# $5,000 a month or more with no sex scenes?



## BeMyBookBaby (Apr 18, 2016)

Hi guys,

I'm just curious how people who write fiction, WITHOUT steamy scenes, are doing? It can still be romance, or not at all! I just don't want the word "throbbing" mentioned...  

And before anyone gets offended, I have nothing against erotica or even erotic romance, I just know that I can't write it myself. So I'm wondering do I need to learn how to write it, and develop that skill to suit the trend, or is it possible to succeed without it?

Thanks in advance,


----------



## BeMyBookBaby (Apr 18, 2016)

Ah, thanks for the speedy response. I was thinking of applying for this competition but I was worried that the only sort of "women's fiction" that seems to gain any attention is the kind with steamy scenes.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

BeMyBookBaby said:


> Ah, thanks for the speedy response. I was thinking of applying for this competition but I was worried that the only sort of "women's fiction" that seems to gain any attention is the kind with steamy scenes.


A lot of that "women's fiction" is displaced erotica. Amazon puts extra restraints on the erotica category so a lot of it ends up in romance and women's fiction. It's not that the best women's fiction needs sexy time, it's that a lot of the books are miscategorized.


----------



## AndrewSeiple (Jan 3, 2016)

I work with superhero fiction. I'm not at 5K a month yet, but I'm doing alright, and I know some people in the genre who are probably doing that or better.


----------



## BeMyBookBaby (Apr 18, 2016)

Ah, ok, I didn't realise. That makes sense! Once again, not knocking anybody how likes to light a fire up under their readers, it's just that I don't have any wood, so to speak. 😊 

Every time I read a thread with some of the big hitters, such as Rosalind James, Marie Force, Bella Andre and even HM Ward seem to all have that aspect to their novels.


----------



## harker.roland (Sep 13, 2014)

I wish my steamy pen-name made 5k a month


----------



## BeMyBookBaby (Apr 18, 2016)

I wish I could even read something steamy without blushing! I am seriously prudish compared to some of the sexy people writing on this board!


----------



## Wayne Stinnett (Feb 5, 2014)

I write action/adventure, where the scene fades to black at the bedroom door. A bad month for me would be twice the number you mentioned.

Genre doesn't really matter. If you can tell a good story, have it properly edited and formatted, with an eye catching cover, you can make a living as a writer.


----------



## Evenstar (Jan 26, 2013)

I can't do sex scenes so I write young adult that is very much in the first kiss territory.

I do, however, think that people expect it in _contemporary romance_ unless it is branded as "sweet" or "clean" or "Christian" and sometimes in "cozy" (though sometimes cozy does have it). Historical is another area where you can very easily avoid it and not disappoint readers (Georgette Heyer style)


----------



## C. Rysalis (Feb 26, 2015)

AndrewSeiple said:


> I work with superhero fiction. I'm not at 5K a month yet, but I'm doing alright, and I know some people in the genre who are probably doing that or better.


One of these days, superhero romance is going to be the next big thing after Billionnaires.


----------



## kimberlyloth (May 15, 2014)

Yes. I write YA and clean romance. My romance pen name is just starting out (so, I can't give any definitive numbers on success yet.....I'll need a few months for that), but YA stuff is doing well.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

I stopped writing romance a few months ago, and this should be the first month that my new, non-romance books cross $5000. A lot of that is because I've finally been able to go wide with a series and I'm seeing the first tastes of that Google money. Some of the new books may have a sex scene or two, but that isn't the draw. At least I hope it isn't. They're all in urban fantasy and cozy mystery. Honestly, I think romance of any type is trending downward. There aren't less readers, but there's so, so, SO much new romance content being added that I've decided to stay away from the genre for now.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Evenstar said:


> I can't do sex scenes so I write young adult that is very much in the first kiss territory.
> 
> I do, however, think that people expect it in _contemporary romance_ unless it is branded as "sweet" or "clean" or "Christian" and sometimes in "cozy" (though sometimes cozy does have it). Historical is another area where you can very easily avoid it and not disappoint readers (Georgette Heyer style)


This. Contemporary romance usually has some sex, unless it is specifically "clean" romance (for which there is a market. Like all the readers who say I'm disgusting.  )

However, it's probably easier to sell with sex. (I'm not talking erotic romance. I don't write erotic romance. Most of my romances have about three sex scenes in 100K words, and they don't start until halfway through the book.) I've written exactly one v. sexy book so far, and boy, is that thing easier to advertise. Sex Sells is a phrase for a reason. The idea that women enjoy reading sexytimes in their romance isn't an idea that's hidden in some Closet o' Shame anymore. I mean, falling in love, for almost everyone on the planet (or there would be no babies) also means falling in lust. You don't have to focus on the lust (I don't; I focus on the romance) to write sex scenes. You don't have to write body parts (I don't name body parts below the waist either by name or euphemism, I don't write fluids, and I don't write naughty words, but I do tell you what's going on). I'd venture to say that most women read romance at least partly for the tingles, however far they want to take that--the thermometer goes all the way from Yawn to Muy Caliente.

I write sex into my romances because it's part of the romance, it furthers the character development and, especially, the intimacy, and, particularly for men, it's reality. A man doesn't meet an attractive woman and think, "She has nice eyes and a beautiful personality." He thinks, "I wonder what she looks like naked," and then he REALLY gets dirty. BUT you don't have to go there. It might be a bit of a tougher road, though.

Outside of romance? You betcha. You don't have to worry about writing sex at all if you write mystery or science fiction or fantasy or thrillers. Of course, people do write those things with sex, but it's less of a given.

Also, there's very little throbbing in romance these days.  So you know.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Don't write romance, no sex scenes, make way more than 5k a month here.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> This. Contemporary romance usually has some sex, unless it is specifically "clean" romance (for which there is a market. Like all the readers who say I'm disgusting.  )
> 
> However, it's probably easier to sell with sex. (I'm not talking erotic romance. I don't write erotic romance. Most of my romances have about three sex scenes in 100K words, and they don't start until halfway through the book.) I've written exactly one v. sexy book so far, and boy, is that thing easier to advertise. Sex Sells is a phrase for a reason. The idea that women enjoy reading sexytimes in their romance isn't an idea that's hidden in some Closet o' Shame anymore. I mean, falling in love, for almost everyone on the planet (or there would be no babies) also means falling in lust. You don't have to focus on the lust (I don't; I focus on the romance) to write sex scenes. You don't have to write body parts (I don't name body parts below the waist either by name or euphemism, I don't write fluids, and I don't write naughty words, but I do tell you what's going on). I'd venture to say that most women read romance at least partly for the tingles, however far they want to take that--the thermometer goes all the way from Yawn to Muy Caliente.
> 
> I write sex into my romances because it's part of the romance, it furthers the character development and, especially, the intimacy, and, particularly for men, it's reality. A man doesn't meet an attractive woman and think, "She has nice eyes and a beautiful personality." He thinks, "I wonder what she looks like naked," and then he REALLY gets dirty. BUT you don't have to go there. It might be a bit of a tougher road, though.


I'm way into the dirty side of the sex in romance spectrum. I am always trying to see what I can get away with. The question I'm asking with my WIP is: how many times can I have the hero refer to the ladygarden as the c-word and get away with it? My novels have 8-12 sex scenes. I write NA romance. People expect steamy but I still get a lot of "too much sex" reviews. I don't write sexy because I think it will sell better. It's how I like to write. I think about sex a lot. Not necessarily in a lewd way. It's more that I think sex is really interesting with a lot of potential for emotions and exploration.

The reason why people get irritated by questions like this is that it implies that people write sexy books just to sell or that it's somehow easy to sell a sexy book. Rosalind is right in that a marketable book that is also sexy is an easy sell. But having a lot of sex isn't enough. The book still needs to hit all the other genre boxes. I have one series that is very sexy that will never sell because it's just not marketable.


----------



## Gator (Sep 28, 2012)

Annie B said:


> Don't write romance, no sex scenes,


That's odd. The first time I read your book 1's (_Justice Calling_) description, "When dark powers threaten her friends' lives, a sexy shape-shifter enforcer shows up," I immediately said, "Pass," because I can tell I'm not the intended audience, especially since it's a bestseller in three romance subcategories:

Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Romance > Paranormal > Demons & Devils
Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Romance > Paranormal > Witches & Wizards
Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Romance > Paranormal > Psychics

Other romance categories it's listed in:


> Books > Romance > Paranormal
> Books > Romance > Vampires
> Books > Romance > Werewolves & Shifters
> Books > Science Fiction & Fantasy > Fantasy > Romantic
> ...


So, if you don't write romance, why the misleading book description and subcategories?


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

There's a romance subplot (mainly in the first book, it's resolved by book 3 and they are just a couple at that point) and it's got the HEA/HFN so it won't disappoint romance readers, but there's no sex on screen (there's barely kissing) and the main plot has nothing to do with the romance. It's not Romance with an uppercase R because if you took the relationship out, the plot wouldn't really change at all (though the characters would be less developed, in my opinion). There are vampires, werewolves, shifters, witches, and wizards, hence those keywords.  The wording in the blurb is precisely there to let people know that there will be romantic tension. Most readers love that, some don't. Those that don't (like you maybe?) won't like the book most likely, so it's useful to know for them.


----------



## Gator (Sep 28, 2012)

Annie B said:


> There's a romance subplot (mainly in the first book, it's resolved by book 3 and they are just a couple at that point) and it's got the HEA/HFN so it won't disappoint romance readers, but there's no sex on screen (there's barely kissing) and the main plot has nothing to do with the romance. It's not Romance with an uppercase R because if you took the relationship out, the plot wouldn't really change at all (though the characters would be less developed, in my opinion). There are vampires, werewolves, shifters, witches, and wizards, hence those keywords.


So, I could be a big fan of your books, but I'll never know. I avoid the types of books that attract romance readers, because I just skip the boring parts, which is a large portion of those books. There wouldn't be much story left for me to read.

I've heard many of your fans rave about your books, and I just think, "But they're romance!" and ignore them to look for other good books I'll enjoy.

(Now I'm making this all about me, huh? I'll stop now. )


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Well. It's free to give it a try, you know.  But if you don't like the idea of two hot people thinking sexy thoughts and wondering what it would be like to boink, probably it isn't for you. There's romantic tension/desire, just no on-screen sex at all. So if you can't stand any romantic relationship elements at all in your fiction, this is definitely not a series for you, sorry.


----------



## Gator (Sep 28, 2012)

Annie B said:


> Well. It's free to give it a try, you know.


Thanks. I love "try before you buy."



> But if you don't like the idea of two hot people thinking sexy thoughts and wondering what it would be like to boink, probably it isn't for you.


I find books that display triumph of the human spirit, saving the world/space ship/community, and outwitting and overcoming the bad guys in the face of nearly impossible odds much more attractive than books about two people I don't know thinking of getting some nookie. But a large audience prefers the latter, so I'm happy that there's a good variety of books available for all of us who love to read fiction.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Gator said:


> Thanks. I love "try before you buy."
> 
> I find books that display triumph of the human spirit, saving the world/space ship/community, and outwitting and overcoming the bad guys in the face of nearly impossible odds much more attractive than books about two people I don't know thinking of getting some nookie. But a large audience prefers the latter, so I'm happy that there's a good variety of books available for all of us who love to read fiction.


Geez. I don't even know what to say.

If you think books that include feelings or even *shudder* books that include a mention of people developing tender feelings for each other puts books into a category of "getting some nookie," what is there left for you to read? I dunno. Horatio Hornblower? Or doesn't he get married? I'm trying to think here.

I mean . . . Leon Uris? Has romance in it. Tom Clancy? Has romance in it (he loves his wife, and then there are Clark and Chavez who, yep, fall in love with their wives, get married, have to rescue their wives from a hostage situation in Rainbow Six.) Lee Child? Yep, Reacher thinks in every. single. book about getting some nookie, and what's more, he gets it, and it's described. In his latest, Reacher actually finds a woman he wants to stay with, and he wrestles with that. Ken Follett? Yep. Every book. Sexytimes and even lurve.

Hmm . . . an all-male crew of a spaceship? Maybe. (Except for pesky same-sex relationships, but I guess the author doesn't have to go there.)

Generally, the idea of the protagonist finding somebody to love (and/or, especially if it's written for men, an attractive blonde 25-year-old Ph.D. marine biologist to have hot monkey sex with) is viewed as providing a human element that incorporates a necessary micro dimension into the macro problems facing Our Hero. I mean, now he has to save not only the world, but also, the woman he loves is in the stadium! And there's a nuclear bomb going to detonate!

Or not.


----------



## Briteka (Mar 5, 2012)

Rosalind James said:


> Geez. I don't even know what to say.
> 
> If you think books that include feelings or even *shudder* books that include a mention of people developing tender feelings for each other puts books into a category of "getting some nookie," what is there left for you to read? I dunno. Horatio Hornblower? Or doesn't he get married? I'm trying to think here.
> 
> ...


It's a trend for a certain demographic to be turned off by relationships. I really don't understand it. In groups where I talk about television shows, as soon as a show even hints at a romantic relationship, it seems most people completely write it off and stop watching.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Briteka said:


> It's a trend for a certain demographic to be turned off by relationships. I really don't understand it. In groups where I talk about television shows, as soon as a show even hints at a romantic relationship, it seems most people completely write it off and stop watching.


Except that they don't seem to be turned off by Jack Reacher getting some nookie or even having Feelings. Funny how that works.


----------



## MichaelRyan (Nov 23, 2015)

Rosalind James said:


> Ken Follett? Yep. Every book. Sexytimes and even lurve.


_The Key to Rebecca._

Not just a book title, but a theme.

Anyway, I find this thread interesting because I am confused about this "Contemporary" romance thing...

Audrey Carlan's publisher had(s) the Calendar Girl series listed on Target as "Contemporary" in both the main category and the sub-genre listing.

I think that's unfair to readers.

The book has full on hard core sex scenes. Porn.

I'm all for it, but I think truth in advertising is fair to potential readers.


----------



## tommy gun (May 3, 2015)

sorry I'm a guy.  
Show me aliens and explosions.  Sex can be hinted at but I want it off screen.  Same with the romance element.
Back to aliens, explosions and unrealistic military scenes (ala doom movie, cock that minigun EVERY time you enter a new room!)


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2016)

JaydenHunter said:


> Anyway, I find this thread interesting because I am confused about this "Contemporary" romance thing...
> 
> Audrey Carlan's publisher had(s) the Calendar Girl series listed on Target as "Contemporary" in both the main category and the sub-genre listing.
> 
> ...


"Contemporary" simply refers to the setting - it means set in modern/current times. Contemporary romance runs the gambit from clean to steamy. It's up to the author as to the heat level they write, it's not defined by the setting.

Also, sex scenes do not automatically equate to porn. Please do your research, this isn't the first time you have commented that sex = porn. It doesn't. Sex is used in romance to explore the relationship, flaws and conflict on a deeper level.


----------



## Patty Jansen (Apr 5, 2011)

I wasn't going to comment, but I'm around that figure now, and I don't write romance, but there is the occasional sex scene (not in all books, though, but as required). I don't like off-screen wimp-outs, so I will often write the scene. But my books are not about romance, at all. I just use the romance, if there is one, to strengthen elements of the plot. Because characters don't destroy planets in an emotional vacuum.


----------



## Blique (Apr 1, 2016)

I do think romance tends to be overdone in most media (growing up, I remember trying desperately to find a single book where the female and male characters don't start flirting), but I think romance is alright as long as it's not forced into the typical "She's a girl, he's a guy, that means they need to date no matter how incompatible they are."

I can understand if people avoid romance entirely if it's not their tastes, but I find it misguided to think that romance means a lack of a great plot.

Anyway, in regards to the original topic, I have some questions to add: How many books are we talking about to make that $5,000 a month? Does it require putting out books often, or just sitting back and letting the money roll in from previous books? I'm also interested in writing non-erotic books, but I'm slow and don't know if making a living requires putting out several books a year or if you can get by with just one each year.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

I know someone who is doing quite well with 'clean' Christian romances. No sex or swear words or anything. 

And you know the erotica/erotic romance money machine has been drying up over the years. Personally, I think readers are becoming bored and desensitized to it. Or that could be my own boredom coloring my opinion!  YMMV.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

I think it would be very difficult to get by on a single release a year. I know a few people who do well with 2 books a year, but a) they market like crazy b) they treat each release as a huge event with pre-release teasers, lots of marketing around release etc and c) they started pre-KU/Select era with audience building.

4 books a year is a much better bet as it will help you keep momentum going and give you new work to push people toward your old work.

So... as with all things in publishing, it pretty much depends. How much work do you want to do? How capable of constant marketing are you? What genre are you writing and what are the buying habits of your target readership? That kind of thing.


----------



## 13893 (Apr 29, 2010)

Gator said:


> Thanks. I love "try before you buy."
> 
> I find books that display triumph of the human spirit, saving the world/space ship/community, and outwitting and overcoming the bad guys in the face of nearly impossible odds much more attractive than books about two people I don't know thinking of getting some nookie. But a large audience prefers the latter, so I'm happy that there's a good variety of books available for all of us who love to read fiction.


Annie's Sorceress series is ALL about the triumph of the human spirit and overcoming the bad guys in the face of nearly impossible odds.


----------



## Gator (Sep 28, 2012)

My fault for using a euphemism, but this:



> ... much more attractive than books about two people I don't know thinking of getting some nookie


isn't remotely equivalent to this:



Rosalind James said:


> If you think books that include feelings or even *shudder* books that include a mention of people developing tender feelings for each other puts books into a category of "getting some nookie,"


There are plenty of people who love to read books about characters thinking of sex, talking about sex, asking for sex, having sex, paying for sex, arguing about sex, remembering sex, and suffering from sex. They (and the authors) think it gives the characters more depth in the story. They're not wrong. Those kinds of stories need a depth of character they wouldn't otherwise have unless the stories included sex.

But there are other kinds of stories, too, although they're less popular:

A book's character who inspires people to overcome nearly insurmountable odds (triumph of the human spirit) or a hero who bravely saves others' lives or outwits and overcomes the bad guys in the face of nearly impossible odds doesn't need sex to show that character's depth and value in the story, unless the story is missing vitally important character development.

That vitally important character development includes how the protagonist relates to other characters before, during, and after the crisis. Love, friendship, antagonism, betrayal, etc., are all within bounds for those relationships, because the best stories include relationships.


----------



## Gator (Sep 28, 2012)

LKRigel said:


> Annie's Sorceress series is ALL about the triumph of the human spirit and overcoming the bad guys in the face of nearly impossible odds.


Exactly the kind of story I love! Not a big fan of the romance part, though.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

I give up


----------



## Gator (Sep 28, 2012)

Annie B said:


> I give up


You can't make everyone happy, but I applaud your efforts. Happy writing!


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

I meant more that if you can't see how having interpersonal relationships of all kinds, including romantic, makes a character more like, you know, an actual real person, I give up.


