because she enjoys it.


----------



## Nope (Jun 25, 2012)

.


----------



## Kal241 (Jan 11, 2017)

kathrynoh said:


> That is really sad. I don't think being promiscuous has to equate to making mistakes. I really the trope, especially in romance, that woman only sleeps around because she's been abused in the past. It's rarely because she enjoys it.


I agree, it's sad. I write females that are promiscuous (including some that are into species outside humans, which is its own bag of worms), and I've faced nasty criticism from it, but I don't see any reason to stop. It fits the characters, and I don't want to shame them, so I don't let anyone else's feelings get in their way.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

kathrynoh said:


> At least when it comes to sex with vampires, depending on your world, you don't have to worry about diseases or unplanned pregnancies


And vampires have a reputation for staying _up _all night.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

hjordisa said:


> That's an interesting perspective. And understandable, if sad. It becomes a problem when they bring the same attitude against real people. In fact, that's where the shame comes from. From other people. *It's not inherent.* As for bad experiences, those can happen whether you're promiscuous or not, though I suppose moreso if you are. In fact, so can the shame. There's a lot of shame around whether you've slept with the right person, in the right, way, at the right time. Number of partners is just one measure of that.


The reddened part of your post is not correct. Not for women, and not for men either.

The average numbers of sexual partners in a lifetime still are way below common estimations. Depending on country and age the median is below 8 for men and 5 for women. You of course get outliers, especially if you look at the LGBT percentage and there go back beyond the AIDS threshold, but the sheer median is these numbers, lately even less than that.

As with the reluctance to eat certain foods smelling or tasting suggestive of potential infection or disease, which is inherent (built into us on an evolutionary level), there is an equally as selected-for reluctance to "sleep around" [much]. It's only logical, seeing that the more sexual partners people have, the more likely they are to have caught a sexual disease which - during the time we were selected - would prove to be incurable and often also fatal or at least detrimental to fertility.

Not only are people on an instinctive level reluctant to sleep around for fear of catching something, they also disdain those who do, because in a tribal/survival situation of a group, they would endanger the entire group and its genetic survival. There is however even more than just the "disgusting" angle of this. In humans there's also an attraction model going for a certain part of us, which genetically and biologically favours enduring, monogamous relationships. That model is hormonally steered. I can't pull the exact percentages, but for both mechanisms the spread is around 2/3 people geared for monogamous/few sexual partners and 1/3 for promiscuous/many sexual partners. It's nature's way of ensuring that there is Big Plan A (be cautious, stay with a healthy partner to procreate) and a Plan B ([expletive] around and spread your genes, even if it's a risk).

In addition to these two mechanisms, there's more going on. As mentioned, a group's genetic survival is dependent on the number of children born healthy, raised to adulthood and procreating themselves again healthily. While the nuclear family model is just one possible solution, the other being group-raised children, there always is a certain "us vs outsiders" in this and a competition for resources. In consequence we also were selected to react unfavourably to group members squandering resources or contracting disease.

End result of all this is that, no, your assumption is wrong. Of course our preference for few sexual partners in our partner and little sleeping around in general is indeed inherent. We are selected for this. It's not astonishing that some expression of this is part of every major religion (aka ancient set of societal rules), whether favouring monogamy or group living.

Which means that you not only will be going against what people have been actively conditioned to think, you also go against instincts on a very biological level for a majority of your potential readers. They will react to this without even being conscious of why they dislike it.


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

paranormal_kitty said:


> The one that I've written is Urban Fantasy, the heroine being one of the main reasons it's not in Paranormal Romance instead. I have to say I find that double standard annoying though...the guys can sleep around all they want, but not the women. Her love interest is pretty chaste in contrast, but I mostly did that to avoid perpetuating a stereotype.


I think in romance, it is equal rights to chastity, isn't it? I am old fashioned and I hate women in books who sleep around, but then I write historical fiction where such a woman would be publicly flogged. However, Forever Amber springs to mind. That was the original 'bodice ripper' a best seller in its day and set in the time of the restoration. She slept her way to the bed of the King and everyone loved her and that was in a more naive time.

I have also read books where the sympathetic heroine is a prostitute. I suppose it depends on how you paint the rest of her character. The male of the species has always been promiscuous, it was always considered to be in their nature, but not women.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

What Nic said. I just read a big study the other day. Average # of sexual partners for adult men and women (believe this was the U.S.)--6.5 and 6.0. About the same, and not nearly as high as one might think. 

If that's the mean, I'll bet a small number of people with a high number of partners skews it upwards. On the other hand, if it's self-reported, I'll bet it's self-reported low. Which probably puts it about where it is in the study, overall. Somewhere between 5 and 10 partners in a lifetime, and about the same for men and women. 

One difference is that women, especially of average or greater attractiveness, who want to have a lot of partners can easily do so, whereas for heterosexual men, they probably have to be wealthy, handsome, famous, or some combo of those in order to have a huge number of partners. 

As far as books--I write romance. I've certainly written books where the man and/or woman are having sex with other people at the start of the book, including after they meet each other, but not once they're in any kind of relationship. I've also written several books where the romance started as a one-night thing and then resumed later. My books are mainstream, steamy contemporary romance centered around the relationship, not the sex, and read by a 35-65-y-o female demographic. 

I don't really like the term "promiscuous," but I'd say a heroine who's been having sex with multiple casual partners would be a hard sell to my audience. Can't speak to other types of romance audiences. I've certainly written heroines who've had more casual sex in the past, though, and that's gone over fine.


----------



## LittleFox (Jan 3, 2015)

My latest UF has a promiscuous heroine in it (it's not published yet). When I asked readers their thoughts on it, I had a couple of 'well, every character needs to have flaws' responses, which got my hackles up. Anyway... 


Kaitlyn sleeps with 3 or 4 people in book 1. None of it explicit, on screen, but there's no chance of people misunderstanding and thinking they stopped at a kiss. She also has a regular friend-with-benefits (he's 1 of the 3 or 4). I did have some concern about this, partially with her being bi (and there is a god awful stereotype about bi people sleeping around a lot), and partially because of the whole thing where the H/h are supposed to only have eyes for each other. 


As I said it isn't published yet, so we're going to see what reactions to it are. I've stated very publicly that Kaitlyn is that way, I am a bi woman myself, I've been careful with how she's presented and so on and so forth. I'll likely have a launch thread here in a couple of weeks, I'll mention if I see any push back from readers in there.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

The interesting question also is how much of a "pull" the promiscuous partner really is. 

I've written both erotic romance and erotica with promiscuous and virginal or chaste characters, and found that even for male MCs there is a growing audience who like virginal/chaste characters. As I don't write any religious characters, the reasons for that state of things usually are not morals or disdain for sex. My audience prefers the sexually reticent MCs, even if they are male. These characters tend to be the most popular. 

The interesting part is that I think that as long as the character who is sexually less experienced is still sexually capable or willing to adapt and learn, they are better received than MCs who sleep around a lot.

@Usedtoposthere

The statistics I cited are from an academic study working with data from all of Europe.


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

KhaosFoxe said:


> My latest UF has a promiscuous heroine in it (it's not published yet). When I asked readers their thoughts on it, I had a couple of 'well, every character needs to have flaws' responses, which got my hackles up.


 Why?


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

RBN said:


> Because it's 2017 and some people still think female sexuality is a "flaw."


Female sexuality isn't a flaw and never has been. Promiscuity is not the same thing at all.


----------



## Steve Vernon (Feb 18, 2011)

Well, Laurel Hamilton seems to do all right - although I lost patience with her when her Anita Blake slid into the bang-a-chapter pattern of plotting.


----------



## A. N. Other Author (Oct 11, 2014)

I have a female detective who views sex as no big deal. It's just something she does, when she wants to and if the moment is appropriate (ie, she won't nip into a bathroom stall at work but nor will she be shy about doing it somewhere private). 

That's not to say she's bed-hopping. Sex is a small part of the stories, but she simply owns what she does and feels no shame, never "justifies" it. Most of it's "off screen" and back-story anyway. Not sure if that counts. 

But it's 2017. Women having their own agency is not something that should be unusual.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

ADDavies said:


> I have a female detective who views sex as no big deal. It's just something she does, when she wants to and if the moment is appropriate (ie, she won't nip into a bathroom stall at work but nor will she be shy about doing it somewhere private).
> 
> That's not to say she's bed-hopping. Sex is a small part of the stories, but she simply owns what she does and feels no shame, never "justifies" it. Most of it's "off screen" and back-story anyway. Not sure if that counts.
> 
> But it's 2017. Women having their own agency is not something that should be unusual.


I think it depends on genre how readers react, on who is the main audience and what the sexual background means in the context of the story.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

Nic said:


> I think it depends on genre how readers react, on who is the main audience and what the sexual background means in the context of the story.


Yep.

10/10


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

kathrynoh said:


> I've just launched an urban fantasy series with a FMC who uses her sexual power as her main weapon. She's not overtly promiscuous in the story but she has a history  No complaints so far. You have a lot more leeway outside of romance because the relationship isn't the main focus.
> 
> At least when it comes to sex with vampires, depending on your world, you don't have to worry about diseases or unplanned pregnancies


I'm so glad other UF writers answered this, because it seems like within the genre it's pretty accepted. My MC's love interest is the product of a vampire/human union, so pregnancy would be a possibility, but it doesn't happen for my MC anyway.



K.B. said:


> I write romance and I don't have patience for this crap. My girls sleep around... a lot. Not within the context of the romance, but as a part of who the characters are. I will NEVER write virgin characters because it's a trope that irritates the p*ss out of me.
> 
> But many readers in the genre have different expectations. They're just not going to get those stories and characters from me.