----------



## EvanPickering (Mar 8, 2016)

Throwing my hat with two pennies in it:

My book has romance elements in it. And a sex scene (fade out, for whatever reason writing the fully descriptive sex part makes me feel chauvanistic or pervy somehow. Even though that's ridiculous. I'm sure there's some psychoanalysis that could be done on me here lol)

My book is post-apoc, a hero's journey, and very much gritty-fighting-gunbattle oriented lol. But honestly, I think romance has a place in most stories. I remember being a kid and devouring the Dragonlance fantasy series for the epic badassery of it, and I found even as a 13 year old I loved (and was kinda turned on, damn Tika and Goldmoon seemed hot) by the romantic parts of the books.

Hating girl-oriented romance novels for sex scenes etc is the same thing as hating guy-oriented heroic badassery. It's all gratuitous and over-the-top, that's why we love it. Besides, many girls love heroic badassery and many guys love sex scenes and romance. 

I think many people love both. (To varying degrees.) I personally love heroic stories with romance worked in secondarily or tertiarily. So that's what I wrote! lol

Regarding the OP:
I'm making about $3,300 a month off of my one book so far. Hoping that number goes up a lot when I can finally get BK2 out.


----------



## BeMyBookBaby (Apr 18, 2016)

I think my main concern was that I was worried my writing would be too boring for those who were seeking that thrill from a romance novel. Maybe I'll have a drink or two and then try and write the scene? My question is in reference to general literature but also due to this competition I was going to try out for. The Richard & Jusy Search for a Bestseller one? I've never been published but I've never finished anything either, so it seemed like a good deadline to set myself. However, having read these forums I also know that it's smart to write to trends and suitable audience. Having read the last book that Zaffre published, Maestra, I know what these publishers tend to like. Bonnie Zaffre are the sponsors of the competition who will help choose the winner and publish them. I don't expect to win but I also don't want to put time into something totally off the grid when I know they like mystery and thriller and sex, it would seem. 

What do people think?


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

> I find books that display triumph of the human spirit, saving the world/space ship/community, and outwitting and overcoming the bad guys in the face of nearly impossible odds much more attractive than books about two people I don't know thinking of getting some nookie. But a large audience prefers the latter, so I'm happy that there's a good variety of books available for all of us who love to read fiction.


I know peeps who are save the world types (Marines who've done several years in combat, firefighters, etc.) They actually *gasp* have romantic thoughts, and people they love. They may not act on those feelings, but they are there.

To the OP, I don't write sex scenes and I make that.


----------



## CLStone (Apr 4, 2013)

My first series, a YA romance, has not even a first kiss until book six. If you do it right, you can get an intense romance from waiting.


----------



## geronl (May 7, 2015)

EvanPickering said:


> I'm making about $3,300 a month off of my one book so far. Hoping that number goes up a lot when I can finally get BK2 out.


awesome, congrats.

personally $3 a month is a lot. *sigh*


----------



## VLH (Jun 18, 2015)

Oh, I fully intend to sex it up.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Gator said:


> My fault for using a euphemism, but this:
> 
> isn't remotely equivalent to this:
> 
> ...


?? Somehow you seem to have missed all the examples I gave of male writers of save-the-world or save-the -community books who also include a romantic and/or sexual subplot in their books. Do you hate Lee Child's books because the hero thinks about sex with the sheriff, and then has that sex? Do you hate Leon Uris's EXODUS--building the state of Israel--because it includes a love story and sexual feelings and sex? Do you honestly read only books in which the male protagonist does NOT ever think about sex or fall in love in the course of the book? What are these books?

I read an epic sea adventure by a major thriller writer. In Ch. 2, he meets his fellow adventurer in their bid to save the world, and ends up banging her against the refrigerator. Then they go on to have this epic battle against a bad guy, but they fall in love as they do it (expressed by more banging). The Far Pavilions, which was read by both men and women, is told entirely from the point of view of a soldier. It's an epic novel of India under the Raj. It includes a strong romantic subplot, but it is a military novel. The protagonist somehow manages to both take part in many campaigns and battles and also fall in love. One reinforces the other. The personal scale humanizes the grand scale. That's why books have romantic subplots.

*Annie doesn't write romance. She writes what Mr. Fridge-Bangfest wrote: a thriller with a romantic subplot. *Just because an author is a woman, that doesn't mean her books are romance, any more than Lee Childs's books could be called romance.

And as for romance? It's not "about" people thinking about sex, agonizing about sex, having sex. Erotic romance, yes, though it must also be about feelings. The rest of the big wide world that is romance is about two people going through a journey of their own and together. It may or may not include sex. Erotica is about sex. Romance is about relationships. And in my case, about mystery and suspense and, yes, saving their town from a murderer or a serial rapist. Yep, they have feelings AND they save their town!

*Romance isn't "about" sex any more than a technothriller is "about" technology, or a space opera "about" spaceships. ALL books--at least all successful books--are "about" feelings of one kind or another. For a book to "work," it has to engage and arouse the reader--arouse his or her emotions, make him or her invested in the story. Successful storytelling is about feelings.*

I always wonder if men who equate romance novels with sex do that in their lives, too. Do they never touch their wife or say anything tender to her except to get sex? Was their own journey to marriage all about sex? Did having their first child--and watching their partner give birth--make them feel any different as a man? Do they admire their wife for her strength and courage? What has she done that made them think, "Whoa, she's really something. I'm so glad i'm married to this incredible woman." Those are the kinds of things romance is about. It can also be about love of family, of parents for children, of siblings, friends, teammates. Love of country and of the land. Romance is about relationships--all the many relationships people have. Yes, it tends to include sex, because normally, when people fall in love, they have sex. The sex need not be described in any detail. Or it can be described in graphic detail. If it's a romance, the story is still ABOUT relationships.


----------



## Talbot (Jul 14, 2015)

geronl said:


> personally $3 a month is a lot. *sigh*


It's a fwikkin' fortune. Siiiigh, too.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

To the OP: When I decided to try to write a romance novel, the first scene I wrote was a sex scene. I figured I'd better know if I could do it.

To my surprise, I found that I enjoyed it, and as the books went on, I got better at it. Look up some authors like me, maybe, who write without explicit terms. A lot of it's about sexual tension, too. Sex scenes only "work" if there's a buildup, if both the characters and the reader can't wait. A good sex scene, whether tender and sweet or more hot and dirty, is all about urgency. It's all about what the character is feeling, about the wonder of it. And above all, that it's THIS person they're having sex with. Sex in romance is not just "here's a sexual fantasy with some bodies attached to play it out," it's the culmination of the feelings these particular two people have for each other--tender and frustrated and desperately attracted, or whatever they are. The sex scene has a reason to be there, and it grows organically out of the relationship and moves the relationship and the story forward.

You can write it, as I said, as explicitly or not as you wish. My first books are more allusional, my later ones more direct, although I still don't get real explicit. Maybe read around among "moderately steamy" authors and see how they do it, then have a glass of wine, put on some sexy music (Marvin Gaye's always good), and give it a try.

Or not. Decide to write "clean" and make that your brand. That works, too. Best of luck.


----------



## JE_Owen (Feb 22, 2015)

C. Rysalis said:


> One of these days, superhero romance is going to be the next big thing after Billionnaires.


OOOOOooooo _this is brilliant!_ Someone should definitely write this.

I write very niche, Ya/Middle grade/appeal to some adult fans... fantasy animal fiction. Think Warriors, Lion King, but with gryphons and dragons. I do a respectable part time income. I'm hoping as I slowly bring out more books that number will rise. Find your audience and you'll do fine ^__^


----------



## X. Aratare (Feb 5, 2013)

BeMyBookBaby said:


> I think my main concern was that I was worried my writing would be too boring for those who were seeking that thrill from a romance novel. Maybe I'll have a drink or two and then try and write the scene? My question is in reference to general literature but also due to this competition I was going to try out for. The Richard & Jusy Search for a Bestseller one? I've never been published but I've never finished anything either, so it seemed like a good deadline to set myself. However, having read these forums I also know that it's smart to write to trends and suitable audience. Having read the last book that Zaffre published, Maestra, I know what these publishers tend to like. Bonnie Zaffre are the sponsors of the competition who will help choose the winner and publish them. I don't expect to win but I also don't want to put time into something totally off the grid when I know they like mystery and thriller and sex, it would seem.
> 
> What do people think?


I think that we might be putting the cart before the horse here. You say you haven't finished anything ... which means that how many sex scenes or whether there should be any at all is probably premature. You need to figure out HOW to tell a story and then figure out HOW sex can add to it or if you're good at writing it, enjoy writing it, etc. Most importantly you should actually READ the genre that you would like to write in and see how much sex is generally out there.

As to the discussion about whether sex adds/subtracts/etc. I've always hated what I saw as the "unnatural" divide that used to exist between romance books and everything else. I think that sex/romance ADDS to every story even if its the hardest of hard boiled detective stories or in the middle of a war zone in a great marine epic. Even readers like Clive Cussler who write adventure yarns have romance in them. Readers respond to characters that are fully rounded out, which includes relationships.


----------



## MichaelRyan (Nov 23, 2015)

Tilly said:


> "Contemporary" simply refers to the setting - it means set in modern/current times. Contemporary romance runs the gambit from clean to steamy. It's up to the author as to the heat level they write, it's not defined by the setting.
> 
> Also, sex scenes do not automatically equate to porn. Please do your research, this isn't the first time you have commented that sex = porn. It doesn't. Sex is used in romance to explore the relationship, flaws and conflict on a deeper level.


I never said sex=porn.

I have done my research. If you read the definition of pornography on Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, Wiki, or any other comparable source, you'll see that sex scenes written with the intent to titillate or cause arousal is the VERY definition of pornography.

Of course pornography is also pictures, video, or sound that is created to do the same thing: arouse/titillate the reader/viewer/listener.

Now, of course, romantica or "steamy" or "spicy" books have a lot more going on than just the sex scenes, so the entire work in and of itself is not pornography, but you're argument would then be: Well, Calendar Girls isn't pornography because it has other things, but Playboy or Penthouse pornography despite the vast majority of the magazine being articles and advertisements.

Anyway, yeah, I did my research.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

JaydenHunter said:


> I never said sex=porn.
> 
> I have done my research. If you read the definition of pornography on Merriam-Webster, Dictionary.com, Wiki, or any other comparable source, you'll see that sex scenes written with the intent to titillate or cause arousal is the VERY definition of pornography.
> 
> ...


You can call whatever you want porn, but this view of sex scenes in literature is really, really limited. Sylvia Day has a great definition of the differences between romance, erom, erotica, and porn on her website. It comes down to romance being about the characters. Even in erotic romance, the sex scenes are not there solely for titillation. They are there to deepen the relationship between the characters. Erotica is a story about a sexual journey. Porn is sex, sex, sex-- none of the stuff we expect to see in literature like themes, character development, plot, etc.


----------



## Fictionista (Sep 14, 2012)

Crystal_ said:


> You can call whatever you want porn, but this view of sex scenes in literature is really, really limited. Sylvia Day has a great definition of the differences between romance, erom, erotica, and porn on her website. It comes down to romance being about the characters. Even in erotic romance, the sex scenes are not there solely for titillation. They are there to deepen the relationship between the characters. Erotica is a story about a sexual journey. Porn is sex, sex, sex-- none of the stuff we expect to see in literature like themes, character development, plot, etc.


This, exactly.


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2016)

JaydenHunter said:


> I never said sex=porn.


Yes you did. In another thread you called Calendar Girls porn solely because it had sex scenes.

As Crystal explained, your dictionary definition is narrow and doesn't cover the range of romance and erotica. You don't seem to understand how sex in romance novels is used to enhance the emotional connection, it's not there to simply include a sex scene. When you called Calendar Girls porn you admitted you _"didn't get it"_ and thought sex scenes were only there as porn and you don't understand why a romance novel would have sex. But then that's not uncommon from men who think romance is easy and all they have to do is throw in sex scenes and it will sell. You need to be able to grasp the underlining connections between the characters and understand what purpose the sex scene serves.

Also, "doing your research" involves more than looking up a wiki entry. Especially for someone who says they are starting a romance pen name. You should be reading extensively in your chosen sub category. Given you didn't know what "contemporary" was, I'm assuming you're not writing contemp romance, or NA. Are you writing historical romance, fantasy romance? How many books have you read in that sub-category?

I haven't read Calendar Girls, but for NA I read JA Huss, Pepper Winters, Katy Evans, Chelle Bliss, Harper Sloane and their books all have sex scenes but are romance novels. Not erotica. Not porn. Calendar Girls simply sounds typical of those contemp romance authors who write with a higher heat level.


----------



## AndrewSeiple (Jan 3, 2016)

C. Rysalis said:


> One of these days, superhero romance is going to be the next big thing after Billionnaires.


Heh! Funny thing is, one of the projects in my long-term queue is a slice-of-life/romcom in a superhero setting.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Tilly said:


> I haven't read Calendar Girls, but for NA I read JA Huss, Pepper Winters, Katy Evans, Chelle Bliss, Harper Sloane and their books all have sex scenes but are romance novels. Not erotica. Not porn. Calendar Girls simply sounds typical of those contemp romance authors who write with a higher heat level.


Threadjack to recommend Kylie Scott as an NA author. Her stuff is pretty steamy but the sex isn't a huge part of the story. It's more the punctuation.

I don't actually read that widely in my genre. That's not something I necessarily recommend but it works for me. When I start a new niche or trope, I'll read two or three books. I'll read until I find a book I really like then I'll reread that once or twice so I can really see what makes it tick. It's more a depth over breadth strategy. But, when I read fiction for pleasure, it's mostly in my subgenre, so I already have a solid base.


----------



## Guest (Apr 20, 2016)

Crystal_ said:


> Threadjack to recommend Kylie Scott as an NA author.


Thank you, off to check her out 
I don't read a lot of NA (historical is my catnip), it's usually when a friend says "you HAVE to read this..." lol


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Crystal_ said:


> Threadjack to recommend Kylie Scott as an NA author. Her stuff is pretty steamy but the sex isn't a huge part of the story. It's more the punctuation.


I don't know about her NA books, but her zombie books are pure awesomesauce.


----------



## N. D. Iverson (Feb 1, 2016)

BeMyBookBaby said:


> Hi guys,
> 
> I'm just curious how people who write fiction, WITHOUT steamy scenes, are doing? It can still be romance, or not at all! I just don't want the word "throbbing" mentioned...
> 
> ...


I started a thread kind of in the same vein a while ago about Urban Fantasy with female leads and very little romance. You *might* find it helpful. If interested, you can check it out here:

http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,234007.0.html

What I got out of it from everyone's answers was that it's human nature to have *some* romance, even a love interest that's just there for the sake of a flirty relationship. There doesn't need to be full on romance and sex for a book to succeed.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Tilly said:


> Thank you, off to check her out
> I don't read a lot of NA (historical is my catnip), it's usually when a friend says "you HAVE to read this..." lol


She's great and she's one of the Queens of my niche (rock stars). She has a very strong voice, so you'll know if you're in or out pretty fast.

I haven't picked up her latest yet 'cause I know I'll skip my word count to read it in one go.

Is her zombie stuff more about zombies or is it more about surviving the apocalypse like The Walking Dead/ Dead of Winter (it's an amazing board game)?


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Much more like The Walking Dead than pure zombie shoot-everything-that-moves apocalypse. Very good characters, believable background, interesting situations, steamy sex with bad boys in uniform... What's not to love?


----------



## Daniel Arenson (Apr 11, 2010)

Gator said:


> That's odd. The first time I read your book 1's (_Justice Calling_) description, "When dark powers threaten her friends' lives, a sexy shape-shifter enforcer shows up," I immediately said, "Pass," because I can tell I'm not the intended audience, especially since it's a bestseller in three romance subcategories


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Crystal_ said:


> Threadjack to recommend Kylie Scott as an NA author. Her stuff is pretty steamy but the sex isn't a huge part of the story. It's more the punctuation.
> 
> I don't actually read that widely in my genre. That's not something I necessarily recommend but it works for me. When I start a new niche or trope, I'll read two or three books. I'll read until I find a book I really like then I'll reread that once or twice so I can really see what makes it tick. It's more a depth over breadth strategy. But, when I read fiction for pleasure, it's mostly in my subgenre, so I already have a solid base.


Love Kylie Scott. I read "Lick" before if was picked up by St. Martins and I plowed through it. I consider them straight up contemporary romance though. Rock star, but CR. Wish I could find more like this. Not a fan of NA, or what I consider NA I guess since I don't look at this series as such. Its really fun though.


----------



## AztecStrawberry (Feb 24, 2016)

Daniel Arenson said:


>


Got to be my favorite response of this thread.


----------



## MichaelRyan (Nov 23, 2015)

Tilly said:


> Yes you did. In another thread you called Calendar Girls porn solely because it had sex scenes.
> 
> As Crystal explained, your dictionary definition is narrow and doesn't cover the range of romance and erotica. You don't seem to understand how sex in romance novels is used to enhance the emotional connection, it's not there to simply include a sex scene. When you called Calendar Girls porn you admitted you _"didn't get it"_ and thought sex scenes were only there as porn and you don't understand why a romance novel would have sex. But then that's not uncommon from men who think romance is easy and all they have to do is throw in sex scenes and it will sell. You need to be able to grasp the underlining connections between the characters and understand what purpose the sex scene serves.
> 
> ...


First off: Amazon categories are nuts and only make sense from a marketing viewpoint, not a readers viewpoint.

In children's book section they have Hunger Games....and "My Monster Farts" as if it's helpful to categorize both Charlotte's Web, Diary of a Wimpy Kid, and Harry Potter with Orangey the Goldfish.

I don't think it's fair to readers,,,,but that's Amazon.

My compliant with Targets page for Calendar Girls was that it has Contemporary romance listed as both the main genre and the sub-genre and it hides the fact that the series is extremely graphic.

I'm not saying I care, I'm a secular atheist and I have no issue with Target selling anything it wants.

But I do care about readers.

And I don't think it's fair to make them jump through hoops.

And I don't think it's fair to mislead them.

As to my definition of porn...well, you can dismiss Me, Webster-Merrian, Wiki, Dictionary, etc., because you don't agree with it.

That's fine.

But I'm a writer that thinks words mean things. It's one of my loves.

And if you accept the standard English definitions of what pornography is, what the dictionaries say it is, then graphic sex scenes in novels are pornography.

That doesn't mean the book is categorized as pornography on Amazon. I'm not saying it should be.

But just because a well-written sex scene is also about love, deep intimacy, plot, structure, a hero's journey, whatever, if the scene is written to arouse sexual feelings (even if it's not the only intent) then it's pornography by very definition.

Your argument is just like opening a Penthouse magazine to a great article on politics and saying the magazine doesn't contain porn because the majority of it is articles, commentary, and advertisements.

The pictures are still porn. Even if you published a Bible, if you put hot, oiled up, naked models in full color, those pictures are pornography by very definition.

In romance, erotica, romantic, paranormal romance, whatever,,,,if a scene is graphically depicted sex and body parts, THAT is pornography.

Not my definition, the dictionary.

Anyway, it doesn't matter.

What matters to me is craft.

I agree, I should be reading more, HOWEVER...that said, like someone else mentioned, they like to read a few books in a sub-genre that they like and go from there.

I have read 8-10 romantica type novels in total, and about another half dozen in part. I usually can't finish a book if I really hate the style.

I'm not attracted to the "romance" that comes across as abusive or mean.

I don't like biker or fifty shades stuff.

On the other end, I don't like the more soft cheesy stuff either.

I really did enjoy Calendar Girls, but not enough to buy #'s 4-12. I got the picture in the first volume of 3.

My female character has been well received by a couple beta readers (and a couple beta listeners-- that was awkward for a moment) because she's strong, takes control of her sexuality, and probably because I've written her with enough traditionally male characteristics that she's more interesting than many of the standard female leads that come across as a cliche.

Well, we shall see, I'm a good couple months or so from launching.

Anyway, I don't think these forums always allow good communication because some of the things you accuse me of doing in that quote above, I think were written by someone else, not me.

I totally understand why sex is included in novels of all types.

My first real novel, the first novel I ever read, was _Jaws._

Massively hot sex scene in the novel. Didn't make the movie. I think I was about 10 years old when I read that, the power of the description of the sexual act when Mrs. Brody goes off and has a wild affair with the shark expert....wow,...it rocked my world.

Interesting fact: Benchley killed off Hooper in the novel. I figure it was because he deserved it, I mean, he committed adultery with the chiefs wife (while he was trying to save the villagers).

In the screen play, Hooper also dies.

But Spielberg wanted some live footage of a shark, which he got. Problem was: The shark attacking the cage footage didn't have a man in the shot.

So, they re-wrote the script on the fly, allowing Hooper (Richard Dreyfus) to live.


----------



## Sylvia R. Frost (Jan 8, 2014)

> because I've written her with enough traditionally male characteristics that she's more interesting than many of the standard female leads


There's a lot to unpack in your post, but this comment made me literally stand up in my chair. I can just see Betsy coming now and I really don't like to get into fights, but I feel like this must be addressed. This idea that because your female lead has "male characteristics" she's more interested than "cliche feminine leads", feels to me, very sexist. It's one thing to say that you want to write a certain character, with different personality traits, but first of all "being in control of your sexuality" isn't a male trait, neither is being "strong".

I'm not saying that you're trying to be sexist, but that there's lots of nuance and hidden subtle sexism that as a guy writing romance I think you have to be very aware of. Romance has been a marginalized and looked down upon genre for CENTURIES, because men and women both put down and suppress women's interests and sexuality. Much like if I were to write a novel about person of color or LGBTQ I'd want to think carefully and thoughtfully about coming into that space, I think men have to think the same way about romance.

There's a very important rule that is before you want to subvert genre tropes and conventions you have to respect them, and too be honest, dictionary definition or not, your post doesn't come across as very respectful of romance or understanding HOW and WHY it tittilattes. If you're focused on the tittilations and similarities between romance and porn, you may be right on a strictly technical point but you're missing the point of romance by a wide margin.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

> My female character has been well received by a couple beta readers (and a couple beta listeners-- that was awkward for a moment) because she's strong, takes control of her sexuality, and probably because I've written her with enough traditionally male characteristics that she's more interesting than many of the standard female leads that come across as a cliche.


Just a thought ... saying things like this about more than 50% of the fiction market isn't a way to win readers.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

JaydenHunter said:


> My female character has been well received by a couple beta readers (and a couple beta listeners-- that was awkward for a moment) because she's strong, takes control of her sexuality, and probably because I've written her with enough traditionally male characteristics that she's more interesting than many of the standard female leads that come across as a cliche.


Uh... Let me give you the benefit of the doubt. I can, kind of, understand where you are coming from. Romance readers can be particular about gender roles and, sometimes, it feels limiting. I have enjoyed my male leads more as I've allowed them to be more flawed and vulnerable. When I started writing romance, I was less confident and I stuck more closely to the acceptable "alpha male" traits. I didn't have much room for variation in characters. This is really just good writing. Perfect characters are boring. Giving my heroes more flaws makes them more believable and, thus, more lovable.

But... man... this is still some sexist BS. The idea that female traits are less interesting than male traits is wrong on so many levels. I understand that not adhering to strict gender roles opens you up to more options with your characters, but what you're saying here is basically "she's interesting cause she acts like a guy. Women are boring and lame."


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Not to mention it hints at some incredibly 1950s gender role thinking of what male and female are... Stacking that up with a line like the guy deserved to be killed in Jaws because he slept with another man's wife (wages of sin is death? really?) and yeah...


----------



## Carradee (Aug 21, 2010)

JaydenHunter said:


> As to my definition of porn...well, you can dismiss Me, Webster-Merrian, Wiki, Dictionary, etc., because you don't agree with it.


Actually, you're engaging in false equivalency and misrepresenting the definition(s). I've quoted the definitions from multiple sources and put the ignored items in bold below:

Pornography =
"movies, pictures, magazines, etc., that show or describe naked people or sex in a very open and direct way *in order to cause* sexual excitement." (ref. Merriam-Webster, a common default dictionary for US English)
"sexually explicit videos, photographs, writings, or the like, *whose purpose is* to elicit sexual arousal." (ref. Dictionary.com)
"Printed or visual material containing the explicit description or display of sexual organs or activity, *intended to* stimulate sexual excitement." (ref. Oxford, a common default dictionary for world English)
"Sexually explicit writing, images, video, or other material *whose primary purpose* is to cause sexual arousal." (ref. American Heritage, a common dictionary for some humanities)

Pornography is *specifically* explicit/graphic sex written for a particular purpose. Explicit/graphic sex scenes can be written for other purposes, as well, such as to reveal more about a character or even to horrify a reader, in some situations.

The assumption that graphic sex scenes' primary purpose is necessarily to arouse the reader = not an uncommon one, in some circles, but it's still an assumption. If that's your belief, fine, but pointing to the dictionary doesn't get you there. 

[quote author=JaydenHunter]My female character has been well received [&#8230;] probably because I've written her with enough traditionally male characteristics that she's more interesting than many of the standard female leads that come across as a cliche.[/quote]
This is leaves undefined which characteristics you assign to each gender. A lot of those assignments are stereotypical or cultural.

Insofar as your assumption (that male characteristics are inherently more interesting than female characteristics) is concerned, I doubt it's correct. I've built a nice following on Wattpad with a novel featuring an anxious female narrator who knits and embroiders-traits that US culture tends to deem female but historically and globally are not necessarily "female". (A fair number of my readers who like it enough to contact me are men, for the record.

It's more likely that your female lead is well-received because she's more than a cardboard cutout. Just my experience from chattering with readers.


----------



## 555aaa (Jan 28, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> <snip>
> *Annie doesn't write romance. She writes what Mr. Fridge-Bangfest wrote: a thriller with a romantic subplot. *Just because an author is a woman, that doesn't mean her books are romance, any more than Lee Childs's books could be called romance.
> 
> <snip snip>


But almost all of Annie's books are highly ranked in a romance sub-cat. Amazon thinks they are romance and she is wisely in my opinion not dissuading them from that categorization. None of the Jack Reacher novels that I looked at (and there's a boat-load) are categorized in romance.

I remember when Annie was only nocat. I have nothing but respect for her. It so happens, imho, that as romance dominates kindle books, and kindle books is a winner-take-all system, that everything that sells well gets steered into romance as it is the best selling cat on Kindle. Look, in the top 15 in print books, there are four children's books, seven non-fic titles, and one lonely fiction title. In Kindle books, you need to get down around 70 or so to get to the first non-fic book. Kindle and the rest of the book world have split apart into two totally separate markets. And in the Kindle market, it's not very "diverse" - similar books tend to dominate, because it's completely driven by algorithms. It's winner take all. But that's really a topic for another thread. But in short, I agree, people can and will do well in non-romance cats and both men and women authors are doing quite well.

now I see people are typing more replies that make me think this thread is going off the rails a bit.

-Bruce Van Deventer


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

The nice thing about writing is that the market (and readers) will tell you if you've indeed written a strong, smart heroine, a tight story, and characters in general with whom readers can identify. That's why I read my reviews, unlike some writers who don't like to go there. You do have to take some lumps at the beginning and learn how to sift out the useful from the not-so-much, but it sure does let you see how you're doing; where you're succeeding and where you're falling short. 

To circle back to the OP's point--the main criterion for succeeding, as far as I can see, is first of all to write a story that a fair number of readers want to read. After that, sure, there's marketing and all that. But the best marketing in the world won't sell a story that readers don't find interesting and entertaining. That's a whole lot more important than whether it's got sex in it or not. There are lots of categories in the Kindle store besides romance, and lots of romance that doesn't include explicit sex.


----------



## Gator (Sep 28, 2012)

Rosalind James said:


> ?? Somehow you seem to have missed all the examples I gave of male writers of save-the-world or save-the -community books who also include a romantic and/or sexual subplot in their books.


I'm sure they're fine writers, but I can't comment on the content or literary value of their books because I haven't read them.



> Do you hate Lee Child's books because ...
> Do you hate Leon Uris's ...
> Do you honestly read only books in which the male protagonist ...


You're getting a lot of exercise jumping to conclusions.



> *Annie doesn't write romance. She writes what Mr. Fridge-Bangfest wrote: a thriller with a romantic subplot. *Just because an author is a woman, that doesn't mean her books are romance, any more than Lee Childs's books could be called romance.


Another jump. I never stated that Annie's books must be romances because she's a woman, so you don't need to remind me that this just isn't so.

I called her books romances back when I heard her fans raving about them last year because Amazon identifies them as bestsellers in the Romance subcategories. If you don't want people to call her books romances, you need to take that up with the manager of Amazon's book category system or Annie, herself, because she's using that system to target her books in romance subcategories.



> And as for romance? It's not "about" people thinking about sex, agonizing about sex, having sex. Erotic romance, yes, though it must also be about feelings. The rest of the big wide world that is romance is about two people going through a journey of their own and together. It may or may not include sex. Erotica is about sex. Romance is about relationships.


You're taking my statement out of context. I was listing the kinds of stories that need a depth of character they wouldn't otherwise have unless the stories included sex. Look again. I didn't put "romance" on that list. In your mind, you think I did.

I tried to be careful in my wording, lest this thread become an attack of the verbal piranha, due to retaliation for historical sidelining. Romance is mainstream now, but that's only in recent history. I used to travel frequently and whenever I spotted a new book store, I'd think, "Treasures!" I'd walk into the store and, with a big grin on my face, ask the clerk, "Do you have any new sci-fi novels?" They'd scoff and say, "We only sell _real_ books here." For every time that happened to me, I witnessed at least 20 romance readers get the same response from their earnest inquiries.

Genre publishing in the U.S. used to be a lot worse, and I'll let you in on a little secret. When I was a kid, my aunt used to throw parties at her house for her friends, which included some Hollywood celebrities and celebrities in business and industry. The publisher of one of the largest trade publishers (now a major imprint of the largest trade publisher in the U.S., but back then the Big 5 didn't yet exist), and a semi-prominent, published author at another major publisher, and an "up and coming," published author attended one of these parties. I heard one of the other guests mentioning that his friend had written a novel, but she hadn't had any luck in the past two years at getting it published. He asked for advice from these three knowledgeable men.

"Tell her to drop the idea of ever getting her book published," the semi-prominent author said. "You should _never_ publish a book written by a woman." The other two publishing veterans quickly nodded in agreement, as if this were a well-known fact in publishing.

"Why not?" the woman writer's friend asked.

"Because the book would always be filled with sex," the publisher said, "as if that's a satisfactory substitute for a good story."

So now you know why so many women writers were excluded from publishing decades ago: presumption of guilt, rather than presumption of skill. Be happy you're able to earn a good living by writing romance novels in the modern era. It was nigh impossible several decades ago. And best-selling genre trends change periodically, too, so we can't expect romance to always continue to be the top sales genre. I do think it's going to be top dog for some time to come, though.



> I always wonder if men who equate romance novels with sex do that in their lives, too. Do they never touch their wife or say anything tender to her except to get sex? Was their own journey to marriage all about sex? Did having their first child--and watching their partner give birth--make them feel any different as a man? Do they admire their wife for her strength and courage? What has she done that made them think, "Whoa, she's really something. I'm so glad i'm married to this incredible woman."


I'm sure you intended for this part to irritate or offend me, but I'm laughing my butt off, and your psychological profiling skills won't tell you why.


----------



## Gator (Sep 28, 2012)

Daniel Arenson said:


>


----------



## kathrynoh (Oct 17, 2012)

Gator said:


> Genre publishing in the U.S. used to be a lot worse, and I'll let you in on a little secret. When I was a kid, my aunt used to throw parties at her house for her friends, which included some Hollywood celebrities and celebrities in business and industry. The publisher of one of the largest trade publishers (now a major imprint of the largest trade publisher in the U.S., but back then the Big 5 didn't yet exist), and a semi-prominent, published author at another major publisher, and an "up and coming," published author attended one of these parties. I heard one of the other guests mentioning that his friend had written a novel, but she hadn't had any luck in the past two years at getting it published. He asked for advice from these three knowledgeable men.
> 
> "Tell her to drop the idea of ever getting her book published," the semi-prominent author said. "You should _never_ publish a book written by a woman." The other two publishing veterans quickly nodded in agreement, as if this were a well-known fact in publishing.
> 
> ...


Sounds like a bunch of men with some serious sour grapes over Jackie Collins or Danielle Steele or whoever was the best selling female author of the time!


----------



## EC (Aug 20, 2013)

A friend of mine is earning $15,000 a month plus, in romance and humour categories. This individual blushes if you mention anything "sexual," and if you do it twice, she faints. There's a massive market for clean romance books - have a look at Christian fiction to give you a template of reader expectations. I'm not suggesting that you write Christian fiction, merely pointing out the blue riband standard of clean fiction.

Be aware that if you can crack the clean fiction market, your fans will target your books like a laser beam. They struggle to find "appropriate," books, and when they find a good author that meets their expectations, they will sweep up everything you publish. Don't ever take a brainstorm and intoduce risque scenes to later books, your fans will slaughter you, and you will lose them overnight. 

I can't write it - every time I try I end up with the main characters doing flying angels and swinging naked from chandeliers. And when I read that excerpt to my pal, she fainted. 

Jeez, some people.


----------



## Veronica Sicoe (Jun 21, 2015)

JE_Owen said:


> OOOOOooooo _this is brilliant!_ Someone should definitely write this.


Somebody has, and it's awesome!


----------



## Gator (Sep 28, 2012)

kathrynoh said:


> Sounds like a bunch of men with some serious sour grapes over Jackie Collins or Danielle Steele or whoever was the best selling female author of the time!


Danielle Steele hadn't yet published the two books that launched her career, _Passion's Promise_ and _Now and Forever_, so it's unlikely the publisher or the two authors had even heard of her.

Jackie Collins had written a couple of best selling romances, but they hadn't yet made big splashes with mainstream U.S. publishers. (The romance reader community was a different story.) She was originally a British B-movie actress, but didn't make a name for herself in acting, other than maybe her brief affair with Marlon Brando when she was 15. The publisher and two authors might have heard of her, but not yet as an author.

Barbara Cartland was a well-known best seller, but she'd been writing pretty tame romances for many years by that time, so Barbara's work probably didn't prompt the idea of "all women writers are writing sex."

"... although her first novels (1922) were considered sensational, Cartland's later (and arguably most popular) titles were comparatively tame with virginal heroines and few, if any, suggestive situations. Almost all of Cartland's later books were historical in theme, which allowed for the believability of chastity (at least, to many of her readers)."

Georgette Heyer was another best seller. She invented Regency Romance, but her novels had never been reviewed by a serious newspaper, and she wasn't even mentioned in the _Encyclopedia Britanica_, which every important author had an entry in. The men may have heard of her, but as far as I know, her books were pretty tame, too.

I can't think of any other women who might have been writing racy romances and selling in large enough numbers to catch the attention of one of the largest publishers in the U.S. and somewhat prominent authors in that time period.

Anyone else have any suggestions of who the major publisher and semi-prominent authors could have had professional jealousy for?


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

LKRigel said:


> Annie's Sorceress series is ALL about the triumph of the human spirit and overcoming the bad guys in the face of nearly impossible odds.


Yeah, well, unless they're gonna do it with a complete lack of emotional attachment to any member of the opposite sex, no matter how unobtrusive or deftly-handled, gtfo with that ish, am I right?

Lord have mercy.

People crave relationships. When they're feeling good, when they're feeling bad, when they're poor, when they're rich, when they're fighting bad guys or fighting demons or fighting their attraction to the alpha billionaire or fighting the corporation that wants to poison the water hole, when they're angry, when they're frightened, when hope is renewed, when all hope is lost, in the past of historical fiction, in the present of contemp or UF or any number of other genres, and almost certainly in the future of sci-fi and other spec fiction. And it is perfectly possible to have a developing relationship in a book or across a series of books without it becoming the FOCUS of the books, or giving your manly!man readers the girl cootiez.

The fact that this guy keeps calling Annie's books "romance" seriously makes me want to punt something into the frickin' sun.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

JaydenHunter said:


> My female character has been well received by a couple beta readers (and a couple beta listeners-- that was awkward for a moment) because she's strong, takes control of her sexuality, and probably because I've written her with enough traditionally male characteristics that she's more interesting than many of the standard female leads that come across as a cliche.


Women don't need to be more like men to be interesting, you .... you ....... Okay, Betsy. Okay. Okay. Put it down. I'll be good.

Argh.

BLOCK LIST FOREVER.


----------



## lilywhite (Sep 25, 2010)

Gator said:


> I'm sure you intended for this part to irritate or offend me, but I'm laughing my butt off, and your psychological profiling skills won't tell you why.


Quite the contrary; you're opaque as glass. Fortunately, done reading you too. Time for another lengthy Kboards break, it seems.


----------



## BeMyBookBaby (Apr 18, 2016)

Rosalind James said:


> To circle back to the OP's point--the main criterion for succeeding, as far as I can see, is first of all to write a story that a fair number of readers want to read. After that, sure, there's marketing and all that. But the best marketing in the world won't sell a story that readers don't find interesting and entertaining. That's a whole lot more important than whether it's got sex in it or not. There are lots of categories in the Kindle store besides romance, and lots of romance that doesn't include explicit sex.


Thanks Rosalind! I seem to have inadvertently created a platform of debate, but I appreciate people responding to my question all the same!


----------



## BeMyBookBaby (Apr 18, 2016)

N. D. Iverson said:


> I started a thread kind of in the same vein a while ago about Urban Fantasy with female leads and very little romance. You *might* find it helpful. If interested, you can check it out here:
> 
> http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,234007.0.html
> 
> What I got out of it from everyone's answers was that it's human nature to have *some* romance, even a love interest that's just there for the sake of a flirty relationship. There doesn't need to be full on romance and sex for a book to succeed.


Thanks Iverson! I'm about to read it now.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Thanks, everyone, for having a violent disagreement in a civil manner.  The KBoards alarm klaxons never went off once, which let me get a good night's sleep.  Appreciate it as I recover from a bad bout of bronchitis.