*applause*


----------



## kathrynoh (Oct 17, 2012)

paranormal_kitty said:


> I'm so glad other UF writers answered this, because it seems like within the genre it's pretty accepted. My MC's love interest is the product of a vampire/human union, so pregnancy would be a possibility, but it doesn't happen for my MC anyway.
> 
> *applause*


I have a human/vampire in my series but he's an anomaly. But then, I do mention that normally most humans impregnated by a vampire die in childbirth so protection would be a good thing


----------



## Shimmergirl69 (Sep 25, 2016)

I'm probably not the best person to answer this question because long before I was a writer-I spent a lot of time online talking to young ladies about the 'dangers' of promiscuity. It wasn't based on personal experience, but on friends of mine, and even coworkers. That said, I prefer to write about 'chaste' women.

My last couple of characters I've written as celibate (because I know a virgin past a certain age in this society is rare-or at least not broadcast) So celibacy is a little more realistic than virginity. Though one of my characters in_ A Love Worth Waiting For_, was a virgin.

I believe I might have missed the mark with one of my books _Under the Irish Moon_, because, although my character didn't sleep with another man, she and her male friend were a little too close for comfort and I believe it may have rubbed a couple of readers the wrong way.

I based that character on the chatter I see online from 20 something's who are sex positive, with different men types. But that is typically not the characters I write nor want to write.

I think promiscuity is subjective, but I think multiple partners for some women over the course of their dating life is 'normal". However, when it comes to romance novels, I think readers want the woman to be as close to chaste as possible.


----------



## Red Riley (May 28, 2017)

All things in moderation, I always say...


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

kathrynoh said:


> I have a human/vampire in my series but he's an anomaly. But then, I do mention that normally most humans impregnated by a vampire die in childbirth so protection would be a good thing


I have the same thing in my books, but it doesn't come up until the second one. This character's mother managed to avoid that fate because he was born early by C-section.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

paranormal_kitty said:


> I have the same thing in my books, but it doesn't come up until the second one. This character's mother managed to avoid that fate because he was born early by C-section.


Is that a trope taken directly from Twilight fanfiction? I do not see any reason for handling it that way.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Nic said:


> Is that a trope taken directly from Twilight fanfiction? I do not see any reason for handling it that way.


When you write about vampires/shifters/fairies/etc., usually you come up with the "rules" first. You can pretty much do whatever you want as long as it's consistent within the book(s). It's not like there is scientific research out there on the undead. You can borrow from what others have done, or do something different or contrary. Like my vampires are allergic to sunlight, but other authors have made it where they can be in the sun. I didn't include any religious symbolism like holy water or crosses, but other authors have. The reasons for handling a thing a particular way are the same as any reason for doing anything in fiction - it serves the plot, or it's just the author's preference.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

In UF, a lot depends on how skewed toward paranormal romance the book is. If there is a heavy romantic subplot (which I believe there is in your series), sticking closer to the "rules" of Romance tend to apply ie once the couple have had some sort of physical or emotional connection, no other sexual partners. It's not as strict of once hero/heroine meet usually. 

A character who sleeps around is generally accepted if it happens before the introduction of the romantic sub-plot. For some series, this doesn't even happen in book 1. (Mine tend not to because I prefer slow burn over multiple books and my main characters are not celibate prior. Also my series tend to have minor romantic sub-plots.)

There are exceptions of course, just like there are in paranormal romance. If it's a reverse harem situation or multiple partner end game, obviously there's not fidelity with one person. It really comes down to reader expectations. If readers expect a HEA for two of the characters based on the content of your story, they are more likely to be irritated at a heroine (or even hero) who continues to sleep with other people. 

A good example of a bestselling urban fantasy series that handles a less chaste protagonist is Kim Harrison's Hallows series. Her main character has multiple relationships/partners over the course of the series. It works in my opinion because there's no major OTP focus in the series. Especially not in the first several books. 

While I haven't read your story specifically, based on your other posts, I think your FMC sleeping around at the beginning won't have a lot of reader backlash, and those that do aren't your target market probably anyway. (You can't please everyone.) My guess is that you would get more back-lash if the FMC continues to sleep around after the romantic sub-plot between characters begins. (So in your case I'd say book 1). 

That said, do what you feel is right for the story. Do what is right for the character. Considering the surging popularity of reverse harems in uf and pnr, readers are more accepting it seems. 

I personally have no issue with a more promiscuous FMC. I get more annoyed with a promiscuous MMC, especially in story. Back story doesn't bug me.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

KhaosFoxe said:


> My latest UF has a promiscuous heroine in it (it's not published yet). When I asked readers their thoughts on it, I had a couple of 'well, every character needs to have flaws' responses, which got my hackles up. Anyway...
> 
> Kaitlyn sleeps with 3 or 4 people in book 1. None of it explicit, on screen, but there's no chance of people misunderstanding and thinking they stopped at a kiss. She also has a regular friend-with-benefits (he's 1 of the 3 or 4). I did have some concern about this, partially with her being bi (and there is a god awful stereotype about bi people sleeping around a lot), and partially because of the whole thing where the H/h are supposed to only have eyes for each other.
> 
> As I said it isn't published yet, so we're going to see what reactions to it are. I've stated very publicly that Kaitlyn is that way, I am a bi woman myself, I've been careful with how she's presented and so on and so forth. I'll likely have a launch thread here in a couple of weeks, I'll mention if I see any push back from readers in there.


It sounds like you're going to be handling it very well while still being true to the character. I wouldn't be surprised if you have a similar backlash as Izzy did/does with having a bi female main character, but it hasn't help her back and it won't hold you back either. I for one am looking forward to your new series


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

paranormal_kitty said:


> When you write about vampires/shifters/fairies/etc., usually you come up with the "rules" first. You can pretty much do whatever you want as long as it's consistent within the book(s). It's not like there is scientific research out there on the undead. You can borrow from what others have done, or do something different or contrary. Like my vampires are allergic to sunlight, but other authors have made it where they can be in the sun. I didn't include any religious symbolism like holy water or crosses, but other authors have. The reasons for handling a thing a particular way are the same as any reason for doing anything in fiction - it serves the plot, or it's just the author's preference.


Worldbuilding itself is nothing new to me. No need to explain it. I had that question, because what was described appears to be drawn directly off Twilight, rather than any original worldbuilding or actual folklore. I was astonished that multiple authors are using the worldbuilding of another author.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Shimmergirl69 said:


> I think promiscuity is subjective, but I think multiple partners for some women over the course of their dating life is 'normal". However, when it comes to romance novels, I think readers want the woman to be as close to chaste as possible.


Last point simply not true. For mainstream romance, I would say they generally have sex within the context of a relationship. If that is chaste, then yes. If you mean that the woman somehow doesn't have sex at all until hero shows up, then no. Once hero and heroine are together in a romance, sleeping with other people is almost always a no, though there are cheating romances out there too I hear. If it's not a romance, rules are different.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

Shimmergirl69 said:


> However, when it comes to romance novels, I think readers want the woman to be as close to chaste as possible.


That's where it gets confusing when researching New Adult and RomCom lists. Most of the high-ranking titles feature a lot of fairly hardcore scenes that read more like erotica.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Nic said:


> Worldbuilding itself is nothing new to me. No need to explain it. I had that question, because what was described appears to be drawn directly off Twilight, rather than any original worldbuilding or actual folklore. I was astonished that multiple authors are using the worldbuilding of another author.


SM didn't invent that idea. A good portion of vampire conventions originated with Dracula. If you want to keep discussing off-topic, you should probably start a new thread.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Nic said:


> Worldbuilding itself is nothing new to me. No need to explain it. I had that question, because what was described appears to be drawn directly off Twilight, rather than any original worldbuilding or actual folklore. I was astonished that multiple authors are using the worldbuilding of another author.


Fetus/birthing infant killing the mother is a standard though not universal dhampir trope.


----------



## hjordisa (Sep 4, 2017)

Nic said:


> The reddened part of your post is not correct. Not for women, and not for men either.
> 
> Not only are people on an instinctive level reluctant to sleep around for fear of catching something, they also disdain those who do, because in a tribal/survival situation of a group, they would endanger the entire group and its genetic survival.


There is a difference between promiscuity being uncommon and promiscuity not being inherent. There is also a difference between disdain for promiscuous people being inherent and shame in one's own promiscuity being inherent.

My only assertion was that shame in one's own promiscuity (or other aspects of one's sexuality) is not inherent. It is learned. If nobody ever told a naturally promiscuous woman that she was wrong for being that way she would not feel wrong for being that way. And yes, there are evolutionary explanations as to why societies built shame around sex. But that was beside the point I was making.


----------



## xprettyguardianx (Sep 11, 2017)

Honestly, when it's done well, it delights me. There are so many beta male self inserts in literature where the dudes get whatever guys they want, that it's nice to see it happen for women. Particularly when she's strong, independent, and isn't a mess about it all.


----------



## K.Peters (Aug 17, 2015)

HopelessFanatic said:


> I personally have no issue with a more promiscuous FMC. I get more annoyed with a promiscuous MMC, especially in story. Back story doesn't bug me.


I hadn't really thought about it but in all my books the FMC's power or thing is being promiscuous and owning that power while complaining about the double standard; defending herself. Men use love to get sex. Women use sex to get love, etc.

The MMC are jerks (alpha, although I hate that term) but aren't about manipulating or using any other female other than the FMC. She is their focus. I didn't plan it that way. It's just sort of how the characters turned out since a sexually powerful woman isn't going to tolerate a promiscuous guy. She'll just move on. He can be damaged and elusive but he better not be a male-hoe.

I haven't gotten any complaints. A few 1 star badges of honor but I'm pretty sure at least 1 of those is from another author who 5 starred a poorly written book with a similar plotline.

In all honesty, female sexuality is more powerful in real life than most women realize.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

K.B. said:


> I write romance and I don't have patience for this crap. My girls sleep around... a lot. Not within the context of the romance, but as a part of who the characters are. I will NEVER write virgin characters because it's a trope that irritates the p*ss out of me.
> 
> But many readers in the genre have different expectations. They're just not going to get those stories and characters from me.