Lilywhite, hopefully you'll keep comin' back.  Have you visited the Kindle Oasis giveaway thread?  

But let's get back on track here.  BeMyBookBaby has asked a question that I think a lot of people will find of interest.  Let's keep on discussing it.

Betsy
*sheaths cattleprod*


----------



## Christine_C (Jun 29, 2014)

C. Gockel said:


> Just a thought ... saying things like this about more than 50% of the fiction market isn't a way to win readers.


I'd go even further than this--I think women are more like 80% of the fiction-buying market. Anyone who wants to sell books should not dismiss female readers since they're our bread and butter!


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Gator said:


> Anyone else have any suggestions of who the major publisher and semi-prominent authors could have had professional jealousy for?


Miffed in Hollywood at a female writer? That would be Jacqueline Susann and her "The Valley of the Dolls".



> Jacqueline Susann was one of the most successful writers in the history of American publishing. Her first novel, Valley of the Dolls, published in 1966, is one of the best-selling books of all time. When The Love Machine was published in 1969, it too became an immediate #1 bestseller and held that position for five months. When Once is Not Enough was published in 1973, it also moved to the top of the best-seller list and established Jackie as the first novelist in history to have three consecutive #1 books on The New York Times Best Seller list. She was a superstar, and became America's first brand-name author.


----------



## Jana DeLeon (Jan 20, 2011)

I write mysteries. They also get classified as romantic suspense because there's a romantic subplot that arches through the series. No sex, and there never will be because I'm following the genre rules of cozies. There are scads of icky relationships in my books. All those things that (apparently) only us females care about or feel?

People are free to call my work whatever they like, which reveals more about themselves than my work, especially if they never bother to read it. Why I call my work is "profitable."


----------



## MichaelRyan (Nov 23, 2015)

Carradee said:


> Actually, you're engaging in false equivalency and misrepresenting the definition(s). I've quoted the definitions from multiple sources and put the ignored items in bold below:
> 
> Pornography =
> "movies, pictures, magazines, etc., that show or describe naked people or sex in a very open and direct way *in order to cause* sexual excitement." (ref. Merriam-Webster, a common default dictionary for US English)
> ...


Yes, of course, your point is well taken.

In my research for both this series and my thriller series, I read a few things outside romance that included sex scenes to see how they were handled.

One such read was Looking for Mr. Goodbar (an excellent novel, btw) which includes a rather graphic scene (Diane Keaton and Richard Gere starred in the movie, but I haven't seen it yet). This scene is not written to titillate or arouse (although perhaps it might).

Another read was The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo because I wanted to re-read how he handled the rape scenes which were from my memory pretty graphic. Those scenes were obviously not written to arouse or titillate anyone.

At the other end of the spectrum the erotica-including books, like such best sellers as Calendar Girl, can hardly claim all the graphic sex doesn't have as a primary or main purpose of arousal. Sure, it can also serve other purposes, but once a writer specifically uses certain terms and words, there is no way they can then credibly say that they had some other main purpose in mind.

Granted there is some subjectivity, but I think trying to claim that using words and descriptions that would fit right in Penthouse Letters had a primary purpose of showing the emotional connection and deep love the characters have for each other.

In some (many) of the niche romantica stuff the author has the character come right out and claim flatly that they don't have any emotions or feelings of love, commitment, etc., and that they are just players. The quest of the heroine then becomes getting the dude to change his ways.

Audrey Carlan's argument was/is that her character's sex was about love, so it wasn't pornography (meaning in her mind the scene was written to show other things primarily). So I re-read the first scene and the characters reaction to it and then a later sex scene.

Oddly, she actually writes in the later sex scene about the very fact that they were _now_ making love, but the first couple times were just [expletive].

Not only that, she was having sex for money (at least the first time). Later the main character gets mad because the dude she now really digs still wants to pay her. She has a compete fit, yells at him over the phone, but eventually takes the money.

So, I suppose one could argue that she really wasn't a prostitute the 2nd-X times they had sex, but it's impossible to say she wasn't hooking the first time. And it's written extremely graphically, so, yeah, I'm sticking with the conclusion that this scene is pornography, but yet, I suppose one could argue that simply foreshadowed the awesome sex they'd have later when they finally get married.

I don't know...

It's stretch to me.

Anyway, I don't think I'm a sexist but the way every definition of every word is so pliable it's entirely possible that to some people I'm a sexist, bigot, and racist.

The weird thing to me is how far we've come. Can anyone imagine step-brother romance as being hot selling main stream fiction making a killing with the largest bookseller in history?

Just a few years ago these books weren't even legally allowed to be transferred across state lines.

Many things they depict such as certain types of sex (sodomy/oral) and mixed race sex, and homosexuality were actually felonies not so long ago in most of America.

So, yeah, I'm a 100% for freedom kind of guy, and equality, etc., which in my mind, makes me the opposite of a sexist, but with that comes some responsibility.

Oh, I know, has anyone read the non-fiction book Girls and Sex?
Here.

What was fascinating to me was the nearly universal gender roles that the women she interviewed had taken on themselves.

The men they engaged with were often (quite often) using sex as a means to an end (pleasure) while the women struggled with balancing the pleasure (which many of them hardly even experienced) with what it meant, how it effected her emotionally, how it was used to control and manipulate the man, and so many other things.

Of course this is all generalization and the women whose stories she told were self-selected, so it's not exactly scientific research, but still, it's a crazy world we live in where oral sex (performed on the guy as it was also universal that women were givers 90+% without reciprocation) has become a good night kiss in America's junior high schools.

It's a different world.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

You really should look up Sylvia Day's definitions, but to make it easier, here some shortened versions:

Porn: stories written for the express purpose of sexual gratification. One-handed reading matter only. Usually these stories come in well under 10k. (not even a plot required!)

Erotica: stories written about the sexual journey of the characters and how this impacts them as individuals. Emotion and character growth are important facets of a true erotic story. (no HEA required)

Erotic Romance: stories written about the development of a romantic relationship through sexual interaction. The sex is an inherent part of the story, character growth, and relationship development, and couldn't be removed without damaging the storyline. (HEA)

Romance: stories written about the development of a romantic relationship that may or may not have explicit sex. The sex is not an inherent part of the story, character growth, or relationship development, and could easily be removed without damaging the storyline. (HEA)

What you fail to grasp is that written porn has the exact same purpose as filmed or photographed porn, namely to ideally bring the consumer off. Erotica, regardless of the steam factor, are about the journey, emotional, mental and sexual, of the characters. In literary erotica you can have whole novels without a single sex act described on-page and still they are erotica. This is such an important difference that your mixing up romance, erotica and porn is quite offensive to people being told they write porn just because their romance or erotic novel contains sex. You could as well call a non-fiction sex-ed book "pornographic" because it will perforce also contain the descriptions of sex acts.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Well, if you write romance, the proof is in the pudding, I guess. Either it will resonate with women readers, or it won't. But I'd say that if you don't have a solid understanding of WHY bestselling romance sells/resonates so well with women, your task will probably be harder.

As for whether romance used to be looked down on and not reviewed in the media--Newsflash: it's STILL looked down on and not reviewed in the media. I just saw an incredibly sneering, nasty article in a major newspaper about Sylvia Day and her success. That doesn't mean it hasn't always been the bestselling genre and won't continue to be. And Georgette Heyer? Yep, she's looked down on, too, but one of the English military schools used to assign some of the chapters from one of her books about the Battle of Waterloo to their students, because her books were so meticulously researched. Plus, she still sells great, because she was an awesome writer with amazing characterization, dialogue, and humor. Sort of like, who was that? Oh, yeah. Jane Austen. Who was also belittled and looked down on in the past. There's plenty of sexual tension in Heyer's books, too. You don't have to write sex. You do have to write sexual tension to appeal to the majority of women readers (other than readers who think any sexual feelings are icky. There's a subgenre for those readers.)

But--yeah. We're used to being dissed. We find ways to console ourselves. Reviews, fan mail, and sales all help.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Nic said:


> You really should look up Sylvia Day's definitions, but to make it easier, here some shortened versions:


Also read a Sylvia Day book or two. You can really see how the sex progress the relationship of the characters.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

JaydenHunter said:


> The weird thing to me is how far we've come. Can anyone imagine step-brother romance as being hot selling main stream fiction making a killing with the largest bookseller in history? Just a few years ago these books weren't even legally allowed to be transferred across state lines.


Sorry, that's simply not true. While they've only recently become a truly big thing, stepbrother/stepsister romances have existed in popular romance as long as romance has existed, all the way back to Cathy and Heathcliff in _Wuthering Heights_. Mainstream writers like Charlotte Lamb used to do a lot of them for Harlequin a generation ago. These things tend to go in cycles, like millionaires/billionaires. In a couple of years we'll be back to dubcon with Arab princes and Italian shipping magnates.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

> The weird thing to me is how far we've come. Can anyone imagine step-brother romance as being hot selling main stream fiction making a killing with the largest bookseller in history? Just a few years ago these books weren't even legally allowed to be transferred across state lines.


Harold Robbins. Made a killing with romantic/erotic thrillers as far back as in the 1940s including on-page sex. Had quite some worse things than step-brothers.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

You also don't have to write to trend to sell well in romance. I'll never, ever write dubcon. I've written one multimillionaire romance. I'll never write stepbrothers or shifters, because they're not my particular thing. You don't have to write any of those things to write steamy scenes, or write steamy scenes to succeed in romance. Romance extends across all heat levels.

However, you DO have to write female characters with whom your readership can identify and sympathize, and male characters who are appealing and hot and desirable. They don't have to be jerks, and your women don't have to be--whatever it is folks upthread are thinking female characters are. Wimpy, I guess. 

Traditionally female virtues like empathy, kindness, nurturing, and gentleness are not weak. Nor are they inferior to traditionally male characteristics like stoicism and toughness. Strength comes in many guises. The strength to reach out to another person, to operate from a place of love and openness, to accept another person as they are while still maintaining one's own boundaries as a human being with dignity, is tremendous and healing. If you don't get what's awesome about women, you probably won't sell well, because you won't write a truly awesome female character (which does not equal kick-butt or tough. It can. It sure as heck doesn't have to.)


----------



## going going gone (Jun 4, 2013)

Jana DeLeon said:


> People are free to call my work whatever they like, which reveals more about themselves than my work, especially if they never bother to read it. Why I call my work is "profitable."


I'm calling it well-written, witty, and "very very very very profitable."


----------



## PenNPaper (Apr 21, 2016)

I write PNR with no sex. $5k would be a bad week for me.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Ah, the smell of sexism in the morning.



Rosalind James said:


> But--yeah. We're used to being dissed. We find ways to console ourselves. Reviews, fan mail, and sales all help.


----------



## A Tiger (Aug 29, 2013)

Rosalind James said:


> Strength comes in many guises.


I've nothing to add here, but Rosalind, what you said was beautiful. Kudos!


----------



## BeMyBookBaby (Apr 18, 2016)

EC said:


> A friend of mine is earning $15,000 a month plus, in romance and humour categories. This individual blushes if you mention anything "sexual," and if you do it twice, she faints. There's a massive market for clean romance books - have a look at Christian fiction to give you a template of reader expectations. I'm not suggesting that you write Christian fiction, merely pointing out the blue riband standard of clean fiction.
> 
> Be aware that if you can crack the clean fiction market, your fans will target your books like a laser beam. They struggle to find "appropriate," books, and when they find a good author that meets their expectations, they will sweep up everything you publish. Don't ever take a brainstorm and intoduce risque scenes to later books, your fans will slaughter you, and you will lose them overnight.
> 
> ...


EC, I hope you've considered humour as well because this whole comment made me cackle.


----------



## Abalone (Jan 31, 2014)

I doubt more than a large handful of authors are making more than $5,000 writing in romance. Even if it's erotica masquerading as romance. Top authors of the niche aside of course. There's too much competition in that genre and it doesn't seem plausible that a lot of authors are making that much.

However, if it is plausible then I'm quite sad because as a man I can't publish romance and I'm quite the romantic. Shame.



BeMyBookBaby said:


> EC, I hope you've considered humour as well because this whole comment made me cackle.


He or she isn't wrong though. What they described as clean fiction is essentially "serious fluff" in writing circles. And yes, it does sell well and you will get slaughtered if you introduce sexual themes later on. Even I've read the occasional fluff book. It's a feel good experience.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

> Oh, I know, has anyone read the non-fiction book Girls and Sex?
> Here.
> 
> What was fascinating to me was the nearly universal gender roles that the women she interviewed had taken on themselves.
> ...


This post has made me wish I wrote graphic sexual content in a contemporary romance more not less. Apparently, young women need to be told that their sexual needs matter.

However ... I've read scientifically_* peer reviewed articles from the 1980s*_ that have shown that girls who started having sex early tended to not enjoy it. They also tended to do it because they felt they had to, and the boys boys involved treated them as objects. Girls who waited until later tended to get more pleasure in it and to have made out more and experienced climax before they'd even had sex. The girls who waited tended to have dads at home and positive role models for relationships. (They also tended to have more partners ... just ... later.) So this book seems sensationalist and also old news.

Also, the whole idea that teens are getting it on like crazy isn't substantiated by the evidence: http://www.techtimes.com/articles/51315/20150507/millennials-are-less-promiscuous-compared-to-earlier-generations-says-study.htm

I've read that "hooking-up" to our youth can mean anything from kissing to sex. I'm pro-kissing.


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

AA2014 said:



> I doubt more than a large handful of authors are making more than $5,000 writing in romance. Even if it's erotica masquerading as romance. Top authors of the niche aside of course. There's too much competition in that genre and it doesn't seem plausible that a lot of authors are making that much.


Then you would be quite, quite wrong. I'm hardly a top author, and you can see that my book ranks aren't anything extraordinary. If you're a decent writer, you can consistently meet reader expectations, you've got good covers and blurbs, and you stick with it long enough to build a back catalog then you can hit $5k a month as a solid midlister in romance and erotica. You don't even need to be in KU to do it. 

Edit: One of my goals for the year is to start a new pen name to do sweet romance. I think I'd be a lot happier writing it than the steamier stuff. It's nice to have a bit more validation that it does sell well if you can get it in front of the right audience.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

C. Gockel said:


> This post has made me wish I wrote graphic sexual content in a contemporary romance more not less. Apparently, young women need to be told that their sexual needs matter.
> 
> However ... I've read scientifically_* peer reviewed articles from the 1980s*_ that have shown that girls who started having sex early tended to not enjoy it. They also tended to do it because they felt they had to, and the boys boys involved treated them as objects. Girls who waited until later tended to get more pleasure in it and to have made out more and experienced climax before they'd even had sex. The girls who waited tended to have dads at home and positive role models for relationships. (They also tended to have more partners ... just ... later.) So this book seems sensationalist and also old news.
> 
> ...


When I was in Jr. High people were worried about the kids hooking up too much. There were a few people having sex early, but most of my friends waited until well into high school or college to have sex. Every generation says this.

*I love that I write explicit romance. There isn't any other place in the media where women are told that their sexual needs matter, that they can and should ask for what they want. *Women's magazines tend to focus on how women can please men. TV and movies skip over the gritty details of sex (think Grey's Anatomy). There's a whole, important middle part missing.

When I write romance, I get to write about heroes who live to make the heroines c**e, who love performing oral sex, who put their heroine's needs and desires first.

It's awesome.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Crystal_ said:


> When I was in Jr. High people were worried about the kids hooking up too much. There were a few people having sex early, but most of my friends waited until well into high school or college to have sex. Every generation says this.
> 
> *I love that I write explicit romance. There isn't any other place in the media where women are told that their sexual needs matter, that they can and should ask for what they want. *Women's magazines tend to focus on how women can please men. TV and movies skip over the gritty details of sex (think Grey's Anatomy). There's a whole, important middle part missing.
> 
> ...


Yes. Yes. Yes. As a woman would say if she were actually being satisfied.

Male writers (and plenty of female romance writers who should know better) tend to write sex scenes as "they bang"--in other words, vaginal intercourse ONLY, for a short period, leading to female climax.

Uh, no. In your dreams, guys. Or I should say--that's why they call it fiction.

When I was a young adult, I'd read all those romances and wonder what on earth was wrong with me that I wasn't wired that way. One reason I write sex in my romances is that I want to model what actually gets a woman off, and how a woman can ask for and expect her needs to be met. And like you, I want to write a hero who gets pleasure from giving a woman pleasure, because it heightens his OWN pleasure as well.

That may be fiction too, but at least it's empowering to women, and if it gives some of my readers courage to ask their partners for what they want? (Which it has, because they tell me so)--I'm thrilled. And I've enjoyed myself writing it, and hopefully they've enjoyed themselves reading it.

A man who wants to please you, who values your pleasure above his own and is interested enough to figure out how to do it and then DO it, is a man capable of being a good partner. Don't marry the other kind--and I don't want to write about him or read about him, either.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Tilly said:


> There's lots of people who do well in a vast range of genres. You don't have to write erotica or steamy romance to make a living.
> 
> I write fantasy historical (YA and adult) and make 5k/month without sex scenes. Others make that writing cozies, or thrillers or sci-fi.
> 
> You can make a living in most categories, it's about researching tropes, reader expectations and hitting the notes that buyers want.


This right here.

I do write some fairly steamy romance under another pen name, but that stuff hasn't taken off yet. Everything that earns me money at present is all historical fiction, plus one nonfiction title that sells fairly well. My historical fiction RARELY has any sex in it... like, maybe one scene every three or four novels. At present I earn in the low five figures most months; when I don't hit five figures in a month I hit just below that level.

The key is to find a genre that's popular enough that you can expect to make a decent living there (plenty of readers, fairly good social engagement among that demographic so they recommend books to their friends a lot, etc.), to write GOOD BOOKS that hit those readers' expectations, and to write SEVERAL books. Don't expect to see solid earnings every month until you've got plenty of titles to sell.


----------



## Abalone (Jan 31, 2014)

KelliWolfe said:


> Then you would be quite, quite wrong. I'm hardly a top author, and you can see that my book ranks aren't anything extraordinary. If you're a decent writer, you can consistently meet reader expectations, you've got good covers and blurbs, and you stick with it long enough to build a back catalog then you can hit $5k a month as a solid midlister in romance and erotica. You don't even need to be in KU to do it.
> 
> Edit: One of my goals for the year is to start a new pen name to do sweet romance. I think I'd be a lot happier writing it than the steamier stuff. It's nice to have a bit more validation that it does sell well if you can get it in front of the right audience.


I see. I guess I am wrong. So you make $5K a month at the moment with your written works? I think I wouldn't be good at romance because I like to conjure up fun romances with minimal sex that tell a story and not what goes in what orifice, so to speak. I enjoy writing espionage too much at the moment. It lets me live out all the childhood fantasies I had.


----------



## Abalone (Jan 31, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> Yes. Yes. Yes. As a woman would say if she were actually being satisfied.
> 
> Male writers (and plenty of female romance writers who should know better) tend to write sex scenes as "they bang"--in other words, vaginal intercourse ONLY, for a short period, leading to female climax.
> 
> ...


I don't quite follow. Do women readers enjoy "hotter" sex scenes? I'll have to ask my SO about this because she's a fan of your works. So much so that we're thinking of visiting NZ during our honeymoon. NZ is a beautiful place regardless.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Rosalind James said:


> ?? Somehow you seem to have missed all the examples I gave of male writers of save-the-world or save-the -community books who also include a romantic and/or sexual subplot in their books. Do you hate Lee Child's books because the hero thinks about sex with the sheriff, and then has that sex? Do you hate Leon Uris's EXODUS--building the state of Israel--because it includes a love story and sexual feelings and sex? Do you honestly read only books in which the male protagonist does NOT ever think about sex or fall in love in the course of the book? What are these books?
> 
> I read an epic sea adventure by a major thriller writer. In Ch. 2, he meets his fellow adventurer in their bid to save the world, and ends up banging her against the refrigerator. Then they go on to have this epic battle against a bad guy, but they fall in love as they do it (expressed by more banging). The Far Pavilions, which was read by both men and women, is told entirely from the point of view of a soldier. It's an epic novel of India under the Raj. It includes a strong romantic subplot, but it is a military novel. The protagonist somehow manages to both take part in many campaigns and battles and also fall in love. One reinforces the other. The personal scale humanizes the grand scale. That's why books have romantic subplots.
> 
> ...


THIS

POST

IS

AMAZING.

I also want to add that anybody who has an interest in the SF/F genre and isn't reading Annie Bellet's books is seriously missing out. In my opinion she's one of the strongest authors working in urban fantasy right now. I include Jim Butcher in that assessment. To write her books off as "just romance" simply because she's a female author is not only outrageous and ridiculous, but it will also deprive the writer-off of an opportunity to study the works of a very strong, very skilled storyteller who's producing some of the most original and exciting work in her genre.

(ETA: to say nothing of the fact that writing anything off as "just" romance is "Do so at your own risk" territory. Every author could learn SO MUCH by studying some of the greats in the romance genre. Nobody does character work like a successful romance author. Nobody.)


----------



## Abalone (Jan 31, 2014)

ElHawk said:


> This right here.
> 
> I do write some fairly steamy romance under another pen name, but that stuff hasn't taken off yet. Everything that earns me money at present is all historical fiction, plus one nonfiction title that sells fairly well. My historical fiction RARELY has any sex in it... like, maybe one scene every three or four novels. At present I earn in the low five figures most months; when I don't hit five figures in a month I hit just below that level.
> 
> The key is to find a genre that's popular enough that you can expect to make a decent living there (plenty of readers, fairly good social engagement among that demographic so they recommend books to their friends a lot, etc.), to write GOOD BOOKS that hit those readers' expectations, and to write SEVERAL books. Don't expect to see solid earnings every month until you've got plenty of titles to sell.


Holy crap. You're Libbie Hawker! I freaking love your outlining book! It's helped me out so damn much. Can we say damn on here? *looks around*


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

AA2014 said:


> I see. I guess I am wrong. So you make $5K a month at the moment with your written works? I think I wouldn't be good at romance because I like to conjure up fun romances with minimal sex that tell a story and not what goes in what orifice, so to speak. I enjoy writing espionage too much at the moment. It lets me live out all the childhood fantasies I had.


Have you read this thread at all? People have said over and over that you don't have to write explicit sex to sell. I don't write Tab A into Slot B. I write steamy scenes without any mention of body parts (it can be done.) And you don't even have to do that. You just have to be able to write emotional tension and sexual tension and to understand a romance arc. You have to understand how women work and what romance readers are looking for, and what makes a satisfying romance novel.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

AA2014 said:


> I don't quite follow. Do women readers enjoy "hotter" sex scenes? I'll have to ask my SO about this because she's a fan of your works. So much so that we're thinking of visiting NZ during our honeymoon. NZ is a beautiful place regardless.


Yes. Women enjoy hotter sex scenes. Ask your SO to flag her favorites in my books, if she has them, if you want to see my version of that. I'm about medium heat.


----------



## Abalone (Jan 31, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> Have you read this thread at all? People have said over and over that you don't have to write explicit sex to sell. I don't write Tab A into Slot B. I write steamy scenes without any mention of body parts (it can be done.) And you don't even have to do that. You just have to be able to write emotional tension and sexual tension and to understand a romance arc. You have to understand how women work and what romance readers are looking for, and what makes a satisfying romance novel.


I have, but I've also read a lot of conflicting information on writing sites. Someone suggested I buy all the top 100 in romance and read them. Though I think it would be more financially feasible to purchase your novels and not spend close to $600 on 100 books.



Rosalind James said:


> Yes. Women enjoy hotter sex scenes. Ask your SO to flag her favorites in my books, if she has them, if you want to see my version of that. I'm about medium heat.


Will do. We've actually discussed your novels before. I believe I mentioned this to you once or twice in the past. Even I was intrigued by your blurb and covers for your first four novels. They were light and airy in the sense of spending a wonderful weekend at a warm and sunny beach house and relaxing. I read a few chapters out of your first book, I think it was. I enjoyed it. I've always felt the first 500 words of a book is important. If it's written well, anyone can latch on.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

AA2014 said:


> Holy crap. You're Libbie Hawker! I freaking love your outlining book! It's helped me out so damn much. Can we say damn on here? *looks around*


That is officially the first time anybody has ever said, "Holy crap, you're Libbie Hawker" to me.

HEY GIRL HEEYYYY. (or boy, whatever.)


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

AA2014 said:


> I have, but I've also read a lot of conflicting information on writing sites. Someone suggested I buy all the top 100 in romance and read them. Though I think it would be more financially feasible to purchase your novels and not spend close to $600 on 100 books.
> 
> Will do. We've actually discussed your novels before. I believe I mentioned this to you once or twice in the past. Even I was intrigued by your blurb and covers for your first four novels. They were light and airy in the sense of spending a wonderful weekend at a warm and sunny beach house and relaxing. I read a few chapters out of your first book, I think it was. I enjoyed it. I've always felt the first 500 words of a book is important. If it's written well, anyone can latch on.


Well, thanks. If you want to read a sexier one, you can look at FIERCE. That's my steamiest. It was well received.

But lots of writers use the "words" much more than I do, go into more physical detail, and I'm sure not the Bestest Thing Ever in romance. Sex scenes can "work" either way. I'd venture to say it's mostly, as with any writing, about the reader being able to put herself/himself into the scene, about how well you draw her/him into the story. It's about feelings, and about making the reader feel what the heroine, especially, is feeling (but also the hero). You're focusing not on exactly what he's doing, but on her reaction--physical and otherwise--to what he's doing. And the more sexual tension you build before you get into the scene, the bigger the payoff will be.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

Rosalind James said:


> Yes. Yes. Yes. As a woman would say if she were actually being satisfied.
> 
> Male writers (and plenty of female romance writers who should know better) tend to write sex scenes as "they bang"--in other words, vaginal intercourse ONLY, for a short period, leading to female climax.


So much THIS to his, and to Crystal, too, whom you quoted.

When I write romance, which (alas) has not taken off yet, none of the women reach climax via penetration alone, because that is actually very rare in the real world and I know SO MANY WOMEN who have confided in me that they think there's something _wrong_ with them because they need other kinds of stimulation to "get there." Media is largely to blame for this, including romance novels, which have steadfastly depicted women as reaching climax via penetration, and have put that scenario forth as "proof" that the love is "real" or somehow better than experiences those female characters had with other male characters.

Ugh.

Another thing a friend once told me: she thought she had to upend her whole life and remain in a country on the other side of the planet because she reached climax at the same time as her sexual partner. Her rationale was that that experience "Meant something... _didn't it?_" As in, it was somehow a cosmic indicator that she had found her One True Love and that to leave him, even though she really NEEDED to move for her own sanity and safety, would doom her to loneliness forever.

Again, I blame romance novels, with their unrealistic depiction of female sexuality. So none of my characters get their Big O at the same time, either.

Be the change you want to see in the world, as the saying goes.



> When I was a young adult, I'd read all those romances and wonder what on earth was wrong with me that I wasn't wired that way.


SEE?



> One reason I write sex in my romances is that I want to model what actually gets a woman off, and how a woman can ask for and expect her needs to be met. And like you, I want to write a hero who gets pleasure from giving a woman pleasure, because it heightens his OWN pleasure as well.


This is why I like your books so much, Ros.



> That may be fiction too, but at least it's empowering to women, and if it gives some of my readers courage to ask their partners for what they want?


See? Love that. If my romance never takes off, I'm fine with that. If it models healthy and biologically average sexuality for just one woman, I will consider my romances A Big Feminist Success.

I consider writing sexy books for my fellow women an important act of feminism. Onward, sisters!


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> Well, thanks. If you want to read a sexier one, you can look at FIERCE. That's my steamiest. It was well received.
> 
> But lots of writers use the "words" much more than I do, go into more physical detail, and I'm sure not the Bestest Thing Ever in romance. Sex scenes can "work" either way. I'd venture to say it's mostly, as with any writing, about the reader being able to put herself/himself into the scene, about how well you draw her/him into the story. It's about feelings, and about making the reader feel what the heroine, especially, is feeling (but also the hero). You're focusing not on exactly what he's doing, but on her reaction--physical and otherwise--to what he's doing. And the more sexual tension you build before you get into the scene, the bigger the payoff will be.


I really, really need to start reading your books, Ros.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

This thread has been thoroughly entertaining. 



Jane_Dough said:


> JaydenHunter said:
> 
> 
> > My female character has been well received by a couple beta readers (and a couple beta listeners-- that was awkward for a moment) because she's strong, takes control of her sexuality, and probably because I've written her with enough traditionally male characteristics that she's more interesting than many of the standard female leads that come across as a cliche.
> ...


----------



## Gator (Sep 28, 2012)

Nic said:


> Miffed in Hollywood at a female writer? That would be Jacqueline Susann and her "The Valley of the Dolls".


Sounds like an excellent candidate. Thanks.


----------



## Veronica Sicoe (Jun 21, 2015)

ElHawk said:


> I consider writing sexy books for my fellow women an important act of feminism. Onward, sisters!


I love you, Libbie.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

> A man who wants to please you, who values your pleasure above his own and is interested enough to figure out how to do it and then DO it, is a man capable of being a good partner. Don't marry the other kind--and I don't want to write about him or read about him, either.


I believe so much this. Although there is no graphic sex scenes in I Bring the Fire my heroine says, "Sex is a tease. Your body wants it and then it's boring and you just want it to be over." Then she has sex with Loki and decides that the "nice boys" she'd been dating were "just selfish pricks with selfish pricks."

My brother actually reads my books, and I was worried he'd feel offended by that comment, but he said that he'd dated girls who'd had boyfriends before him who were like that. Which was more than I wanted to know about my brother's sex life; but I would suspect a guy who is giving and thoughtful and has had more than one partner may have met a woman traumatized by that sort of relationship.

ETA: One of the main reasons I don't like writing sex scenes though, is that I think it is so individual. What works for some people doesn't work for others. Most sex scenes in romance novels don't work really well for me either ... but maybe for the author of the scene they do?


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

If you're the blushing type, you might want to skip this post. Writing steamy romance/erom has actually improved my sex life, though I admit that I'm not nearly as uninhibited as my characters are by the end of the novel. That's part of the fantasy of romance-- we'd all like to feel free to dirty talk and demand what we want, but most of us are too shy.

I struggle with balancing realism in my sex scenes with the sort of somewhat idealized sex readers expect. I tilt more towards realism as I get more confident with my writing skills (and sales numbers). I do have a lot of heroines having orgasms during penetration, but there's often some clitorial stimulation going on at the same time, whether it's manual stimulation or the pubic bone (which I typo public bone every. single. time).

There's a wide range realistic to not so realistic sex (from messy tangles of limbs and the rubber tug of a condom all the way to characters having anal sex without warmup or lubrication). It's one of those things where you will never please everyone, so you are best off pleasing yourself.


----------



## AnitaLouise (Feb 12, 2012)

Seems to me there's money to be made in any genre. As long as the book is well written and you find enough readers, you'll do just fine. 

Best wishes for much success!


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

ElHawk said:


> THIS
> 
> POST
> 
> ...


*blush*


----------



## Amanda M. Lee (Jun 3, 2014)

This thread makes me laugh. I think more men would be able to satisfy women if they read a good romance novel written by the right person. That frightens them, though, because music montages and beer commercials throughout the ages have taught them something completely different.
As for sex scenes, I have nine series under two names right now and only one series has sex scenes. It's the worst selling one and wraps up by the end of the year. I have a lot of flirting and sexual innuendo but only one series with graphic sex and I won't have anything with sex scenes actively publishing after 2016.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> I think more men would be able to satisfy women if they read a good romance novel written by the right person.


That's what porn is for.

Just kidding.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Anarchist said:


> That's what porn is for.
> 
> Just kidding.


No, it isn't. (I know you said "Just kidding," but I'm still going to write this.) For example: In the real world, men can turn on like flipping a switch, and women can't. That's why one of the sexiest things a man can say to a woman is, "I'll put the kids to bed tonight, honey. You go take a bubble bath." You have to give her TIME and SPACE to flip the switch from "wife and mother" to "sex goddess." You also have to let her know you find her freakin' awesomely desirable and irresistible. It also doesn't work to get in bed and talk about the dry rot in the siding or something that happened about work and then roll over and expect her to be in the mood.

A good romance novel is going to show how "foreplay" is just as important as what men think of as "the point of the activity," and that "foreplay" starts with how you treat her in the day and the hour leading up to it. And then what you actually do after you have led up to it.

Porn for men, and some romance, is more along the lines of "they meet, they bang." But the most important sex organ is the brain.

I'll stop now.


----------



## Guest (Apr 22, 2016)

Rosalind James said:


> ...Porn for men, and some romance, is more along the lines of "they meet, they bang." But the most important sex organ is the brain.


Yes! This is what many men just don't "get". Romance isn't about how big their equipment is or how long they can go for. It's about everything that leads up to the act. The sexiest thing my partner does for me is clean the oven


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

"Clean the oven." Is that a euphemism?


----------



## EC Sheedy (Feb 24, 2011)

Wow, reading this thread has me feeling as if I've just graduated from a sex ed class--and I write romance. 

Now I feel as if I haven't been thinking deeply enough.


----------



## Guest (Apr 22, 2016)

KelliWolfe said:


> "Clean the oven." Is that a euphemism?


If it was, I'm not sure it would be quite as sexy - I don't want the deep clean, or the scouring pad... lol


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Tilly said:


> Yes! This is what many men just don't "get". Romance isn't about how big their equipment is or how long they can go for. It's about everything that leads up to the act. The sexiest thing my partner does for me is clean the oven


The fantasy of romance is a man who will take care of you. So many women spend their lives taking care of other people. When they read, they don't want to do the heavy lifting. It's okay if the MCs take care of each other, but the hero must be attentive to the heroine's needs. That includes her sexual needs.


----------



## LondonCalling (Dec 19, 2014)

Anarchist said:


> This thread has been thoroughly entertaining.
> 
> What traditionally male characteristics would that be?


If you are not yet familiar with the Kinky Boots musical, go look up the song What a Woman Wants. It is very apt for this situation.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

Rosalind James said:


> No, it isn't. (I know you said "Just kidding," but I'm still going to write this.) For example: In the real world, men can turn on like flipping a switch, and women can't. That's why one of the sexiest things a man can say to a woman is, "I'll put the kids to bed tonight, honey. You go take a bubble bath."


And one of the sexiest things a women can say to a man is "just do me."



Rosalind James said:


> You have to give her TIME and SPACE to flip the switch from "wife and mother" to "sex goddess." You also have to let her know you find her freakin' awesomely desirable and irresistible. It also doesn't work to get in bed and talk about the dry rot in the siding or something that happened about work and then roll over and expect her to be in the mood.
> 
> A good romance novel is going to show how "foreplay" is just as important as what men think of as "the point of the activity," and that "foreplay" starts with how you treat her in the day and the hour leading up to it. And then what you actually do after you have led up to it.


Many women are under the delusion that men don't understand this. Men DO understand this. Most just don't care and/or consider it too much work.



Rosalind James said:


> Porn for men, and some romance, is more along the lines of "they meet, they bang." But the most important sex organ is the brain.


For women, perhaps.


----------



## Blique (Apr 1, 2016)

The Dancing Squirrel said:


> Excuse me: I have on more than one occasion told a man to get on with it and not waste time on unneeded foreplay.
> 
> How about saying "*most* women can't"?


Technically, she never said "all women can't" (or rather "no woman can"). It's like if you say "women are portrayed with unrealistic bodies in the media", the implication is "a lot of women" (specifically, "a statistically significant amount of women"), not "all women"; common sense supplies the knowledge that there are exceptions to all rules, thus such a sentence is understood to mean "some/most" and not "all" unless the speaker specifically says "all".


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

The Dancing Squirrel said:


> This is quite enlightening. Being a heterosexual female with no interest in the sex lives of others, I had no idea that most women aren't having a great time when they have plain old "banging" sex. I assumed that most women are like me; I had no reason to think otherwise.
> 
> I'll have to think about this.


Thank you. As a man I felt I couldn't speak up about this for fear of being told that the women in my life had faked. Wouldn't change that about half of my female sexual partners came from the old boring in and out and hated direct clitoral stimulation of any kind.

I try to write individuals having fun with each other, including men who need time to get into the mood. We also come in more than one kind.


----------



## Veronica Sicoe (Jun 21, 2015)

@Crystal & Rosalind -- you guys are awesome!

As to this thread, it's officially my favorite one on KBoards atm.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

About 25%. (Women who can achieve orgasm from vaginal intercourse alone.)

It's all averages of course. No absolutes.

http://abcnews.go.com/Health/ReproductiveHealth/sex-study-female-orgasm-eludes-majority-women/story?id=8485289

80% of women have faked orgasms, also. (Funny how close that is to the percentage of women who can't orgasm from vaginal stimulation alone.) So a man who's had a number of partners and thinks many or most of them have had orgasms just from vaginal sex--statistically improbable.

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ouch-80-percent-of-women-faking-orgasms-says-study/

When I talked about women taking a while to warm up, I should perhaps have specified--a lot of that is women's multiple roles and responsibilities. If you're a single woman with no kids, you probably can flip that switch a lot faster than a woman with two or three kids. (I can attest to that myself, but more importantly, I know from reading studies/talking to other women that that's typical.) By the time you do full-time motherhood and/or a job outside the home, then spend an evening with homework and babies and maybe breastfeeding and baths and everything . . . a woman can feel like people have been pulling at her and needing from her all day. That's one reason women read romance, as Crystal says. To escape to a place where she's the one being taken care of, the one whose needs are being catered to.

As a romance writer whose readership is mainly 30+-yr-old mothers, what really matters to me is what the *majority* of my readers' experience and desires and frustrations are. What will help them escape to a happy place. One reason that many women enjoy female-pleasure-centric sex scenes in romance is that it helps them flip the switch. Whether they're just enjoying themselves or more likely to turn to their partners--from my point of view: score. I've helped. Yay.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

I always wonder why these studies fail to include cultural differences.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Well, this is a thread about what the majority of women want to read in romance. I didn't need to read as much sexy stuff when I was young, single, hot, and dating as I did when I was a married working mom. Life bites sometimes. 