I love virgins--they're so fun--but I sometimes write more experienced heroines. I don't draw attention to it, bc I know how romance readers feel about these things, and I like to sell books. I don't think there's much reason to draw attention to characters' sexual histories anyway, unless it's a "it's never been like this before" or part of the appeal of the book is the heroine taming the manwh*re hero.


----------



## D A Bale (Oct 20, 2016)

This is all really a matter of what fits for your character(s).  If chaste and virginal is what works, write that.  If experienced and searching, write that.  Neither one is wrong when it comes to the written word as long as it fits that character.  Whether it is or is not representative of society or societal "norms" of the time is irrelevant, in my opinion.  Be true to the voice of the character and disregard the naysayers.


----------



## kathrynoh (Oct 17, 2012)

paranormal_kitty said:


> I have the same thing in my books, but it doesn't come up until the second one. This character's mother managed to avoid that fate because he was born early by C-section.


I have the character think that the reason his mother survived is that he's not vampire enough. And that's a big part of the plot/character arc.

I think UF is a lot easier for me than romance because I'm not from the US and sometimes find it hard to get into the mindset of US readers (well, maybe just US romance readers).


----------



## Flay Otters (Jul 29, 2014)

Interesting nature/nurture debate going on here behind the scenes.
I think Nic Foyles has the answer. There's a lot more hard-wired (selected for) than many who prefer to "do their own thing without judgment" would like to believe.

But back to the topic.
I have a female lead in a late 19th century setting, where sexuality, for women, is essentially binary -- you're either chaste or a whore (with just a small amount of wiggle room). Although men who regularly frequent whores are also considered dissolute.
I would like to have her... become intimate with the guy she hangs out with and who wants her, but I think it's going to take a couple of novels to get there. For societal reasons if nothing else (she isn't a whore).

But at some point I would love to write a really slutty female lead.


----------



## D. Zollicoffer (May 14, 2014)

It's fine, but it can feel a little lazy sometimes. Like, if you look at the generic "Strong Female Protagonist" she's basically one of the guys, rarely shows emotions, sleeps around, is tough, etc. I can't count the number of TV shows that start with the female MC in bed with some random guy. You can almost see the writer winking at you: "Look, sex means nothing to her! She's not like other girls!"

Again, it's fine, but there's other ways to establish your character as a strong female protagonist (I honestly hate this phrase because its often done poorly).

I basically agree with this: https://www.feministfiction.com/blog/2012/05/24/the-problem-with-strong-female-characters-tm


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

paranormal_kitty said:


> SM didn't invent that idea. A good portion of vampire conventions originated with Dracula. If you want to keep discussing off-topic, you should probably start a new thread.


I read "Dracula", it's an old favourite. There are no pregnancies in that book.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Nic said:


> I read "Dracula", it's an old favourite. There are no pregnancies in that book.


You are misreading what I said. You were complaining about people borrowing from another author's world-building. I pointed out that much of the vampire conventions used today came from another author - Bram Stoker - in Dracula.



Becca Mills said:


> Fetus/birthing infant killing the mother is a standard though not universal dhampir trope.


Yes, thank you. SM certainly did not invent this idea. Lost Souls had the same thing way before Twilight, for example.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

paranormal_kitty said:


> You are misreading what I said. You were complaining about people borrowing from another author's world-building. I pointed out that much of the vampire conventions used today came from another author - Bram Stoker - in Dracula.


I wasn't complaining. I am astonished, as I already said, that so many authors seem to reuse what already is not exactly good worldbuilding by Stephenie Meyer, rather than construct their own, or turn to actual folklore. I've read a few recently written vampire novels, and they bear little connection to Dracula or the vampire lore of central Europe.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

D. Zollicoffer said:


> I basically agree with this: https://www.feministfiction.com/blog/2012/05/24/the-problem-with-strong-female-characters-tm


Excellent essay!


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Nic said:


> I wasn't complaining. I am astonished, as I already said, that so many authors seem to reuse what already is not exactly good worldbuilding by Stephenie Meyer, rather than construct their own, or turn to actual folklore. I've read a few recently written vampire novels, and they bear little connection to Dracula or the vampire lore of central Europe.


As Becca and I both told you, that idea did not originate with SM. So you're being "astonished" at something that isn't even true.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

kathrynoh said:


> I think UF is a lot easier for me than romance because I'm not from the US and sometimes find it hard to get into the mindset of US readers (well, maybe just US romance readers).


I have that issue with romance readers too. It's a tricky genre.


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

I prefer the title of experienced heroine.  But given that I write historical romance, most of my heroines are virgins until they marry. Mostly because in the 1800s and the first half of the 20th century, you were facing some serious social consequences if you were a woman who got around. I personally find it more believable to have virginal heroines in historical romance...depends on the context and backstory, too. One of my heroines is experienced going into the relationship with the hero but I don't make much mention of her past encounters more than once or twice. Mainly because it didn't matter to the story.

What's interesting is that a survey done in 1957, if I remember the year correctly, showed that the majority of adults (in the 80th percentile) were not virgins when they married. The funny part is, their spouses had been the previous partners.


----------



## Gone 9/21/18 (Dec 11, 2008)

For me there's a big difference depending on whether a book is contemporary or historical. Life was very different before the development of antibiotics and effective birth control. So for me a heroine in a historical who ignores the risks of pregnancy and its consequences, or worse one who considers it and decides she's willing to risk it for love, ignoring what she's setting her own child up for, is TSTL on her own behalf and evil on the child's. You can of course write a young, virginal type so uneducated on the subject she doesn't know those risks, but at least for me, young and ignorant doesn't have much appeal. The heroine who gets pg and then refuses to marry a willing hero because he hasn't said he loves her is a book-at-the-wall event for me.* In historical times that's TSTL to the nth.

* Admittedly I can't do that any more because I read on Kindle, but I can delete the offender with finger stabs at the screen and slam the K shut.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Yeah, I can see how it would definitely be different if it was set a long time ago. The reality was so different back then. I don't think I would ever attempt to write anything historical though. I'd be too afraid I'd forget and give them a cell phone.


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

ellenoc said:


> For me there's a big difference depending on whether a book is contemporary or historical. Life was very different before the development of antibiotics and effective birth control. So for me a heroine in a historical who ignores the risks of pregnancy and its consequences, or worse one who considers it and decides she's willing to risk it for love, ignoring what she's setting her own child up for, is TSTL on her own behalf and evil on the child's. You can of course write a young, virginal type so uneducated on the subject she doesn't know those risks, but at least for me, young and ignorant doesn't have much appeal. The heroine who gets pg and then refuses to marry a willing hero because he hasn't said he loves her is a book-at-the-wall event for me.* In historical times that's TSTL to the nth.
> 
> * Admittedly I can't do that any more because I read on Kindle, but I can delete the offender with finger stabs at the screen and slam the K shut.


Agreed. But it isn't only because of pregnancies...to me it's also about the fact that society expected women to be pure (talking about in the historical context). People were more religious and women were expected to be virgins when they married. Even all the way into the 20th century. I have a widowed heroine who had sex with the hero but there was more advances in birth control by then...though not much (talking 1940's here). But pregnancy was a big reality. The last thing you wanted was to be labeled a trashy woman with a bastard child (like Emmy from Gone With The Wind, heh).


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Rosie A. said:


> Agreed. But it isn't only because of pregnancies...to me it's also about the fact that society expected women to be pure (talking about in the historical context). People were more religious and women were expected to be virgins when they married. Even all the way into the 20th century. I have a widowed heroine who had sex with the hero but there was more advances in birth control by then...though not much (talking 1940's here). But pregnancy was a big reality. The last thing you wanted was to be labeled a trashy woman with a [illegitimate person] child (like Emmy from Gone With The Wind, heh).


Makes me think of Tess of the D'Urbervilles too. I remember having a hard time wrapping my head around that book when I first read it, but that was reality at the time.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Rosie A. said:


> I prefer the title of experienced heroine.  But given that I write historical romance, most of my heroines are virgins until they marry. Mostly because in the 1800s and the first half of the 20th century, you were facing some serious social consequences if you were a woman who got around. I personally find it more believable to have virginal heroines in historical romance...depends on the context and backstory, too. One of my heroines is experienced going into the relationship with the hero but I don't make much mention of her past encounters more than once or twice. Mainly because it didn't matter to the story.
> 
> What's interesting is that a survey done in 1957, if I remember the year correctly, showed that the majority of adults (in the 80th percentile) were not virgins when they married. The funny part is, their spouses had been the previous partners.


Plenty of people as far back as the 18th century (England) had sex with their partners before marriage. Studies of church records show a LOT of marriages followed by "premature" births. Whether the couple got pregnant & had to marry or whether they just had sex once they planned to marry is harder to say. Certainly in the 20th century it wasn't uncommon for an engaged couple in the US to have sex. I know my own parents did (married in 1940s), and they weren't any kind of societal rulebreakers.


----------



## Laran Mithras (Nov 22, 2016)

Romance is extremely unforgiving.

Whatever you hear, write what you feel. Don't let people tell you that you absolutely cannot write something. Write your heart.

Just make sure you don't put it into the wrong category.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I don't think romance is any more unforgiving than any other genre. Just make sure the audience you write for is OK with what you're doing. There are some rules (happy ending, GENERALLY no cheating although that rule gets broken), but beyond that? Like I said. Plenty of romances start out as one-night stands. I've written heroines who've had plenty of sexual partners, and I've certainly written men and women who meet, have sex with other people, and then get together (all within the story). For MY audience, it's better if the woman isn't currently having a lot of casual sex. (And it's better if the guy's either having sex with a girlfriend, or if he's clearly being decent about it if he's having casual sex.) However, there are books out there that do things differently, aimed at an edgier audience. 

If you think romance is unforgiving, try writing UF withOUT a "kick-butt, snarky, spunky, tough" heroine. I don't think a woman whose strength is in more traditionally female areas--endurance, compassion, patience, empathy--is likely to go over big. I write both kinds of heroines. Lots of ways to be strong. But not, from what I see, for heroines in UF.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

Nic said:


> The average numbers of sexual partners in a lifetime still are way below common estimations. Depending on country and age the median is below 8 for men and 5 for women.