I love writing escapist fiction, and if some women love reading it, we're all happy. 

If somebody wants to write romance about women who are perfectly happy just to drop everything and bang for three minutes and they're all good, that's fine. They'll be in good company, since that's how romance has been written forever and ever. I just think they may want to be aware that they'll be appealing to a max of 25% of women--and the fact that 25% of women CAN orgasm from vaginal intercourse doesn't mean that they can do it without any other warmup. That's probably more like 10%. Is it possible? You bet. There are about that same number of women who can have literally dozens of orgasms in a row with very little time in between (15-30 seconds), too. There's a wide variation in human sexual response. But if you're writing romance, it's probably better to appeal to the majority.


----------



## Abalone (Jan 31, 2014)

I'd say most men can't flip like a switch after a certain age and require sky blue pills.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

AA2014 said:


> I'd say most men can't flip like a switch after a certain age and require sky blue pills.


That's why romance heroes tend to be in their 20s or 30s. But in my own life and my friends' lives, that doesn't appear to be true, interestingly. The guy might not be exactly the way he was in his 30s, but, yeah--pretty much the switch thing, at least into his 60s.

By the way, there's also research out there that regular romance readers with partners have more sex, and more satisfying sex. Whether that's because they're more drawn to romance because they're more in touch with their sexual feelings and want more of them, or whether they're aroused enough by what they read to flip that switch more--there you go. Makes sense to me either way, or both ways.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Anarchist said:


> And one of the sexiest things a women can say to a man is "just do me."
> 
> Many women are under the delusion that men don't understand this. Men DO understand this. Most just don't care and/or consider it too much work.
> 
> For women, perhaps.


Which would be why women have to read romance. Believe me, we're not under a delusion. We get it.


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Anecdote, but until I started dating better people and being better about communicating my needs/desires, I faked *every* orgasm. My former lovers never knew. So I'm sure they still think they never had a partner who faked. If I never tell them, they have no way to know.

From talking about this stuff with female friends, it's pretty dang common, sorry.


----------



## Nathalie Aynie (Nov 24, 2013)

I am very late to the party, but I wanted to post this picture about superhero romances and sexy times.
It might not be suitable for work (there are drawings of Superman and Lois Lane in their underwear).

http://orig03.deviantart.net/be34/f/2014/319/4/8/first_time_is_always_awkward_xd_by_nebezial-d86klrp.jpg


----------



## Veronica Sicoe (Jun 21, 2015)

Nathalie Aynie said:


> I am very late to the party, but I wanted to post this picture about superhero romances and sexy times.
> It might not be suitable for work (there are drawings of Superman and Lois Lane in their underwear).
> 
> http://orig03.deviantart.net/be34/f/2014/319/4/8/first_time_is_always_awkward_xd_by_nebezial-d86klrp.jpg


LOVE it!


----------



## EC (Aug 20, 2013)

Entertaining that a topic about "no sex scenes," has turned into a debate about faking orgasms, et al. In the genre where my friend earns over $15,000 a month, any mention of said issues would kill her pen name stone dead.  

And I mean stone dead. 

In fact, in extremis, even the notion of pre-marital sex would turn many of her readers against her. And as "prim and proper," as these readers are - irritate them, and you'll be hit with a tidal wave of polite vitriol.  Criticism is even more cutting when it's polite, you know. 

The clean romance market is way too big to be called a "niche," as such - and I would highly recommend that the OP pursues this path. However, as I pointed out before, you are going to have to become savvy to reader expectations - and that means reading the genre, and studying the reviews to death. Christian romance is a good place to start your studies, while remembering that you don't have to write Christian romance.  

Some of you who are struggling to make it in romance should consider cleaning your books up and heading down this road, especially those with two or three romance books, or more, which are languishing.


----------



## Amanda M. Lee (Jun 3, 2014)

Annie B said:


> Anecdote, but until I started dating better people and being better about communicating my needs/desires, I faked *every* orgasm. My former lovers never knew. So I'm sure they still think they never had a partner who faked. If I never tell them, they have no way to know.
> 
> From talking about this stuff with female friends, it's pretty dang common, sorry.


I faked until I hit my mid-twenties and was like "that will be enough of that." I was good at faking, too. My college boyfriend thought he was a stud -- and he was terrible.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> I faked until I hit my mid-twenties and was like "that will be enough of that." I was good at faking, too. My college boyfriend thought he was a stud -- and he was terrible.


I've never understood why single women fake orgasms. Most of the women I've known advocate clear communication, which contradicts lying about whether they've had an orgasm.

If a single woman wants something in bed, she should ask for it. If the guy (or gal) she's with is unable or unwilling to deliver, she should find someone else. It's not like there's a shortage of candidates.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> I faked until I hit my mid-twenties and was like "that will be enough of that." I was good at faking, too. My college boyfriend thought he was a stud -- and he was terrible.


Me three. Until I met hubby, I'd never had an orgasm with a man.

They all thought I did, though.

Finally, I met somebody i trusted enough, and who had the patience and persistence to do it till we got it right.

Now, my rate's about 99.9%.

Mr. Right is out there!


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

After reading this thread and it's insigthful comments from a few ladies... I think I know why Romance is such a big seller  .


----------



## Amanda M. Lee (Jun 3, 2014)

Anarchist said:


> I've never understood why single women fake orgasms. Most of the women I've known advocate clear communication, which contradicts lying about whether they've had an orgasm.
> 
> If a single woman wants something in bed, she should ask for it. If the guy (or gal) she's with is unable or unwilling to deliver, she should find someone else. It's not like there's a shortage of candidates.


It's an ego thing. I've found men want to blame someone else because it's surely not their fault. And, to be fair, it's not always their fault. Women exacerbate the problem by faking in the first place. They're worried the male ego can't take it -- and in many cases they're right. Most men I've come across think they're great in bed. I knew my college boyfriend would take it poorly (and he ultimately did) if I explained what he was doing wrong. I tried to train him for two years, lead him to the water, so to speak. He did it like he was in a porn movie and thought a woman would just start crying out and scratching his back right away. Without getting into too much detail, he literally needed an anatomy lesson because nothing was where he thought it was. When I tried explaining it to him he had a complete meltdown. It's kind of weird because I ran into him a few months ago. He's a small-rank politician in Michigan and he greeted me by saying "I own my own business and have a $250,000 house." Other than "hey," those were the first words out of his mouth. It kind of fit from how I remembered him. He was still all ego and no substance.
I read a study once and I'm not sure if I can find it, but in it something like 75% of women admitted to faking it and more than 80% of men claimed no woman had ever faked it with them. You do the math.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Love that, Amanda. Congrats on having a bigger house than he does now. 

Women can also feel inadequate, because all the literature and movies and everything out there suggest that they should be able to get there that way. That's why I sometimes, in my books, have the guy telling the gal that he's going to do it any way that works for her. I just published a book where she'd never had an orgasm with a man, and he says, then let's figure out how to get you there. And guess what? He has way more fun, too. It was a very popular book.  

I think women need to hear this more. That, and that a good man respects you, in bed and out of it. That doesn't mean you don't get dirty. It means he listens to you and thinks you are as important a person as he is.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Anarchist said:


> I've never understood why single women fake orgasms. Most of the women I've known advocate clear communication, which contradicts lying about whether they've had an orgasm.
> 
> If a single woman wants something in bed, she should ask for it. If the guy (or gal) she's with is unable or unwilling to deliver, she should find someone else. It's not like there's a shortage of candidates.


Things have caught up there, or so I'm told. Apparently a lot of millennials agree upon it being everyone's own responsibility to have a satisfactory orgasm. Which is an interesting development.


----------



## Amanda M. Lee (Jun 3, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> Love that, Amanda. Congrats on having a bigger house than he does now.
> 
> Women can also feel inadequate, because all the literature and movies and everything out there suggest that they should be able to get there that way. That's why I sometimes, in my books, have the guy telling the gal that he's going to do it any way that works for her. I just published a book where she'd never had an orgasm with a man, and he says, then let's figure out how to get you there. And guess what? He has way more fun, too. It was a very popular book.
> 
> I think women need to hear this more. That, and that a good man respects you, in bed and out of it. That doesn't mean you don't get dirty. It means he listens to you and thinks you are as important a person as he is.


Yeah, it was a pretty uncomfortable interaction because I knew bigger politicians (from my days as a reporter) and that's why he thought I was there. He thought I was covering the event, not invited. He was kind of talking down to me. Then someone started schmoozing for a political donation and someone else made a comment about me being "rich," which I ultimately found annoying. When he realized what was going on he started asking a bunch of questions. When he found out I was self-published he said "but you're not a real author." Mind you, he's on the chamber of commerce, not even a mayor or anything. I just smiled and said "my bank account doesn't make distinctions." Then he tried to sit at the main table with a couple state senators and county big wigs and a waiter came up to "relocate him to his assigned seat" and he looked as if he wanted to kill me when I stayed behind. It was fairly funny. One of my really good friends is the county prosecutor and he could not stop laughing.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Ah, sweet revenge! Awesome story, and awesome escape.


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot (Apr 10, 2014)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> Yeah, it was a pretty uncomfortable interaction because I knew bigger politicians (from my days as a reporter) and that's why he thought I was there. He thought I was covering the event, not invited. He was kind of talking down to me. Then someone started schmoozing for a political donation and someone else made a comment about me being "rich," which I ultimately found annoying. When he realized what was going on he started asking a bunch of questions. When he found out I was self-published he said "but you're not a real author." Mind you, he's on the chamber of commerce, not even a mayor or anything. I just smiled and said "my bank account doesn't make distinctions." Then he tried to sit at the main table with a couple state senators and county big wigs and a waiter came up to "relocate him to his assigned seat" and he looked as if he wanted to kill me when I stayed behind. It was fairly funny. One of my really good friends is the county prosecutor and he could not stop laughing.


This is utterly delicious. Karma did all the heavy lifting for you.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> It's an ego thing. I've found men want to blame someone else because it's surely not their fault. And, to be fair, it's not always their fault. Women exacerbate the problem by faking in the first place. They're worried the male ego can't take it -- and in many cases they're right. Most men I've come across think they're great in bed.


That's a terrible thing to have to endure. Single women (and men) should feel confident assessing their partner's performance when there's a major problem:










Feedback makes us better. Fun story: years ago a friend told me a guy she was with asked her, "What are you doing down there? Shucking corn?!" She never made that mistake again. See? She benefited from the feedback. 

It's true that some people, both men and women, have fragile egos. You have to walk on eggshells around them lest they take offense. Personally, I avoid people like that; they're too high-maintenance.



Amanda M. Lee said:


> I read a study once and I'm not sure if I can find it, but in it something like 75% of women admitted to faking it and more than 80% of men claimed no woman had ever faked it with them. You do the math.


I've always assumed that some of my partners have faked orgasms. It's one of those things women lie about.



Nic said:


> Things have caught up there, or so I'm told. Apparently a lot of millennials agree upon it being everyone's own responsibility to have a satisfactory orgasm. Which is an interesting development.


Interesting. I wonder if social media and young people's infatuation (obsession?) with themselves plays a role.


----------



## anniejocoby (Aug 11, 2013)

Briteka said:


> I stopped writing romance a few months ago, and this should be the first month that my new, non-romance books cross $5000. A lot of that is because I've finally been able to go wide with a series and I'm seeing the first tastes of that Google money. Some of the new books may have a sex scene or two, but that isn't the draw. At least I hope it isn't. They're all in urban fantasy and cozy mystery. Honestly, I think romance of any type is trending downward. There aren't less readers, but there's so, so, SO much new romance content being added that I've decided to stay away from the genre for now.


Good to hear that, because I'm thinking of getting out of romance as well. I'm tired, so so so so tired, of writing sex scenes. Bleh. I have one more book that I need to put out in the genre, just to wrap up a series, and I'm switching genres to either cozy mysteries or urban fantasy. Good to know that you're doing well after leaving romance for awhile - that's encouraging!


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

anniejocoby said:


> Good to hear that, because I'm thinking of getting out of romance as well. I'm tired, so so so so tired, of writing sex scenes. Bleh. I have one more book that I need to put out in the genre, just to wrap up a series, and I'm switching genres to either cozy mysteries or urban fantasy. Good to know that you're doing well after leaving romance for awhile - that's encouraging!


That's why I only write 3-5 scenes in 100-145K of book. I wait to write it until the characters and I can't wait for it to happen, and I write in lots of sexual tension, which is always delicious fun. I can't imagine thinking up all the different things erotic romance writers put into books, one scene every 10K or whatever. I'm sure I'd get bored as a reader, too. I think of sex scenes as the frosting on the cake. Some of my readers don't like them--they skip past them--and that's fine. For others, the frosting's the best part.


----------



## 555aaa (Jan 28, 2014)

I've faked it. Sometimes you get tired and just want a sandwich. 

But that was during my misspent youth.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

> I've found men want to blame someone else because it's surely not their fault.


I've known women who have been emotionally abused over this issue. Basically told they have a problem, and they're defective. Some guys will claim even if she can have an orgasm, but it's through clitoral stimulation that she's still broken, or "emotionally immature." (Thanks for that Freud.)



> Things have caught up there, or so I'm told. Apparently a lot of millennials agree upon it being everyone's own responsibility to have a satisfactory orgasm. Which is an interesting development.


Own responsibility as in, they need to communicate and be clear? Or own responsibility, as in, "if you don't come in four minutes too bad, Honey!" I have seen the second option, but only on forums that are rather, cultish and misogynistic (ahh ... the places book research will take you.) I suspect the people behind the keyboard had never had sex with another human being, but I still found it disturbing. I think some young men will take it as "good" advice; and then complain about women being emotional, fickle, and ultimately leaving them.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

LilyBLily said:


> Somewhere or other I heard a statistic that at least 25% of all sex acts happen because the man nags the woman into it.
> 
> I feel sad for the younger generations that are still (!) lying about sex. Why bother having the sex at all? Why not challenge partners to do right by you or forget it? Of course I know why. For all our advances culturally, most females still defer to and give in to most males. It's too bad all this freedom to have sex includes the freedom to have bad sex. We have to be our own..uh...gatekeepers, and that's a tough role culturally.
> 
> ...


My readership is mostly 35+, though, and I have lots of 50+ readers. They mostly still seem to really enjoy the sex scenes, but I do get comments that they like that the sex doesn't happen until halfway through, and only to drive the story. They do complain about books that seem to be sex scene after sex scene, loosely strung together by story.

Other readers love that, including, I'm sure, older ladies. Bottom line (so to speak): romance is a big market. You can write to your own heat level preference, and your own heat-frequency preference, and make money, if you write a grabby story with appealing characters.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> That's why romance heroes tend to be in their 20s or 30s. But in my own life and my friends' lives, that doesn't appear to be true, interestingly. The guy might not be exactly the way he was in his 30s, but, yeah--pretty much the switch thing, at least into his 60s.
> 
> By the way, there's also research out there that regular romance readers with partners have more sex, and more satisfying sex. Whether that's because they're more drawn to romance because they're more in touch with their sexual feelings and want more of them, or whether they're aroused enough by what they read to flip that switch more--there you go. Makes sense to me either way, or both ways.


I don't want to give credence to the romance = porn point BUT sexy romances are arousing. Women do get turned on from reading steamy romances (at least if my reviews have anything to say on the matter). I know I get turned reading romances that hit the right buttons for me.

That can be a part of getting in the mood. I'm married with no kids and no intention of having kids-- I can't even keep a plant alive-- but stress still kills my sex drive fast. There's also the whole issue of generally being insecure and worried about what people think in your teens and early twenties. I'm only 26, but the older I get, the less I give a f*** what other people think and the more willing I am to say this is who I am, this is what I want, if you don't like it, there's the door. That extends to sex. I've always been the type who was fascinated with sex, but when I was younger, I was terrified of it. There's no way that I could have asked for what I wanted at 18. I was scared about being good enough.

I write NA, so I try to include a sorta sexual awakening, losing inhibitions, being able to ask for what you want theme in my books. Even my more experienced heroines tend to not have had fantastic sex before. The hero is the first guy who is really committed to getting them off.

I have written books where sex doesn't happen till about halfway through (usually a friends to lovers vibe) and I've written books that are sex sex sex (usually because the plot is that the MCs are FWB or in some other strictly sexual relationship). It's much easier to write the sex scenes in the former. It can be really hard (hehe) to write a sex scene between two characters who don't know each other well and still make it do heavy emotional lifting. I do have one book with about two sex scenes per 10k words and it's quite divisive. Some people love the steam factor. Others complain that it's nothing but sex. I am planning to go back and give it another pass because my writing skills have grown so much since I finished it, and I want to deepen the story and the characters in the way they deserve.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

C. Gockel said:


> Own responsibility as in, they need to communicate and be clear? Or own responsibility, as in, "if you don't come in four minutes too bad, Honey!" I have seen the second option, but only on forums that are rather, cultish and misogynistic (ahh ... the places book research will take you.) I suspect the people behind the keyboard had never had sex with another human being, but I still found it disturbing. I think some young men will take it as "good" advice; and then complain about women being emotional, fickle, and ultimately leaving them.


Own responsibility as in each person themselves has to take the steps necessary during intercourse to get off. Masturbating along, giving direct primers, stimulating themselves as needed. It's apparently a generally maintained opinion, especially among people into hook-up culture. I don't think these are just keyboard jockeys; I remember reading about this in the recentmost London sexuality survey. I wasn't that astounded by it either. It's a logical enough development.


----------



## C. Rysalis (Feb 26, 2015)

AndrewSeiple said:


> Heh! Funny thing is, one of the projects in my long-term queue is a slice-of-life/romcom in a superhero setting.


Hah! Let me know when you publish it. I want to read it.


----------



## MichaelRyan (Nov 23, 2015)

Wow, what an exciting conversation.

I've found over the many years of being on boards, forums, FB, G+, etc., that some people fail to read my posts as they were intended to be written.

I consider that a failure as my role as a writer. No body language, no eye contact, no voice cues.

I'm anything but a sexist pig that needed to be blocked... But oh well.

As to my "male characterists" comment.

Women in general, and everything I read has confirmed this, AND many posters here have confirmed it too, view sex differently than men do.

I don't even think it's arguable....I don't know why this makes me a sexist.

When I wrote that I had written my female lead with more *generally* male characterists, what I meant:

She takes ownership of her orgasms.
She's not ashamed of her sexuality being partially for simple pleasure (and not for relationship building or intimacy or any number of things).
She's proactive in seeking men.
She's not afraid to communicate.
The list could continue.

Research I've done:

I spent about 2 years actively working the sub Reddit sex. I answered questions, asked questions, had PM's with woman about their sex lives, etc. A valuable learning tool.

I read a ton: Girls and Sex being the recent read, The Red Queen, a book about how humans evolved sex was another recent read, and of course many books like Looking for Mr. Goodbar and Sleeping with the Enemy.