That absolutely cannot be true. I want to believe you (or not so much you, but the research you're citing), but... OMG. If I were to make an educated guess by myself, based on the people I know, I'd say it has to be at least fifteen. Hell, I've blown through that average number cited in one week during college break. This just... I'm literally in shock and I'm not being a smartarse either.

I'm interested in reading this research.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

Crystal_ said:


> I love virgins--they're so fun--but I sometimes write more experienced heroines. I don't draw attention to it, bc I know how romance readers feel about these things, and I like to sell books. I don't think there's much reason to draw attention to characters' sexual histories anyway, unless it's a "it's never been like this before" or part of the appeal of the book is the heroine taming the manwh*re hero.


I have said that I'm trying to write closer to market and this has honestly been one of the harder habits to break away from. I think there's value in what you're saying (I.E. not drawing particular attention towards something) and it's something I'm going to consider.

Over the past few weeks, I've really been plotting and planning a massive connected world of books (Seven series that intertwine with each other, each series having 5-7 books) and I'm slowly drifting away from the characters I used to write. I'm really, at this point, considering splintering this project off into a new pen name.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

K.B. said:


> That absolutely cannot be true. I want to believe you (or not so much you, but the research you're citing), but... OMG. If I were to make an educated guess by myself, based on the people I know, I'd say it has to be at least fifteen. Hell, I've blown through that average number cited in one week during college break. This just... I'm literally in shock and I'm not being a smartarse either.
> 
> I'm interested in reading this research.


I found some numbers broken down by US state. I was really surprised my state is the second highest considering all the abstinence they teach in schools...but hey, there's nothing else to do here. https://www.livestrong.com/article/13559373-this-is-the-average-number-of-sexual-partners-people-have-state-by-state/


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

And here comes the psychoanalysis. 

Some people just like sex.


----------



## Laran Mithras (Nov 22, 2016)

People like realistic situations with larger than life heroes/heroines. That should say it all.


----------



## CLStone (Apr 4, 2013)

LOL.

My main core series is one girl who has nine (9) romantic love interests.

It's Young Adult. Romance. And she doesn't pick one. Part of the ongoing conflict is the group figuring out how to make it work with all of them dating her at the same time.

No one had done it before (as far as I know) with that theme, in the YA genre, until I started, but after a handful of USA Today bestselling books...guess I can say people like it.  A lot of other authors write with a similar theme now.

And in fact, if I wrote a reverse harem now and didn't have all of the guys going after her, I'd be in trouble with readers.

Reverse harem is a thing. A pretty strong growing genre now. Other authors are picking up on it and writing the same. (Rebecca Royce, Jane Washington, among others)

My point, I guess, is if you write it well, anything can be done in fiction, even in romance. Did everyone like it? Nope.  But not everyone likes werewolves, either. Just write a good book and people will pick up on it.


----------



## D. Zollicoffer (May 14, 2014)

K.B. said:


> And here comes the psychoanalysis.
> 
> Some people just like sex.


Sex is amazing. Although, this is just my two cents, if someone (outside of the sex industry) is sleeping with five people in one week then they probably should have a serious conversion with themselves. It's fine as long as it doesn't become an addiction, but if I'm being honest--that sounds like one.


----------



## ibizwiz (Dec 25, 2014)

K.B. said:


> And here comes the psychoanalysis.
> 
> Some people just like sex.


*This!*

All I'd add to K.B.'s fearless, shoot-from-the-hip-area comments is a slightly wordy modification to her like-it-is summation:

A large, but ultimately unknowable, proportion of adults (would) like to have (more) sex, but (for the great majority of these) culture, circumstance, peer group pressures, economic realities, kids, and, sadly, a controlling or dull or even resentful partner blocks their access to explorations of their sexuality.

How do these frustrated folks cope? Many do so through our books.

It's fine to debate sexuality facts and figures in the real world, but our characters don't live there. Our characters and story arcs take people *away* from the restricted no-fly sexual zones of day-to-day reality. I suggest it's more productive to focus on what our readers *may* wish to experience vicariously than claiming they will reject a character's presented, *fictional* behavior, based on the reader's *presumed* real-life antipathy to persons who may (or are assumed to) have exhibited such behavior.

This is not to say one shouldn't try to understand hard-coded biases and real life resentments. Rather it's to concentrate on creating worlds and personas that free the reader from the sociosexual bonds and burdens of conventional life. It's not how many readers are inhibited, for whatever reason, but how we *loosen the inhibitions and free the sensual spirit*.

If an author is concerned about her/his fem MC being resented for her openness to sexual experimentation and growth, then don't write in genres where readers are conditioned to a limited view of female sexuality. For a great many commenters here, that choice has led them to UF, Sci Fi or future history, or to fantasy and paranormal relationships, where most can be comfortable with sexually "aggressive" lead females.

The NA writers face a tougher challenge. It gets even harder in stories where the fem MC is sexually active, hoping for "romance", even when their life experience shows them HEA is for most a pipe dream. These women, who are NOT "new adults" strive more realistically for a HFN outcome. Put one of these admirable (to me) fem survivors, with all her hopes and vulnerabilities, into an intensely erotic, polyamory situation, add all the real-life elements of economic survival, including helping a daughter cope with her own sexuality and vulnerabilities, and you get a foundation story arc that could be happening not in "someday", but taking place right now, across one's comfy suburban street, or in an apartment on the floor over one's head; no need for a distopian future or misty past world setting. I call this "realistic" erotica, and do not expect it to become an economically significant sub-genre in my lifetime. 

This thread is of special interest to me because I publish "realistic" erotica. I try to create scenes that are *credibly* outrageous or provocative and comic, which occur in *credible* sexy places, in a world that's *credibly* realistic. Put simply, just enough fantasy to engage an inhibited reader, male as well as female, and give them access to the lives and loves and ups, and, yes, numerous downs, my characters share.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

ibizwiz said:


> A large, but ultimately unknowable, proportion of adults (would) like to have (more) sex, but (for the great majority of these) culture, circumstance, peer group pressures, economic realities, kids, and, sadly, a controlling or dull or even resentful partner blocks their access to explorations of their sexuality.


That's pretty spot-on. That Seinfeld quote, paraphrasing: "Men aren't interested in what's on TV. They're interested in _what else_ is on TV", explains it a bit. Men may have a sexual partner, but they're curious about other women. Sexual yearning is a never ending male saga. Some say our species wouldn't exist without it. For many, it makes monogamy oppressive.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

K.B. said:


> And here comes the psychoanalysis.
> 
> Some people just like sex.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Anarchist said:


> K.B. said:
> 
> 
> > Some people just like sex.


Sex really likes Chuck Norris, but it's afraid of being rejected.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Dennis Chekalov said:


> There's a big difference between
> (a) sex with a person whom you love and respect;
> (b) sex with different/random partners (sleeping around).


Are you saying that one is good and one is bad, or that readers will accept one and not the other? The MC in my book experiences both, and she notices the difference, but I don't imply that one is good/moral and the other isn't.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

Becca Mills said:


> Sex really likes Chuck Norris, but it's afraid of being rejected.


lol Well played.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

paranormal_kitty said:


> As Becca and I both told you, that idea did not originate with SM. So you're being "astonished" at something that isn't even true.


However, according to Wikipedia, however correct their article may be, it is a very recent concept and not steeped in any kind of original lore. Which ties in with my own reading experience, and I've been reading vampire stories for over four decades now. The first time I came across it was with Stephenie Meyer. Right along with sparkly vampire skin.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Rosie A. said:


> Agreed. But it isn't only because of pregnancies...to me it's also about the fact that society expected women to be pure (talking about in the historical context). People were more religious and women were expected to be virgins when they married. Even all the way into the 20th century. I have a widowed heroine who had sex with the hero but there was more advances in birth control by then...though not much (talking 1940's here). But pregnancy was a big reality. The last thing you wanted was to be labeled a trashy woman with a [illegitimate person] child (like Emmy from Gone With The Wind, heh).


Socalled "veneral diseases" were still a major problem in the 1940s. It wasn't just society which kept women from having many sexual partners.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

K.B. said:


> That absolutely cannot be true. I want to believe you (or not so much you, but the research you're citing), but... OMG. If I were to make an educated guess by myself, based on the people I know, I'd say it has to be at least fifteen. Hell, I've blown through that average number cited in one week during college break. This just... I'm literally in shock and I'm not being a smartarse either.
> 
> I'm interested in reading this research.


I will try to unearth it. In the interim, Usedtoposthere cited a probably more recent US study saying basically the same thing. I think a lot of people overestimate what the majority does (or doesn't).


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Here you go. US and Europe. I doubt this was a random survey so you will have some selection bias. However, I expect it would be skewed high not low--these are people willing to answer questions about sex.

It would be interesting to see age breakdown but that is not provided. I'm sure there is plenty more info online re other studies if one really wanted to dig into the numbers.

Overall: 7 lifetime sexual partners for men, 6.4 for women. Data provided by country and US state. Louisiana has highest average number at 15+ partners, Utah the lowest at 2, as you'd expect.

https://onlinedoctor.superdrug.com/whats-your-number/


----------



## ibizwiz (Dec 25, 2014)

Dennis Chekalov said:


> There's a big difference between
> (a) sex with a person whom you love and respect;
> (b) sex with different/random partners (sleeping around).


True enough, though it would be helpful if you actually described the "big difference". But we also need to consider the cases you left out:

(c) sex with customers you like
(d) sex with the other customers
(e) sex with person*s* you love and respect
(f) sex traded for power
(g) sex openly performed by one couple with another couple
(h) sex with a FB - meaning with a f**k buddy, not in a Facebook performance
(i) sex with a person you can tolerate as part of a commercial performance
(j) sex where one is forced
(k) sex which is technically illegal but is nonetheless consensual
(l) consensual sex with random strangers in a sex party setting (as opposed to "sleeping around")
(m) sex with a mentor (where learning about one's sexuality is a tacitly agreed part of the learning process) 
 cybersex (as for mutual masturbation)
(o) sex as a consenting submissive, even while in a conventional "love" relationship with another

I could probably list more; I haven't even mentioned the unmentionable i-word instances. But the point, I think, is made.