I have a college age daughter. She and I talk frankly about everything. Her bad dates, why she's thrown away Tinder, how men try to bed her, how men act in bed, how men try to impress her, how her last serious live in boyfriend didn't please her (she had to take care of herself after he feel asleep).

She once called me before I got to her place with my other daughter: "Dad, please go to my room before (her sister) gets in there. My basket of toys is out."

Yeah, not a fun "dad" job, hiding all your daughters sex toys.... Or the other one: "Dad, before you let (younger sister) use the bathroom, please go throw away all the condom wrappers..."

So, she's told me many things...her experience with a woman: "I didn't like the taste."

In other words, I'm hardly a sexist. I am 100% for the empowerment of women.

My youngest, who is 15, is dating an 18 year old. He's in high school. Our conversations go like this:

"Dad, I'm not having sex."
"Well that's the answer I want even if you are."
"But I'm not."
"That's great conviction. I expect the same answer even if you are."
"Okay. But I'm not having sex."
"Talk to your sister."

I only have this rule because in California it would be a felony.

Once she's 18 I'll expect a full report.

Anyway, most parents probably don't talk to their 15 year old daughters about masturbation, porn, and the evolution of the clitoris, but that's me. Not a sexist at all.

It's actually a funny accusation.

The whole point of the book _Girls & Sex_ was that girls need to be more informed, more challenged to "be in control" and they need to be given more information (at younger ages than they are now days on average) about sex so that they can decide for themselves about sex. So they can ENJOY sex instead of using sex to keep a boyfriend happy.

Uggggg..

I want my daughters to be free.

Which is why I think that this backlash against me calling SCENES,,porn,,,is odd.

I never said an entire romantica book or romance that had sex was pornography in it's entirety (but oddly, we still call Penthouse pornography even though 95%+ is not pictures but articles about other things and adverts).

If a scene is written to arouse, inflame, titillate, make the reader sexually excited, then it's pornography.

And good.

There is no shame in this.

Women should be able to read some erotica and get off the same way a guy uses chaturbate or redtube.

It's the same thing, it's just women and men are *generally* different in HOW we get aroused.

That's not sexist, it's simple biology.

I think this idea of an erotica scene that is graphic and sexually depicting etc., not being "porn" is actually a form of slut shaming.

So what if women read that stuff to get off?

I think it's empowering and not shameful.

If that makes me a sexist pig,,,,,oh well.

I'm still going to encourage my daughters to view sex more the way men do: As a means to an end. For pleasure.

Yes, it can be so so so much more. And should be.

My greatest sex was trying to have a baby with my wife. Oh, and then having sex once she was pregnant. Wow...

But that doesn't mean meaningless hot sex in Vegas with a lonely & horny mid-western woman from Iowa wasn't hot too. That was a great week-end. Probably never to be repeated.

As a sidebar: I have one experience in Vegas with a prostitute. Cold, business-like, something I'd never do again. I asked her what her name was and she said, "What do you care?" I find the idea of meaningless business like sex too cold for me these days. But there is an interesting dichotomy here: Was I exploiting a beautiful, but flawed, woman by having sex for money? Or was she exploiting me? Were we exploiting each other? I don't know. Because I respect the autonomy of self-will and free-will, I think we were both using each other for a means to an end: a business transaction. Which is why I didn't care for it.

But I can see how either one of us could be accused of being a predator. And I also see how that statement would be seen by many feminists as being sexist, in other words, it's possible for a man to exploit a woman, but not the other way around.

I respect women and believe treating them as equals is the only way not to be sexist. And that's what I do. Oddly, a few people take that as being sexist, which is ironic as hell.

I've greatly enjoyed this thread and I hope that most people see me for what I am and use a little grace tempered with mercy because having these kinds of conversations on the internet is difficult as there is no bio-feedback loop.


----------



## Guest (Apr 22, 2016)

JaydenHunter said:


> I respect women and believe treating them as equals is the only way not to be sexist. And that's what I do. Oddly, a few people take that as being sexist, which is ironic as hell.


Actually what I (and probably a few others) found sexist was your assertion that you had to give your female lead male characteristics so she wasn't boring and cliched. Coupled with your lack of knowledge about the difference between porn, erotica and heat levels in romance, you come across as disparaging of the romance genre and women authors.

But you did spark an interesting discussion and there are pages here of fantastic back and forth with a variety of opinions and experiences.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

JaydenHunter said:


> She takes ownership of her orgasms.
> She's not ashamed of her sexuality being partially for simple pleasure (and not for relationship building or intimacy or any number of things).
> She's proactive in seeking men.
> She's not afraid to communicate.
> The list could continue.


I feel like you're missing the point of romance and you're missing who your audience is. While it's true that women should feel comfortable with their sexuality and how they deserve pleasure, many women do not feel this way. Especially older women (the primary demographic for romance). This is, mostly, because of the way people act/have acted towards female sexuality. You still see this in movies and TV, even with supposedly feminist stuff like Trainwreck. The MC sleeps around but she doesn't seem to take any enjoyment out of it.

We still call women who sleep around sluts and men studs. We still criticize Kim Kardashian for posting naked photos of herself then turn around and talk about whether she is hot or not. Look at how nude photo scandals affect male and female celebrities. We do not live in a society that treats female sexuality as equal to male sexuality.

It's great that your romance heroine is comfortable with her sexuality. But, a lot of times, becoming a master of her sexuality is part of the romance heroine's journey. This appeals to women because very few women feel 100% comfortable with their sexuality a la Samantha in Sex and the City. I reckon that very few men are at 100%.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

oakwood said:


> It's not ego. It's insecurity.
> 
> It is absolutely NOT a requirement. Money is out there in so many genres and niches outside of romance. Big money too.
> 
> ...


You can write romance, including steamy romance, without writing to the hot trends. And, yes, I suspect that can have better "legs" and build more author loyalty. (I base this on my observation and measurements from comparing the one book I wrote to more of a trend with all my other books that are relentlessly un-trendy. However, that's an anecdotal sample of one.)

You can also write romance or any other thing without it being cookie-cutter. It depends how good you are at characterization. Any genre fiction follows formulas. Following a basic formula doesn't mean writing an unoriginal or uninteresting book.


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot (Apr 10, 2014)

The Dancing Squirrel said:


> Why did you spend two years with this guy?


Probably because life, love, and people are complicated. Not everything is as simple as "the sex is bad, so I'm outta here!" Especially when you're young.

I'm not Amanda, but I've been there.


----------



## AndrewSeiple (Jan 3, 2016)

C. Rysalis said:


> Hah! Let me know when you publish it. I want to read it.


Sure!

Well, actually, it'll be a while. Got 1-4 Dire books to get through first, and some assorted side projects...

But hey, if you're serious, I DO have a mailing list...


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

I do think we're learning way too much about specifics of each other's sex lives....and level of detail being gone into is way beyond the scope of the thread or this forum.  Sorry, but...

Thanks.

Betsy


----------



## Amanda M. Lee (Jun 3, 2014)

The Dancing Squirrel said:


> I'm aware of the complications of life. I asked the question because Amanda is indicating that not only was the sex bad, this guy also had a horrible personality. Since he's so proud of having a relatively inexpensive home now, he probably didn't have money, so that wasn't the attraction.
> 
> I'm sorry, but I find all the salivating glee over Amanda's revenge on this guy distasteful and I must protest it. (I don't expect anyone to change their view.)


Since homes in close proximity are regularly going for $30,000, I don't believe he considered it an inexpensive home. As for why I stayed with him, I'm sure I had reasons but time has diminished them.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> You can write romance, including steamy romance, without writing to the hot trends. And, yes, I suspect that can have better "legs" and build more author loyalty. (I base this on my observation and measurements from comparing the one book I wrote to more of a trend with all my other books that are relentlessly un-trendy. However, that's an anecdotal sample of one.)
> 
> You can also write romance or any other thing without it being cookie-cutter. It depends how good you are at characterization. Any genre fiction follows formulas. Following a basic formula doesn't mean writing an unoriginal or uninteresting book.


Yep. I have some trendy stuff and some less trendy stuff. The trendy stuff doesn't necessarily do better.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Most of us do dumb things when we're young, and many of us have insecurities that keep us from asking for what we need in all sorts of ways, as well as making us settle for less than we deserve. Understanding that and being able to write about those choices, feelings, and insecurities--that kind of perspective is pretty important if you want to sell to a romance audience (since that's what we're talking about here). You don't have to write graphic sex. You do have to write relationships, the bad and the good of them. If you've always been perfectly confident and don't understand anybody who isn't, you might not do too well writing romance.

All I can say is, between my own mistakes and those of my friends and sisters, I don't think I'll ever run out of material.


----------



## Amanda M. Lee (Jun 3, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> Most of us do dumb things when we're young, and many of us have insecurities that keep us from asking for what we need in all sorts of ways, as well as making us settle for less than we deserve. Understanding that and being able to write about those choices, feelings, and insecurities--that kind of perspective is pretty important if you want to sell to a romance audience (since that's what we're talking about here). You don't have to write graphic sex. You do have to write relationships, the bad and the good of them. If you've always been perfectly confident and don't understand anybody who isn't, you might not do too well writing romance.
> 
> All I can say is, between my own mistakes and those of my friends and sisters, I don't think I'll ever run out of material.


Yes, I didn't see what he was until I was older and then I wondered if time clouded my memories. It didn't. Alas, much like the Zima I also thought I loved at the time, he had to go. It took me awhile to realize that.


----------



## EC (Aug 20, 2013)

The Dancing Squirrel said:


> Why did you spend two years with this guy?


It's some kinda weird natural drug that flows through your body where you delude yourself that he or she will change. Just like a drug addict, you keep going back looking for the rush you had the first time - before realizing that it was all a fantasy based upon a few delightful moments.

For some people, there's no cure - for others, there's a wtf moment then you move on - but for many, including me, even after the wtf moment, you still harbour a trace of said drug.

If you ever want a bad dose of said drug, try dating a charismatic alcoholic.


----------



## MichaelRyan (Nov 23, 2015)

Crystal_ said:


> I feel like you're missing the point of romance and you're missing who your audience is. While it's true that women should feel comfortable with their sexuality and how they deserve pleasure, many women do not feel this way. Especially older women (the primary demographic for romance). This is, mostly, because of the way people act/have acted towards female sexuality. You still see this in movies and TV, even with supposedly feminist stuff like Trainwreck. The MC sleeps around but she doesn't seem to take any enjoyment out of it.
> 
> We still call women who sleep around sluts and men studs. We still criticize Kim Kardashian for posting naked photos of herself then turn around and talk about whether she is hot or not. Look at how nude photo scandals affect male and female celebrities. We do not live in a society that treats female sexuality as equal to male sexuality.
> 
> It's great that your romance heroine is comfortable with her sexuality. But, a lot of times, becoming a master of her sexuality is part of the romance heroine's journey. This appeals to women because very few women feel 100% comfortable with their sexuality a la Samantha in Sex and the City. I reckon that very few men are at 100%.


Yes, I should have been more clear.

I'm not interested in the Romance category.

From standard Harlequin stuff to Marie Force to Nicolas Sparks, I don't find it interesting (and of course, as a 50yo male, I'm hardly the target audience).

I did thoroughly enjoy The Fault of Our Stars, but that's not exactly Romance...more like YA Romantic Coming-of-Age novel...

What I like is usually considered Romantica or Romance/erotica.

And even then, it's most stuff I don't care for.

Oddly, I love to write it, so there's the rub.

And I'm not talking straight erotica...I'm talking stories that have HEA endings, are relationship and life based, and include a lot of graphic sex scenes (what I'm calling porn because the purpose of the scenes --maybe not all of them-- is to arouse and excite the reader)

I enjoyed Calendar Girl, but was not excited enough about it to read 12 books.

I've tried PNR, Sports, Biker stuff,,,most of it is not my cup of tea.

So I think that's where the comments lead people to misinterpret what I was trying to say.

I don't like books like Fifty Shades (or some of the other male-dominating books I've read).

I like strong, capable women, not women that do what they are told (like children).

Anyway, perhaps I'll find more examples...oh... I know right off the bat: I enjoy Patricia Briggs and Kim Harrison....

So, what I need is fantastic urban fantasy with graphic sex.

Done.

Sally Does Harry: A Wicked Witch On Top (Book 1)

Any body want to pre-order?


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

So... go read the Anita Blake series?


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Annie B said:


> So... go read the Anita Blake series?


Just start with Blue Moon and go on from there. *shudder*


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

If one doesn't like romance, doesn't like the tropes, doesn't understand the appeal, but one is writing romance . . . 
Who is the audience for it?


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> If one doesn't like romance, doesn't like the tropes, doesn't understand the appeal, but one is writing romance . . .
> Who is the audience for it?


But... But... But... It's *romance*. I mean, *anyone* can write romance, right? There's nothing to it. It's all just girl meets guy stories. How hard can that be? Throw some cookiecutter stories out and watch the money roll in.

Right?


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2016)

KelliWolfe said:


> But... But... But... It's *romance*. I mean, *anyone* can write romance, right? There's nothing to it. It's all just girl meets guy stories. How hard can that be? Throw some cookiecutter stories out and watch the money roll in.
> 
> Right?


Oh totally! Romance is super easy. Just throw in some random sex scenes and you'll be buying that island in the Bahamas by Xmas time


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

Tilly said:


> Oh totally! Romance is super easy. Just throw in some random sex scenes and you'll be buying that island in the Bahamas by Xmas time


(Psst--if there's anything arousing in it, s'just porn. Keep it straight!)


----------



## KelliWolfe (Oct 14, 2014)

Shelley K said:


> (Psst--if there's anything arousing in it, s'just porn. Keep it straight!)


Hey, that's what KDP support told *me*!

"We've re-reviewed your book and confirmed that it contains erotic or sexually explicit content. To remove your book from its current categorization you will need to remove the erotic or sexually explicit content and resubmit as a new ASIN."

Straight from the horse's mouth. If it has anything arousing, it can't be in romance. It must be *whispers* _erotica_.


----------



## LondonCalling (Dec 19, 2014)

Annie B said:


> So... go read the Anita Blake series?


*chokes, spits out soda*


----------



## Guest (Apr 25, 2016)

Annie B said:


> So... go read the Anita Blake series?


Here's a discussion point, do you think the Anita Blake series does so well because she's one of those non-cliched, interesting, strong women who has male characteristics?


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

Tilly said:


> Here's a discussion point, do you think the Anita Blake series does so well because she's one of those non-cliched, interesting, strong women who has male characteristics?


You really don't want to get me started the Anita Blake series  I was one of the biggest fans of it for the first 7 books. I'll just say I'm not a fan now and it has very little to do with the amount of the sex in the books. Since I write in the genre and LKH is loosely my peer (ie except on another level of sales than I am, for sure), I'll just say that much. There are clearly still hundreds of thousands of people who love the series as is.


----------



## MichaelRyan (Nov 23, 2015)

Rosalind James said:


> If one doesn't like romance, doesn't like the tropes, doesn't understand the appeal, but one is writing romance . . .
> Who is the audience for it?


I'm not sure what you don't understand. Granted I'm assuming this comment was meant for me. If not, disregard...

Sorry.....  obviously I've done a bad job of communicating.

Romance is vast vast vast VAST term.

I love, for instance, The Princess Bride. I've read it probably 5 times. I'll probably read it again this year, or maybe next year.
Amazon has Princess Bride in Literature & Fiction>Classics>Romance

So, I mean, we can argue that Amazon is wrong, or I'm wrong, or whatever, and this book isn't a romance because it doesn't follow the tropes required to publish with Harliquen Books. It's semantics at this point.

If only books that fall into Harliquen Books requirements, qualify for your definition of Romance, then, you are right, I shouldn't write anything in Romance. I'll quit doing that.

I love the erotica scenes in many novels and novellas, but not necessarily the all the stories.

Do readers like both Christian/Amish Romance AND Biker/PNR Romance?

No, of course not...As a rule. Many Christians have the Mercy Me Lord: A Betsy Well-being Romance on the night stand and 1001 Nights of Bondage hidden under the mattress, so sure.

But nobody here reads every type of romance as general pleasure reading unless they are a cyborg with a time machine.

Anyway, comments like "oh if there is sex it's porn" really make me wonder if people actually read things they criticize.

_Edited. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Romance is much more than erotic scenes, and much more than a HEA, no matter what subgenre or style. I don't write Harlequin-style romance, FWIW--or maybe I do. There are many "Harlequin styles," from sweet to steamy. There's a lot of romance, yes, but it follows certain rules, because its audience is reading romance for certain fundamental things. 

For anybody else who might be reading, here are some other rules of romance. Happy to hear your additions to them. This even cycles around to the original post. Bonus!

1) Happily Ever After or Happy for Now.

2) The focus of the story is two people's (or three people's, I guess) journey toward love and a life together. It can also be their individual journeys, but the arc is a romance arc, even if there's also a suspense arc or whatever else. 

2) No cheating. That means the hero and the heroine only sleep with each other once they meet or at least once they get together (unless it's menage romance, and then, you know, two guys), and neither the hero or the heroine should be a cheater beforehand either. Women don't like cheating guys, and they sure don't like women who sleep with other women's partners.

3) I read this in my early days of publishing, and it struck me: Romance readers need to be able to identify with the heroine and fall in love with the hero. So if you have a heroine who's strong, kick-ass, confident, blah blah, make sure she's still relatable to women. Especially make sure she doesn't come off as a "mean girl" from high school, a woman with no empathy and no softness or kindness. You know--feminine qualities.  

If you don't have those things, you can still be writing some other genre with a romance arc. It can be sexy, too. Or not. Fine, and good luck. But it probably won't work as a romance, with a romance audience. Romance isn't defined by sex or no sex, by whether it's a biker or a rock star or a vampire or just a regular decent guy. Women are reading romance, from Pride and Prejudice on down, to be absorbed by the idea of a man who's crazy about a woman, and a woman who wins in her life after some kind of struggle. Hopefully with the help and support of the guy. Romance is all about a woman and a man who are able to be vulnerable with each other, even if (especially if) with nobody else, who are able to be each others' rock, each others' safe place in a hard world.

Which also happens to be real life, if you're lucky, and women know it--and men do too, if they're lucky. 

(Oh: I wrote this as M/F. Don't mean to be heteronormative; I'm pretty sure the same basic things would apply to a M/M or F/F romance. "It's about love, stupid.")


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Pretty much what Rosalind says. 

I am not a writer. I am a huge romance reader. If you think that Romance the genre is Harlequin, you don't know Romance the genre. Harlequin is a section of what romance can be. Category romance is a large part of what harlequin does. If you don't know what category romance is, again you don't yet know what romance is. If you don't know the vast variety just in that one segment of the romance genre, its pretty useless to keep discussing. I am sensing a lot of lack of listening what has already been said. 

As a romance reader, a lot of what JaydenHunter says about romance is so off base, I don't even know where to start. 

Romance is not erotica, erotica is not romance. They are different genres. Erotic Romance is a sub genre of romance. 

Sex is not what defines romance. Period. 