Stories in some popular genres may avoid these all too common situations, but they are grist for the mill of human experience, so it's no surprise such a large proportion of novels throughout history confront these cases. After all, it's not illegal to write about acts that are illegal. Not yet, anyway. Nor is it illegal to write about topics and persons most "nice" people would prefer to never have to hear about.

As one of my fem MCs reminded me the other day, "Promiscuity is in the eye of the ones who didn't manage to behold her."


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Nic said:


> **snipped**


Ignored, sorry. I gave you an example of an earlier use of this trope that you conveniently chose to overlook. Off-topic and beating a dead horse. If believing that everyone who uses this idea is copying SM makes you feel better, go ahead and believe it. I have no desire to keep arguing about it.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

ibizwiz said:


> As one of my fem MCs reminded me the other day, "Promiscuity is in the eye of the ones who didn't manage to behold her."


Awesome line


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

Usedtoposthere said:


> Overall: 7 lifetime sexual partners for men, 6.4 for women. Data provided by county and US state. Louisiana has highest average number at 15+ partners, Utah the lowest at 2, as you'd expect.
> 
> https://onlinedoctor.superdrug.com/whats-your-number/


Interesting. Fits (basically) with what my friends and I would say if asked, I think.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

K.B. said:


> I have said that I'm trying to write closer to market and this has honestly been one of the harder habits to break away from. I think there's value in what you're saying (I.E. not drawing particular attention towards something) and it's something I'm going to consider.
> 
> Over the past few weeks, I've really been plotting and planning a massive connected world of books (Seven series that intertwine with each other, each series having 5-7 books) and I'm slowly drifting away from the characters I used to write. I'm really, at this point, considering splintering this project off into a new pen name.


It's tough. Romance readers are so hard on heroines who are anything but inexperienced and sassy. And even then, if they're too sassy, they get the b*tch label. I tend to find a way to compromise what I want to write and what is marketable at this point (i.e. writing a promiscuous heroine but mentioning her experience in passing rather than drawing attention to it). It's one of those things where you have to pick the hill you want to die on. It's fine to stake that ground somewhere--I have things I will not write, and some not at all commercial things I am planning on writing--but it helps to know what you're flexible on.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

Sex sells, but if you can get it for free it's a bonus. 

Download the app today!


----------



## Going Incognito (Oct 13, 2013)

Usedtoposthere said:


> Utah the lowest at 2, as you'd expect.


Probably crappy and stereotypical of me but I'm surprised at Utah. As much as you hear about polyamory there, I figured that would be higher. Tho maybe not if say the sister wives each only sleep with one partner, that would greatly bring down the average of that one partner sleeping with multiple partners.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

One reason that some women reading more realistic romance might not be able to relate to a heroine who had a lot of casual sex is a ... well, matter of realism in how satisfying such sex tends to be for men vs. women. One of my sons (aged 30) said recently that when he was younger, sexual satisfaction was more of a binary thing. "You checked a box. I had sex? Ding. Box checked." Whereas, since somewhere around 75-80% of women require more stimulation than intercourse provides to reach orgasm, and different women require different types/amounts of such stimulation, orgasmic sex requires a partner wiling to put in the effort to discover what works for her. 

For my audience (not all audiences, even in romance), which happens to be looking for more realism (and is reading for romance), they probably aren't going to think of a heroine who has tons of casual sex as powerful, because they're going to think that sex probably isn't all that physically satisfying. A lot of the appeal of romance, especially of the steamier variety, is the idea that she's got a guy who cares about her both physically and emotionally and who takes great pleasure in giving her great pleasure. 

Which isn't every guy, especially every hookup from a bar. 

I'm sure people will chime in about how physically satisfying casual sex can be for women, but I'm relying on the ample statistics available on how often women orgasm and what they need to do it. Personally, no guy I know would be happy if he didn't have an orgasm virtually every time, and I'm not either, so that's a big factor for me in my reading. If my thought is, "Really? She got off from that?", it's not gonna be a real sexy book. And a LOT of romance-and-other is still written like that. Written the way a guy thinks is hot sex and that most women aren't going to be satisfied by.


----------



## Going Incognito (Oct 13, 2013)

Colin said:


> Sex sells, but if you can get it for free it's a bonus.
> 
> Download the app today!


Oh, it's never free, lol. May wanna read the small print on that app first.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Going Incognito said:


> Probably crappy and stereotypical of me but I'm surprised at Utah. As much as you hear about polyamory there, I figured that would be higher. Tho maybe not if say the sister wives each only sleep with one partner, that would greatly bring down the average of that one partner sleeping with multiple partners.


Fundamentalist LDS is VERY small compared to the LDS population (with which, I hasten to add, it is NOT affiliated other than historically), and it's often not even in Utah. Colorado City for ex is in Arizona.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Nic said:


> However, according to Wikipedia, however correct their article may be, it is a very recent concept and not steeped in any kind of original lore. Which ties in with my own reading experience, and I've been reading vampire stories for over four decades now. The first time I came across it was with Stephenie Meyer. Right along with sparkly vampire skin.


Nic, if you poke around in gaming wikis, you'll find references to the kill-the-mother trope kathrynoh and paranormal_kitty are using. Leveling an accusation of intellectual theft based on paranormal_kitty's one-sentence description of her book's use of the trope doesn't seem right to me. Let's please put this topic to rest from here on out.


----------



## Colin (Aug 6, 2011)

Going Incognito said:


> Oh, it's never free, lol. May wanna read the small print on that app first.


Quite right. It always comes (no pun intended) with strings attached. Ask any promiscuous puppeteer.


----------



## Going Incognito (Oct 13, 2013)

Usedtoposthere said:


> Fundamentalist LDS is VERY small compared to the LDS population (with which, I hasten to add, it is NOT affiliated other than historically), and it's often not even in Utah. Colorado City for ex is in Arizona.


True, true. Good point.


----------



## Going Incognito (Oct 13, 2013)

Colin said:


> Quite right. It always comes (no pun intended) with strings attached. Ask any promiscuous puppeteer.


Lol


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

Colin said:


> Quite right. It always comes (no pun intended) with strings attached.


----------



## Going Incognito (Oct 13, 2013)

It would be interesting to see the raw data on the averages. You'd guess that the individual responses would run the full spectrum, but from what Ive personally observed I'd be curious to see if the responses are more like lots of 15's and lots of 1's, which still end up averaging that 5-7, depending.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

paranormal_kitty said:


> What are your thoughts on female characters who sleep around? How do readers react? Do you write them, or do you have favorite examples?


Not a fan, either to write or read. Other readers mileage may vary. Promiscuous means indiscriminate, casual, uncaring about sharing ones self/body with another. It's a loaded word--or used to be. It has nothing to do with female empowerment. Yes, a character can have more than one partner, but not carelessly or indiscriminately--if she is to be a hero. Unless, of course, she considers past promiscuity a fault in her past that she wishes to overcome.


----------



## Guest (Sep 13, 2017)

EC Sheedy said:


> Not a fan, either to write or read. Other readers mileage may vary. Promiscuous means indiscriminate, casual, uncaring about sharing ones self/body with another. It's a loaded word--or used to be. It has nothing to do with female empowerment.


This ^

Maybe its a UF thing (like the expected snark) but I don't equate a strong woman with sleeping around, rather the opposite.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

I don't think the strong woman characterization is dependent upon sleeping around or not sleeping around. A strong woman could do either, depending on her personal choices.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Usedtoposthere said:


> One reason that some women reading more realistic romance might not be able to relate to a heroine who had a lot of casual sex is a ... well, matter of realism in how satisfying such sex tends to be for men vs. women. One of my sons (aged 30) said recently that when he was younger, sexual satisfaction was more of a binary thing. "You checked a box. I had sex? Ding. Box checked." Whereas, since somewhere around 75-80% of women require more stimulation than intercourse provides to reach orgasm, and different women require different types/amounts of such stimulation, orgasmic sex requires a partner wiling to put in the effort to discover what works for her.
> 
> For my audience (not all audiences, even in romance), which happens to be looking for more realism (and is reading for romance), they probably aren't going to think of a heroine who has tons of casual sex as powerful, because they're going to think that sex probably isn't all that physically satisfying. A lot of the appeal of romance, especially of the steamier variety, is the idea that she's got a guy who cares about her both physically and emotionally and who takes great pleasure in giving her great pleasure.
> 
> ...


That's a nice thought, but I don't buy it. I think it's more garden variety slut-shaming and internalized misogyny. We're all (US, other countries too, to one degree or another) members of a society with serious double standards about sexuality. Everyone internalizes then to some degree.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

EC Sheedy said:


> Not a fan, either to write or read. Other readers mileage may vary. Promiscuous means indiscriminate, casual, uncaring about sharing ones self/body with another. It's a loaded word--or used to be. It has nothing to do with female empowerment. Yes, a character can have more than one partner, but not carelessly or indiscriminately--if she is to be a hero. Unless, of course, she considers past promiscuity a fault in her past that she wishes to overcome.


Question: do you apply this view equally toward male protagonists?

I ask because in the romance genre it too often is not. You'll find books where the hero has sexual relationships with lots of women at the beginning, but the narrative treats those women as trash. Trash to be tossed aside for the virginal "treasure" that is the heroine. The authors don't even see those women as human. But the guy who slept with them all...he's fine.

Eff slut shaming. It is such a blight on the romance genre.


----------



## kathrynoh (Oct 17, 2012)

I don't know that casual sex is any less satisfying than sex in a long term relationship. A lot of women stay with guys who don't satisfy them if the rest of the relationship is good.

I also don't think multiple partners necessarily means casual sex. There's a lot of ground between a one night stand and a long term monogamous relationship.  One of the big differences between UF and romance is that in UF the female MC might be putting her life on the line constantly. She's got no time for a serious relationship.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

kathrynoh said:


> I don't know that casual sex is any less satisfying than sex in a long term relationship. A lot of women stay with guys who don't satisfy them if the rest of the relationship is good.
> 
> I also don't think multiple partners necessarily means casual sex. There's a lot of ground between a one night stand and a long term monogamous relationship. One of the big differences between UF and romance is that in UF the female MC might be putting her life on the line constantly. She's got no time for a serious relationship.


The OP was specifically asking about "promiscuous" heroines, which seemed to be casual sex rather than simply multiple partners. I don't think, outside of sweet romance and the specific niches of virgin-type romance, that multiple partners in one's past are any issue for romance readers. If you don't like it, write something different. The audience for it is out there. "Be the change you want to see in the world" and all that. Including writing about how a great guy takes his time and figures out how to satisfy his woman really well and really often. Which could encourage women in real life to have a talk with those guys "who don't satisfy them" and see if they can change that. Men have orgasms every time. Why the heck shouldn't women expect that?

Yes, there's a double standard, but I don't think it's as extreme as some people think. I've found that if I have a hero who I show as having had a bunch of casual sex, I have to give him a good reason for not wanting that anymore, or it has to be in the past. And monogamous heroes and guys who haven't been with anybody for a while are generally more popular for me. Like I said, if he is having casual sex, readers want him to be respectful and decent about it. I know there are "bad-boy" trends with jerk guys who treat women like used Kleenex until they meet The One Pure Woman For Them, but that's not the whole market.


----------



## Going Incognito (Oct 13, 2013)

Lilly_Frost said:


> Not only would they not be happy, they would be actively angry unless there were serious extenuating circumstances--like his sex partner just got shot by a home-invader and needed to get the hospital ASAP, lol


Even then he'd probably want to finish first.


----------



## Guest (Sep 13, 2017)

paranormal_kitty said:


> I don't think the strong woman characterization is dependent upon sleeping around or not sleeping around.


You asked about promiscuous heroines. "Promiscuous" is defined as having or characterised by many transient sexual relationships (ie: sleeping around) and demonstrating an unselective approach to or indiscriminate/casual sex. Many UF authors try to show their heroine is "strong" by having her be promiscuous. As someone stated more elegantly upthread, its like the author tries to prove she approaches sex like a man which must make therefore her strong, when it doesn't.


----------



## Rose Andrews (Jun 1, 2017)

Ava Glass said:


> Question: do you apply this view equally toward male protagonists?
> 
> I ask because in the romance genre it too often is not. You'll find books where the hero has sexual relationships with lots of women at the beginning, but the narrative treats those women as trash. Trash to be tossed aside for the virginal "treasure" that is the heroine. The authors don't even see those women as human. But the guy who slept with them all...he's fine.
> 
> Eff slut shaming. It is such a blight on the romance genre.


I feel you here. This is something I've noticed a lot. It annoys me, too. I just recently read a Renaissance romance where the hero dumped his long time flame for the heroine before even meeting her and referred to the other woman as temporary. This isn't the first book I've read where that's been in there. It's something I avoid in my own books. I know it's not a perfect world but I don't believe in double standards (or promiscuity for that matter but that's besides the point).


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

Tilly said:


> its like the author tries to prove she approaches sex like a man which must make therefore her strong, when it doesn't.


What is having sex like a man vs. having sex like a woman (other than ridiculous sexism)?


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

Ava Glass said:


> Question: do you apply this view equally toward male protagonists?
> 
> I ask because in the romance genre it too often is not. You'll find books where the hero has sexual relationships with lots of women at the beginning, but the narrative treats those women as trash. Trash to be tossed aside for the virginal "treasure" that is the heroine. The authors don't even see those women as human. But the guy who slept with them all...he's fine.
> 
> Eff slut shaming. It is such a blight on the romance genre.


You made me think--and my answer surprisingly is yes. I neither write, nor like, sleep-around, promiscuous heroes. But then I like sexy, confident, (even arrogant ) heroes who have some standards (wobbly or not) and think before they choose sex with a woman.

I notice, too, that in books where the hero is "promiscuous" and has a lot of women in his past, it's not always portrayed as a positive characteristic but rather one he needs to, uh, get over. He's often been screwing around because the poor boy has been disowned, has family issues, or has not been able to connect emotionally. Enter heroine aka love everlasting. 

You're right about how many romances appear to trash/denigrate the women in the hero's past. Unfortunate. Probably more because of page-real estate than malicious intent. Such women are generally backstory. But it is something we should think about more often. Good point.


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

Going Incognito said:


> Probably crappy and stereotypical of me but I'm surprised at Utah. As much as you hear about polyamory there, I figured that would be higher. Tho maybe not if say the sister wives each only sleep with one partner, that would greatly bring down the average of that one partner sleeping with multiple partners.


I thought polygamy was now illegal, in every state.


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

Tilly said:


> This ^
> 
> Maybe its a UF thing (like the expected snark) but I don't equate a strong woman with sleeping around, rather the opposite.


I agree. It has nothing to do with religion either, or with a fear of STDs. We used to have something called morals; don't they have those any more?


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

Doglover said:


> We used to have something called morals; don't they have those any more?


What we have now is the wacky notion that slut-shaming is wrong. Imagine that.


----------



## Going Incognito (Oct 13, 2013)

Doglover said:


> I thought polygamy was now illegal, in every state.


It is, technically. Kinda like speeding is. It's largely ignored or treated as a misdemeanor. Plus they get around it by 'legally' marrying the first spouse, then 'spiritually' marrying any consecutive spouses in a ceremony of some kind but never getting a license or submitting the ceremonial marriages to the state for recording.

And I'm not touching the morality of a person's right to do as they wish with their body.


----------



## AisFor (Jul 24, 2014)

Dpock said:


> That's where it gets confusing when researching New Adult and RomCom lists. Most of the high-ranking titles feature a lot of fairly hardcore scenes that read more like erotica.


The heroines do have to be chaste, until they meet the one capable of awakening their sexuality, at which point they may agree to have a*** sex during their first encounter, in order to further preserve their virginity...kind of mind boggling.


----------



## Doglover (Sep 19, 2013)

Markus Croft said:


> Who's we? Morals are personal beliefs about what's right and wrong. They vary person to person and they change over time. Do you personally think someone who engages in casual sex is wrong for doing so and that behavior is universally unacceptable? If not from religion, where exactly does this belief stem from? That isn't to say that someone might not care for casual sex. I don't, for example, but that preference developed out of experience, not moral superiority. In Love Sex > In Lust Sex > Casual Sex. But I don't judge someone who's preferences differ from mine if they aren't hurting anyone.
> 
> Lying and Cheating, I get. It in no way surprises me that cheating is a no-go in Romance. It turns me off to characters in all fiction. I was watching Glow the other night on Netflix and couldn't get past what one MC did to her close friend. I wanted to, I wanted to like this character, I wanted to cheer for her, but I just couldn't get there. But horny people taking care of business until they find someone they want to settle down with or not... I don't get why people care.


I think it's called self respect. Perhaps that's something we don't have any more either, like radiograms and only one tv channel - a thing of the past.


----------



## AisFor (Jul 24, 2014)

Markus Croft said:


> I think the idea someone can't have casual sex and respect themselves is incorrect and definitely a thing of the past. It's not the idea that's a problem, though. It's the practice of judging and shaming others based on that idea. I hope that practice eventually becomes a thing of the past, because as of now it isn't.


Well said.

Change is likely to come when women perceive themselves (and are depicted in fiction) as sexual beings, rather than passive recipients. I notice that women who haven't enjoyed sex themselves, and see it as a masculine preserve are more likely to equate chastity with morality.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Clearly, we're seeing here that the answer to this question is, "It depends on your audience." Write for the audience that likes the way you portray cool/sexy/ideal human sexuality. My brilliant advice. I know it isn't true that in romance, heroines have to be "chaste" (a word I've actually never heard spoken or, really, read anywhere but in a book set in the past), and I suspect it isn't true that in UF, heroines have to get around.


----------



## Laran Mithras (Nov 22, 2016)

One person's slut is another person's prude.

The idea that slut shaming is fair game is extremely chauvinist. This has nothing to do with morals if the sex is frequent with available eligible partners. It becomes moral when societal breaches occur (a married affair).

I won't slut-shame in my books. I don't believe in it.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Ava Glass said:


> What is having sex like a man vs. having sex like a woman (other than ridiculous sexism)?


That people have notions like that makes me happy -- but also worried -- that I flipped the script with my MCs. I guess the other side of this discussion is how readers may react to a MMC who is more cautious and emotional about sex? I'm kind of wondering if people may have a negative reaction to a woman who's been with dozens being paired with a guy who's only been with two.



Doglover said:


> I agree. It has nothing to do with religion either, or with a fear of STDs. We used to have something called morals; don't they have those any more?


Aside from religious beliefs, I can't figure out what morals have to do with how many sex partners a person has?



Markus Croft said:


> I think the idea someone can't have casual sex and respect themselves is incorrect and definitely a thing of the past. It's not the idea that's a problem, though. It's the practice of judging and shaming others based on that idea. I hope that practice eventually becomes a thing of the past, because as of now it isn't.


Totally agree.


----------



## Becca Mills (Apr 27, 2012)

Doglover said:


> I think it's called self respect. Perhaps that's something we don't have any more either, like radiograms and only one tv channel - a thing of the past.


You lose respect for yourself when you know you've done something wrong. If you don't think casual sex is wrong, then engaging in it won't cause any loss of self-respect.

I think people often talk past one another when they try to discuss sexual morality because their moral foundations are radically different.


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

Usedtoposthere said:


> Overall: 7 lifetime sexual partners for men, 6.4 for women.
> 
> https://onlinedoctor.superdrug.com/whats-your-number/


That's what I'd expect to be reported. My girlfriends and I agreed (somewhere in our early-twenties) that 6 or 7 was respectable enough to confess to a new boyfriend. After that we lied, so the number never went up.


----------



## Monique (Jul 31, 2010)

This is just in my personal experience, but I haven't known a truly promiscuous man or woman who wasn't using sex as a drug. Pardon the pun, but it was an attempt at filling an emotional hole that could never be filled. Beneath the veneer of devil may care, all were deeply unhappy. It wasn't empowering, for them at least. It was false power that left them always feeling hollow.

ymmv


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

Romance blog Smart b*tches Trashy Books published an interesting article on the systemic problem of slut-shaming in romance.

http://smartb*tchestrashybooks.com/2016/01/guest-rant-slut-shaming-in-romance/

(You'll have to manually remove the asterisk that the forum added.)


Don't big-up your heroines by putting down other women, especially for their sexual choices. No "puck bunnies" or "slamps."
Your characters can choose to not have sex for reasons that don't judge women who choose differently.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Ava Glass said:


> Romance blog Smart b*tches Trashy Books published an interesting article on the systemic problem of slut-shaming in romance.
> 
> http://smartb*tchestrashybooks.com/2016/01/guest-rant-slut-shaming-in-romance/
> 
> ...


This is a really good article.



> The slut shaming in romance isn't an isolated incident when it is literally more common than non-white heroes and heroines in mainstream romance.


Is really messed up.


----------



## StephenBrennan (Dec 21, 2012)

Might depend on the heroine's other qualities. I was musing about this recently when it looked like James Bond might become "Jane Bond." 

The result in that case would be a semi-sociopathic woman who sleeps with every man she meets, usually right before they die. 

Actually the biggest backlash against Jane Bond would probably be males who've been made to feel disposable by such a character. Followed by a subset of women who find nothing sympathetic about her.

Double standards are a funny thing to be sure.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

I'm not sure we can automatically assume that reversing a usually male trope (like creating a Jane Bond) will cause a negative reaction. I basically reversed the very common trope where the womanizer falls in love, and my beta readers had no issue with it. The backlash with turning a well-established character into a different gender or race seems to be more that people were used to it being the way it was. A female character that is _like_ James Bond would probably go over a lot better than one marketed under the same franchise.


----------



## D. Zollicoffer (May 14, 2014)

Monique said:


> This is just in my personal experience, but I haven't known a truly promiscuous man or woman who wasn't using sex as a drug. Pardon the pun, but it was an attempt at filling an emotional hole that could never be filled. Beneath the veneer of devil may care, all were deeply unhappy. It wasn't empowering, for them at least. It was false power that left them always feeling hollow.
> 
> ymmv


Same here. I'm sure that there are perfectly normal people out there who just love sex, but all the "promiscuous" people that I've known have been addicts. That's why I said earlier that if you're having sex with five partners in a week, then you need to have a serious conversation with yourself. It's totally fine if you can stop at any time and you aren't lying to your partners. Now as far as lifetime stats go, I wouldn't judge someone who's above the average. It's just a little concerning when you're juggling a few partners at once.


----------



## ibizwiz (Dec 25, 2014)

paranormal_kitty said:


> A female character that is _like_ James Bond would probably go over a lot better than one marketed under the same franchise.


*Bingo*, Miss Kitty! You are anticipating one of my featured younger fem MCs in a follow-on series to our flagship novel series. She'll emerge from the shadows ca April 2018. She's <<< REDACTED >>> and <<< REDACTED >>>.


----------



## Guest (Sep 13, 2017)

Maybe someone has said it already, but there's big difference between a "heroine" and a "protagonist". There have been female promiscuous protagonists since the beginning of literature, and with good writers they usually make interesting characters. One that comes to mind is Joyce Carol Oates novel about Marilyn Monroe. But if you look at the classics, you will find dozens of examples. Then there is the question of what readers want? What many readers want is vicarious experience, and protagonists of many kinds provide such experience. Life on the edge of misery can be as interesting for readers as a happy life in a penthouse. In any case, the question has one answer for formula fiction and another answer for literary fiction, and different authors will likely have different opinions about such characters. Personally, I find women like Marilyn Monroe or any so-called Jezebel more interesting than the conforming women of popular romance fiction. More interesting as literary characters. But experience says living with a woman like that in the real world can be hell---as it's hell for an ordinary woman to live with a promiscuous man. The same for gay and lesbian couples.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Some of romance, at least, does overlap what seems to often be the case in life. (I'm not saying "is" the case, because people are different, and hopefully one is always writing individuals, not averages.) I have a very popular book where heroine is being abstinent as part of a reboot of her life following a lifetime of bad choices around men, and hero becomes her abstinence partner. He tells her that he's had more meaningless sex than is good for any man (including a marriage full of his cheating), and he's ready to hold out for something more. Extremely popular hero. 

I do think that my audience believes that people who sleep around a lot, especially women, aren't especially empowered by it. That's my life experience, as others have said, what I've seen. It isn't really great for many women's psyches. Men don't seem to be damaged by it, although if they can't ultimately form a lasting intimate bond, that's probably not great for them either. I'd argue there's some biology in those differences, but haven't read enough studies to have a strong opinion about the impact of nature vs. nurture. 

In any case, I do write heroines who make the heroes wait for it and prove that they're offering something more than a night, because I write a lot of pro athletes and know something about those guys in real life. They usually marry somebody they had to work for, probably partly because that's their mindset--things that are worthwhile, you have to work for. 

It's only bad, in real life, if you're lying to yourself about what you're looking for--if you're trying to hook up with that star athlete or that cute guy from the bar because you're looking for a love relationship (usually while telling yourself you're not). That's what I see a LOT in the young women I know who sleep around. They're generally pretty unhappy about their love lives and are looking for more, and they're self-sabotaging. That's also why I roll my eyes about all the romance books (usually NA-type erom) about the hero picking up the heroine, they have "one perfect night," and now he can't let her go.

Yeah. Probably not. You go home from the bar with that star, and he says, "Thanks, honey, here's twenty bucks for a cab," and goes off with the team for his next game. He's also probably married. He ain't your forever.


----------



## Going Incognito (Oct 13, 2013)

On having to work for it-
I was raised with that being presented in a humorous analogy that fit our surroundings somewhat. Hunting is very popular locally and as my friends and I started dating it was an older, wiser woman who put it like- Men love to hunt. They get up before the crack of dawn, load up all the expensive toys they bought for the purpose of the hunt and drive for hours to their favorite hunting grounds. They often douse themselves in the awful smelling urine or musk of the animal they're hunting for, and they revel in the hunt, whether they come home triumphant or with stories of their almost triumph. 
"Now tell me this," she'd say. "Do you think they'd bother to do any of that if deer were twelve deep standing around on every street corner? Would they be proudly showing off their 'catch' if it was a deer any of the guys could've had just by backing a truck up on that corner and having one of them tie itself to the hood of the truck? Or do you think that they'd start 'hunting' a more elusive animal, instead?"

On promiscuity always being a search to fill a void-
That same woman, who married at 17, her husband being her only partner until after she buried him 40+ years of marriage later from cancer, is very much making up for lost time at the moment. Her responsibilities have been met, her kids are fully grown and have families of their own, and she's is having a grand ole time filling a hole, let me tell you. Somehow I don't think morality or self respect have anything to do with her activities, neither is she feeling hollow or trying to numb anything. Though she did just recently say that once she's done having fun and wants to tie herself to a partner again long-term, she 'reckons she'll have to tone down the fun first.' 
What's been very interesting to watch tho is the judgement she receives, not from men, but from other women. Holy cow, can we eviscerate one of our own.

On the self-respect thing-
Most judgements, I've found, have way more to say about the judger than the judgee. 
If you know that you could not have respect for yourself if you slept around, that's fine. If you don't respect someone that you see is sleeping around, that's also fine. We often learn about ourselves in contrast and comparison to someone else, but just cause you don't respect her, or you know you couldn't respect yourself if you were her, doesn't mean that she doesn't respect herself. Your judging her is about you.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Going Incognito said:


> On having to work for it-
> I was raised with that being presented in a humorous analogy that fit our surroundings somewhat. Hunting is very popular locally and as my friends and I started dating it was an older, wiser woman who put it like- Men love to hunt. They get up before the crack of dawn, load up all the expensive toys they bought for the purpose of the hunt and drive for hours to their favorite hunting grounds. They often douse themselves in the awful smelling urine or musk of the animal they're hunting for, and they revel in the hunt, whether they come home triumphant or with stories of their almost triumph.
> "Now tell me this," she'd say. "Do you think they'd bother to do any of that if deer were twelve deep standing around on every street corner? Would they be proudly showing off their 'catch' if it was a deer any of the guys could've had just by backing a truck up on that corner and having one of them tie itself to the hood of the truck? Or do you think that they'd start 'hunting' a more elusive animal, instead?"


This reminds me too much of some of the gross analogies they told us in high school sex abstinence ed. Plus I know as many women who hunt as men.


----------



## Ava Glass (Feb 28, 2011)

paranormal_kitty said:


> > The slut shaming in romance isn't an isolated incident when it is literally more common than non-white heroes and heroines in mainstream romance.
> 
> 
> Is really messed up.


Indeed it is.


----------



## Crime fighters (Nov 27, 2013)

Doglover said:


> I agree. It has nothing to do with religion either, or with a fear of STDs. We used to have something called morals; don't they have those any more?


FFS!

I'm out of here now.

Paranormal, I hope your questions were answered in this thread.


----------



## GoingAnon (Jan 16, 2014)

ORIGINAL POST MODIFIED SEPT 21, 2018. I do not accept nor do I consent to KBoards/VerticalScope's Terms of Service which were implemented without proper notification. As I await a response regarding my request for full account and content deletion - pursuant to GDPR - my continued use of this forum should not be construed as consent to, nor acceptance of, KBoards/VerticalScope's aforementioned Terms of Service.


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

Alix Nichols said:


> I find that promiscuous heroines are less of a no-go in romance than mean or b*tchy heroines... as long as they are relatable. The context is important, too. One of my female leads, Chloe (_The Devil's Own Chloe_), is promiscuous, but she has *good reasons*. Which, in reality, are *misguided*, and the reader knows it. But what matters is that she *believes* they are good.
> 
> I never had any backlash.


And so it goes in fiction; it's all about the *why*. Get the why right, and everything else falls into place.


----------



## BGArcher (Jun 14, 2014)

I may be late to the party, but first wanted to say loving this thread. With my romance pens, I'm pretty strict about the female protagonist having only had a very brief romantic past, or one that's implied vs talked about. Maybe just having one ex they have a hard time getting over, that sort of thing. The only exception is my first romance, where the main character was a former sex worker, dealing with the trauma when she meets the love of her life.

My main mystery series has a female protagonist in college who's Bi, and for the first few books she is promiscuous, because that's realistic to what a lot of my friends were like around that age. I wanted to show a well-rounded _realistic_ character, because hook up culture is very much what it's like on college campus's these days. The challenge for me (as a male author writing in third person about a female main character) is to make sure that the sex scenes are not gratuitous, or have male gaze. Second, to not have judgments about her choices, but rather just show her doing it because it's honest to the character. As the series goes on, she begins to have more serious relationships that last, because that feels realistic to someone who grows into a woman in her mid 20's as opposed to someone discovering who they are.

One of my favorite reviews I ever had was actually a negative review. They complimented my first book, saying it was well written, great characters, plot, etc, but couldn't finish it because the main character was too much of a slut. I loved the review, because I didn't mind their basis. In fact, I made note of them, and when I finish with my cozy mystery book, I'll probably send them a copy (only a love triangle there, and very much follows the rules of a cozy.)


----------



## Jack C. Nemo (Jul 5, 2013)

Nic said:


> Worldbuilding itself is nothing new to me. No need to explain it. I had that question, because what was described appears to be drawn directly off Twilight, rather than any original worldbuilding or actual folklore. I was astonished that multiple authors are using the worldbuilding of another author.


Wasn't original to Twilight either. Poppy Z Brite's Lost Souls had vamp births involve the baby chewing its way out way back in 1991. I doubt that was the first use of the trope either.


----------



## Jack C. Nemo (Jul 5, 2013)

StephenBrennan said:


> Might depend on the heroine's other qualities. I was musing about this recently when it looked like James Bond might become "Jane Bond."
> 
> The result in that case would be a semi-sociopathic woman who sleeps with every man she meets, usually right before they die.
> 
> ...


I think it would be the first time Jane Bond gets tortured, or gets the shit beaten out of her. Occupational hazards for superspies.



paranormal_kitty said:


> The one that I've written is Urban Fantasy, the heroine being one of the main reasons it's not in Paranormal Romance instead. I have to say I find that double standard annoying though...the guys can sleep around all they want, but not the women. Her love interest is pretty chaste in contrast, but I mostly did that to avoid perpetuating a stereotype.


How many male protagonists are sleeping around in Urban Fantasy though? The "take multiple books to ask out the love interest from book one, then have them disappear immediately after sleeping with them so you can wangst about it" model from Dresden seems to be the default from what I've read. To the point where Vinnie de Soth's two mentioned girlfriends and an ex-fiancee in his lifetime seems almost shocking.

Otoh at least half of the female protagonists I've read in the genre have had several onscreen lovers, or at least active love interests, in less time than it takes most of the guys to get a second date. If anything the double standard about not sleeping around is the other way.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

paranormal_kitty said:


> I'm so glad other UF writers answered this, because it seems like within the genre it's pretty accepted. My MC's love interest is the product of a vampire/human union, so pregnancy would be a possibility, but it doesn't happen for my MC anyway.
> 
> *applause*


I was traveling when this thread started and just discovered it.

Yes, you can do anything you want in your books and some readers will love it. Realize that you will limit your audience and get some nasty reviews. I have the t-shirt (see my Telepathic Clans series).

In my current series, one review blasted my MC for sleeping with two men at the same time, even though she didn't. She simply dated two men at the same time, but only slept with one. In the second book, a male reviewer blasted her for not sleeping with the male love interest but jumping into bed with another woman for some recreation.

As for Nic's pseudo-scientific claptrap on page 1 of this thread, it doesn't deserve a response. See the recent Google controversy for reference. Taking survey data and drawing far-reaching conclusions from it and cherry-picking "facts" from history to explain one's own biases doesn't make those conclusions valid.

If you want reader acceptance and a broader audience, take a good look at what Romance readers consider acceptable and apply those principles to any genre you write. If you don't, that is your decision, but whether it is fair or not, writing outside that box will be penalized.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

Jack C. Nemo said:


> How many male protagonists are sleeping around in Urban Fantasy though? The "take multiple books to ask out the love interest from book one, then have them disappear immediately after sleeping with them so you can wangst about it" model from Dresden seems to be the default from what I've read. To the point where Vinnie de Soth's two mentioned girlfriends and an ex-fiancee in his lifetime seems almost shocking.
> 
> Otoh at least half of the female protagonists I've read in the genre have had several onscreen lovers, or at least active love interests, in less time than it takes most of the guys to get a second date. If anything the double standard about not sleeping around is the other way.


This is why I had some slight reservations about the love story being too much for UF. They're really dual protagonists more than a protagonist and her love interest; it's third-person with both POVs.



brkingsolver said:


> I was traveling when this thread started and just discovered it.
> 
> Yes, you can do anything you want in your books and some readers will love it. Realize that you will limit your audience and get some nasty reviews. I have the t-shirt (see my Telepathic Clans series).
> 
> ...


Thanks for answering! You got sales on these though, right? I'm not that fussed about reviews unless they were all bad or it just didn't sell at all. From what I've seen, what romance readers consider acceptable is all over the place. Someone will say one thing, then someone else comes along and says that's just stereotyping romance readers and there are X examples of books that did X. FWIW, there is no cheating, which seems to be the line not to cross.


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

paranormal_kitty said:


> Thanks for answering! You got sales on these though, right? I'm not that fussed about reviews unless they were all bad or it just didn't sell at all. From what I've seen, what romance readers consider acceptable is all over the place. Someone will say one thing, then someone else comes along and says that's just stereotyping romance readers and there are X examples of books that did X. FWIW, there is no cheating, which seems to be the line not to cross.


It depends on what you consider good sales. I've grossed about $20K on five books and an omnibus edition in six years, the majority of it in the past two years as a result of heavy promotion and the success of my second series. In the first four years, the total gross revenue was about $6,000. Some people love them. The other problem with them is that a number of the big promo companies won't touch them. Even some erotica readers can't handle the lack of monogamy.


----------



## Paranormal Kitty (Jun 13, 2017)

brkingsolver said:


> It depends on what you consider good sales. I've grossed about $20K on five books and an omnibus edition in six years, the majority of it in the past two years as a result of heavy promotion and the success of my second series. In the first four years, the total gross revenue was about $6,000. Some people love them. The other problem with them is that a number of the big promo companies won't touch them. Even some erotica readers can't handle the lack of monogamy.


I wouldn't say there's a lack of monogamy in mine, especially as a series. She wouldn't cheat on him, and they have a whole conversation about how his ex cheated on him and he has trust and jealousy issues. Her promiscuity is her backstory that her friends tease her about and which sometimes comes back to haunt her. Her love interest is the only one she actually has sex scenes with. At the end of the prologue (takes place many years before the story), it's implied that she has her first time. Then in the beginning of the first chapter she's interacting (rather uncomfortably) with someone she just had sex with. After meeting her love interest, she doesn't have sex with anyone else. There is one scene that takes place before he professes his feelings for her where she's flirting with a guy at a bar. Her love interest threatens him and then surprise kisses her, leaving her shocked. Do you think this sounds like it's within the boundaries of general acceptability?


----------



## Not any more (Mar 19, 2012)

paranormal_kitty said:


> Her love interest is the only one she actually has sex scenes with... After meeting her love interest, she doesn't have sex with anyone else.


And at this point, you are talking a standard Romance trope. You don't have a promiscuous heroine, you have a woman with a past. Different thing.


----------



## Fel Beasley (Apr 1, 2014)

Jack C. Nemo said:


> How many male protagonists are sleeping around in Urban Fantasy though? The "take multiple books to ask out the love interest from book one, then have them disappear immediately after sleeping with them so you can wangst about it" model from Dresden seems to be the default from what I've read. To the point where Vinnie de Soth's two mentioned girlfriends and an ex-fiancee in his lifetime seems almost shocking.
> 
> Otoh at least half of the female protagonists I've read in the genre have had several onscreen lovers, or at least active love interests, in less time than it takes most of the guys to get a second date. If anything the double standard about not sleeping around is the other way.


When was the last time you read Dresden Files? Dresden goes on a date with Susan in book 1. They have sex in book 2. He proposes marriage in book 3. Then goes on to have a relationship with Luccio, as well as thinks about the sexual appeal of pretty much every female he encounters in all the books, including his mentee (his best friends barely legal daughter...) He and Susan also are dating from the end of book 1 to the end of book 3, where she disappears.

As for female protag UF, it depends on what you are reading. First, there are more of it than male for the most part. The only two that come to mind that have multiple partners through the series are Kim Harrison's Hollows series and Laurell K. Hamilton, which goes from UF to erotic UF half-way through the series.

If there is a double standard when it comes to UF, it is that male POV UF is usually considered romance-free, and female POV UF is usually called PNR disguised as UF. Both are inaccurate. My husband, who reads UF, was complaing one day at the fact that female POV UF focused too much on describing the attractiveness of the guys the protagonist comes across and had too much of a focus on the love interest.

I went through Storm Front (Dresden Files book 1) and highlighted every instance of some sort of sexual tension or romance. There was a lot of highlighted passages. My unscientific hypothesis of this was that reading 1st person descriptions of sexy dudes was more noticeable than 1st person descriptions of sexy women for him because he normally doesn't have sexy thoughts about dudes so they stood out.


----------