I am also used as a romance reader to have the word "harlequin" romance being used as a insult. Anyone that knows about romance knows the big names in romance that got their start in harlequin category. And still to this day there are great authors writing for harlequin. I get it. Just like the usual "bodice ripper" attempt at insult, harlequin is used the same. Try reading some of the great ones and then tell me about it. I heard it all as a reader as I am sure many writers of romance have too. Not sure what audience its going to when one insults the very readers of the genre. 

And some writers wonder why some of us romance reader are reluctant to pick up romance written by men.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2016)

JaydenHunter said:


> Romance is vast vast vast VAST term.
> 
> I love, for instance, The Princess Bride. I've read it probably 5 times. I'll probably read it again this year, or maybe next year.
> Amazon has Princess Bride in Literature & Fiction>Classics>Romance
> ...


Well, yeah, you are wrong. I also don't know where you're looking but they don't have Princess Bride listed as a Romance, it's categories are:
Books > Literature & Fiction > Literary
Books > Science Fiction & Fantasy
Books > Teen & Young Adult
Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Literature & Fiction > Contemporary Fiction
Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Literature & Fiction > Literary Fiction
Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Science Fiction & Fantasy > Fantasy > Classics
Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Teen & Young Adult

None of those are Romance. Also it's a bad example as publishers are notoriously hopeless at picking categories on Amazon. Princess Bride is not a Romance. It's a fairytale, or action and adventure, or fantasy. Sure it has a strong romantic subplot but it's not Romance with a capital R.

This is the bit you don't seem to understand, no matter how many times other posters have tried to explain it to you. Romance (with the capital R) has certain expectations, no matter what sub-genre you write. If you want to write Romance (again with the capital R) then you need to be aware of reader expectations. As Rosalind has already said, women readers need to be able to relate to your heroine. She's needs to have a flaw that other women struggle with. Writing a woman with (as you put it) male characteristics to make her interesting and non-cliched is not going to make her relatable.

Also, Harlequin is a Romance imprint, it's not the definitive guide to what is/isn't Romance. Yet again you are dismissive of romance readers and the genre, tossing around "Harlequin" as though it's something inferior. Given you don't seem to understand Romance at all, let alone have an appreciation of the emotional journey necessary, I can't get my head around why you want to write it. Unless you think it's "easy" and a path to quick money.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

The idea that romance is stupid and somebody will write it better, so it's not stupid, is also, sadly, not original. 

Mystery's stupid, too. Most murders don't get solved. Jack Reacher also doesn't exist. If he did, he'd be in prison. Sorry.


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

JaydenHunter said:


> Romance is vast vast vast VAST term.
> 
> I love, for instance, The Princess Bride. I've read it probably 5 times. I'll probably read it again this year, or maybe next year.
> Amazon has Princess Bride in Literature & Fiction>Classics>Romance
> ...


Watching you attempt to school successful writers who make bank on their books by explaining to them what their genres really consist of is kind of precious.

Please, continue.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Rosalind James said:


> Romance is much more than erotic scenes, and much more than a HEA, no matter what subgenre or style. I don't write Harlequin-style romance, FWIW--or maybe I do. There are many "Harlequin styles," from sweet to steamy. There's a lot of romance, yes, but it follows certain rules, because its audience is reading romance for certain fundamental things.
> 
> For anybody else who might be reading, here are some other rules of romance. Happy to hear your additions to them. This even cycles around to the original post. Bonus!
> 
> ...


Afraid to be nitpicking there, but the only actual "rules" as per the RWA's definition of what a romance is, are (copied directly from their website):



> A Central Love Story: The main plot centers around individuals falling in love and struggling to make the relationship work. A writer can include as many subplots as he/she wants as long as the love story is the main focus of the novel.
> 
> An Emotionally Satisfying and Optimistic Ending: In a romance, the lovers who risk and struggle for each other and their relationship are rewarded with emotional justice and unconditional love.


The ending can be a HEA or HFN or even bittersweet. There is nothing which states cheating isn't acceptable, though a lot of people hate to read it, nor is it a necessity that readers have to fall in love with the hero and identify with the heroine, though again many like to do that.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Nic said:


> Afraid to be nitpicking there, but the only actual "rules" as per the RWA's definition of what a romance is, are (copied directly from their website):
> 
> The ending can be a HEA or HFN or even bittersweet. There is nothing which states cheating isn't acceptable, though a lot of people hate to read it, nor is it a necessity that readers have to fall in love with the hero and identify with the heroine, though again many like to do that.


I should have been more specific, I guess. I don't know any "rules" as far as anybody writing them down. I was talking about what sells.

I don't think you'd have much luck selling a romance where readers don't identify with the heroine and fall in love with the hero. What on earth would be the point?


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Rosalind James said:


> I should have been more specific, I guess. I don't know any "rules" as far as anybody writing them down. I was talking about what sells.
> 
> I don't think you'd have much luck selling a romance where readers don't identify with the heroine and fall in love with the hero. What on earth would be the point?


There are quite a few bad boy/biker/dark/taboo level eroms out there featuring heroes no one would fall for, as well as heroines who're not considered to be the type women would want to identify with. I dare say some of these sell very very well.

It *is* a wide field.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Nic said:


> There are quite a few bad boy/biker/dark/taboo level eroms out there featuring heroes no one would fall for, as well as heroines who're not considered to be the type women would want to identify with. I dare say some of these sell very very well.
> 
> It *is* a wide field.


But the people that read those do fall in love with those heroes. Look at the reviews and I bet you will see the words "book boyfriend" a bunch of times. That is what appeals to them. It does not appeal to me, but it does appeal to a group of people.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Nic said:


> There are quite a few bad boy/biker/dark/taboo level eroms out there featuring heroes no one would fall for, as well as heroines who're not considered to be the type women would want to identify with. I dare say some of these sell very very well.
> 
> It *is* a wide field.


The reader still falls in love with those bad-boy heroes, dark or not. That IS the point of romance.

Some readers can't do the dark thing. (I can't.) But readers who love them--that's why. That doesn't mean that a woman IN REAL LIFE would be in love with that guy. It means that she falls in love with him in the book.

A heroine a woman can identify with doesn't mean a woman who's just like her. It means she has some vulnerabilities and some issues that make a woman say, oh, I get that. I feel that way. i can empathize. Not every reader will identify with every heroine, of course, just as not every reader will fall in love with every hero. But to the extent that readers DO identify/fall in love--they'll love the book.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Crystal_ said:


> But the people that read those do fall in love with those heroes. Look at the reviews and I bet you will see the words "book boyfriend" a bunch of times. That is what appeals to them. It does not appeal to me, but it does appeal to a group of people.


HA. i was gonna say "book boyfriend." You bet. Book boyfriend.

NOT the same as a real-life boyfriend.

Sigh. Why do we even try. We're not exactly preachin' to the choir here.

Never mind. Maybe it'll help somebody who does write romance, the same way reading that simple thing (fall in love with the hero/identify with the heroine) helped me.

Look, I don't write anything close to dark, but let's just say that the first chapter from the hero's perspective of my currently bestselling book is titled, "Controlling, Arrogant, and Obsessive." And, yes, almost all readers seem to love him, because he's very sexy, very strong, and he's crazy about the heroine.


----------



## Gentleman Zombie (May 30, 2011)

There are so many flavors of romance. From spicy to tame. It's hard to define the genre simply - if you ask me. Right now I know someone who is doing well with sci-fi "Alien" romances. I know someone else who is very happy writing christian romances set in the old west. Then there's the countless people writing spicy "step-bro" & "bad boy" romances.

And they are all romance. Just visit a website like https://www.allromanceebooks.com/ (a great place to sell if you want to wide). The different types of romance is just astounding. Even if you're not a romance fan - there's a chance that you will find something to your liking in the genre. It's just that diverse.

So when people argue about what romance is versus what it isn't - I scratch my head. For every rule for what is is or is not.. there is an exception. It's a fascinating and rich genre - and you just can't pin it down neatly into a box.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

There's a difference between stating you're fascinated with the person in the book, and wanting to actually be with someone you read about. 

The same readers just as consistently warn that they would hate to be with someone like e.g. Tony in Consequences, and they all tend to despair over Claire, or the many other darker carbon copies of Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey. That's a world away from a Mr. Darcy, Calvin Morrisey or Hardy Cates.


----------



## Nic (Nov 17, 2013)

Gentleman Zombie said:


> So when people argue about what romance is versus what it isn't - I scratch my head. For every rule for what is is or is not.. there is an exception. It's a fascinating and rich genre - and you just can't pin it down neatly into a box.


Yes. You may or may not be amused to learn there's even "zombie romance".


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2016)

Nic said:


> Yes. You may or may not be amused to learn there's even "zombie romance".


Zombie romance has been around for years. I read Lia Habel's Dearly Departed 5 or 6 years ago. I was so disappointed the hero didn't chew chunks out of the heroine... Lol Would you call Warm Bodies zombie romance? I'm guessing yes?


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Nic said:


> There's a difference between stating you're fascinated with the person in the book, and wanting to actually be with someone you read about.
> 
> The same readers just as consistently warn that they would hate to be with someone like e.g. Tony in Consequences, and they all tend to despair over Claire, or the many other darker carbon copies of Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey. That's a world away from a Mr. Darcy, Calvin Morrisey or Hardy Cates.


I already said that, and so did Crystal. This is our genre. We sell very well indeed. We know this genre.

A book boyfriend is NOT necessarily anybody you'd even want to know, much less date or marry. When I say "fall in love," I don't mean for REAL. I mean for the book. He's sexy, he's dark, he's exciting. And of course readers have different tastes. But they all fall in love with the heroes of the books they enjoy reading, however light or dark those books are.

Guys don't want to be Jack Reacher, and move from town to town with no possessions and no ties, but they enjoy identifying with him while they're lying in bed with their wife--with a three-year-old between them who had a nightmare.

Romance is diverse, but it isn't. It's ALL, every kind of it, about a journey of two people toward love, toward connection in their life, through their own struggles and weaknesses. They have to be two people that readers can CARE about, and to do that, readers have to be able to identify with the heroine and fall in love with the hero IN THE BOOK. The hero and heroine have to fall in love deeply, passionately (by which I don't mean sex) and exclusively, "forsaking all others." They have to form a deep emotional connection that satisfies the reader, or it's lukewarm romance, even if the sex is smokin' hot. The physical connection is important as it reinforces the emotional one. The book isn't ABOUT the physical connection.

It doesn't matter if it's zombies, if it's cowboys, if it's aliens, if it's billionaires. It doesn't matter if it's a small town or a Caribbean resort or outer space. It doesn't matter if it's deep, dark BDSM or Amish no-kissing. Those are the surface differences. She's had a hard time in some way or another. She meets him, and it's a struggle to be with him, but they get there together, and they win. She wins. She overcomes.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Nic said:


> There's a difference between stating you're fascinated with the person in the book, and wanting to actually be with someone you read about.
> 
> The same readers just as consistently warn that they would hate to be with someone like e.g. Tony in Consequences, and they all tend to despair over Claire, or the many other darker carbon copies of Twilight and Fifty Shades of Grey. That's a world away from a Mr. Darcy, Calvin Morrisey or Hardy Cates.


What? There are tons of women who are gaga for Christian Grey. Some of them want him, period. Some of them want him as a book boyfriend-- enjoy the fantasy but know the reality wouldn't work. Some of them enjoy reading about him but find his behavior repulsive. And some people just think he's a creep.

Over The Top Alpha is a specific trope that appeals to a certain group of readers. This group does not include me. One of the reasons I write the niche I do is that it gives me more leeway to write more wounded/vulnerable heroes.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Crystal_ said:


> What? There are tons of women who are gaga for Christian Grey. Some of them want him, period. Some of them want him as a book boyfriend-- enjoy the fantasy but know the reality wouldn't work. Some of them enjoy reading about him but find his behavior repulsive. And some people just think he's a creep.
> 
> Over The Top Alpha is a specific trope that appeals to a certain group of readers. This group does not include me. One of the reasons I write the niche I do is that it gives me more leeway to write more wounded/vulnerable heroes.


Ditto, though I don't write your niche.

When we say "fall in love with the hero," we don't mean that EVERY reader will. But if the book is going to succeed, a sizable group of women have to fall in love with him.


----------



## Gator (Sep 28, 2012)

Tilly said:


> *I also don't know where you're looking* but they don't have Princess Bride listed as a Romance, it's categories are:
> Books > Literature & Fiction > Literary
> Books > Science Fiction & Fantasy
> Books > Teen & Young Adult
> ...









You can find the categories listed here:

Books > Literature & Fiction > Action & Adventure > Classics
Books > Literature & Fiction > Action & Adventure > Fantasy
*Books > Literature & Fiction > Action & Adventure > Romance*
Books > Literature & Fiction > Classics
*Books > Romance > Action & Adventure*
*Books > Romance > Fantasy*
*Books > Romance > Romantic Comedy*
Books > Science Fiction & Fantasy > Fantasy > Historical
Books > Science Fiction & Fantasy > Fantasy > Humorous
*Books > Science Fiction & Fantasy > Fantasy > Romantic*
Books > Teen & Young Adult
Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Literature & Fiction > Action & Adventure > Fantasy
Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Literature & Fiction > Classics > Historical
Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Literature & Fiction > Classics > Humor
*Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Literature & Fiction > Classics > Romance*
Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Literature & Fiction > Contemporary Fiction
*Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Romance > Romantic Comedy*
Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Science Fiction & Fantasy > Fantasy > Classics
Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Science Fiction & Fantasy > Fantasy > Historical
Kindle Store > Kindle eBooks > Teen & Young Adult


----------



## Veronica Sicoe (Jun 21, 2015)

Rosalind James said:


> Sigh. Why do we even try. We're not exactly preachin' to the choir here.
> 
> Never mind. Maybe it'll help somebody who does write romance, the same way reading that simple thing (fall in love with the hero/identify with the heroine) helped me.


I find this thread to be one of the most educational in here, on the Romance genre and its reader expectations. Your knowledge of the genre is invaluable, Rosalind (and Crystal).


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

I love these threads in which people come along and tell millionaires what they're doing wrong.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Lydniz said:


> I love these threads in which people come along and tell millionaires what they're doing wrong.


Romance heroes also almost never mansplain.

Unrealistic, you say? That is why they call it fiction.


----------



## kathrynoh (Oct 17, 2012)

Rosalind James said:


> Romance heroes also almost never mansplain.
> 
> Unrealistic, you say? That is why they call it fiction.


Bravo!


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Gator said:


> You can find the categories listed here:
> 
> Books > Literature & Fiction > Action & Adventure > Classics
> Books > Literature & Fiction > Action & Adventure > Fantasy
> ...


There's erotica in the fantasy category, too. That doesn't make the author of "Double Dragons Did Me Deep" a fantasy author.


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot (Apr 10, 2014)

JaydenHunter said:


> I love, for instance, The Princess Bride. I've read it probably 5 times. I'll probably read it again this year, or maybe next year.
> Amazon has Princess Bride in Literature & Fiction>Classics>Romance
> 
> So, I mean, we can argue that Amazon is wrong, or I'm wrong, or whatever, and this book isn't a romance because it doesn't follow the tropes required to publish with Harliquen Books. It's semantics at this point.


Romance and Literature & Fiction>Classics>Romance are two completely different animals. So Amazon isn't wrong.

It's not semantics at all. It's knowing the genres and knowing which genre you're actually writing in.


----------



## I&#039;m a Little Teapot (Apr 10, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> Romance heroes also almost never mansplain.
> 
> Unrealistic, you say? That is why they call it fiction.


Between this and "Double Dragons Did Me Deep" I'm probably going to puke from laughing so hard.


----------



## PermaStudent (Apr 21, 2015)

Rosalind James said:


> Maybe it'll help somebody who does write romance, the same way reading that simple thing (fall in love with the hero/identify with the heroine) helped me.


I don't even write romance, and it's helping me. I write romance subplots, and a lot of this information has really helped me understand that portion of my readership and some reviews I've received. Thanks!


----------



## AztecStrawberry (Feb 24, 2016)

Ditto to the people saying that this thread is a help to them. As a beginning Romance author, hearing you guys talk about what your readers want is incredibly valuable.  So, thanks for that.


----------



## Amanda M. Lee (Jun 3, 2014)

I get "book boyfriend" reviews all of the time even though I don't really write straight up romances. I write mostly mysteries and paranormal stuff, but I have found the romance angles are immensely popular in my books even though they're not the main focus. People want to root for a couple and the romantic stuff helps because if someone else loves the character it's easier for the reader to love the character.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2016)

Gator said:


> You can find the categories listed here:


I looked at the book page, took the categories from there. I'm not that invested to drill any deeper.

And as others have already tried to explain, putting it in a Romance category doesn't make it a Romance novel. It just means some publisher employer either selected that category or used Romance as a keyword. You seem to be missing the point of this discussion about what actually makes a Romance novel. Hint: it's more than a label...


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

I think when someone is trying to tell you the ins and outs of your genre, the best thing to say is, "You clearly know more about it than I do. Knock it out of the park." And move on. 

But I applaud the patience of those who don't.


----------



## Guest (Apr 26, 2016)

Shelley K said:


> I think when someone is trying to tell you the ins and outs of your genre, the best thing to say is, "You clearly know more about it than I do. Knock it out of the park." And move on.


Shelley is wise


----------



## Nathalie Aynie (Nov 24, 2013)

I'm not thanking Rosalind and Lydniz for the loud snorts that even my neighbours heard.  
(but yeah, thanks, so good to laugh!)


----------



## RN_Wright (Jan 7, 2014)

I'm late to the thread but I'm bookmarking it. Seems like everybody contributed something.
Rosalind, you are a national treasure!


----------



## Diane Patterson (Jun 17, 2012)

RN_Wright said:


> I'm late to the thread but I'm bookmarking it. Seems like everybody contributed something.
> Rosalind, you are a national treasure!


At this point, I'm pretty sure Rosalind's veins must be weaved out of Valium or something.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Diane Patterson said:


> At this point, I'm pretty sure Rosalind's veins must be weaved out of Valium or something.


There is a certain income level that has a sedative quality. "Oh, you have a problem with what I'm doing? Okay then, I'll just go cry on my fat stacks of money."


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I'm laughing. Nah, when I wrote most of that last night (and was very heartened by Crystal's brilliant replies as well, by the way), I was writing a *cough* rather dirty sex scene, the kind I used to have to write in a separate document and tell myself I wouldn't use. (I always did, so finally I stopped kidding myself and went for it. I'm circling around to the thread topic again, because I'm just good like that, in noting that in my house, we call those "money scenes.")

The thread provided some entertaining momentary distraction during my creative endeavors.


----------



## jellybelly (Apr 20, 2016)

Rosalind James said:


> Romance heroes also almost never mansplain.
> 
> Unrealistic, you say? That is why they call it fiction.


hahahaha

This is the best post in the whole thread!


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> I'm laughing. Nah, when I wrote most of that last night (and was very heartened by Crystal's brilliant replies as well, by the way), I was writing a *cough* rather dirty sex scene, the kind I used to have to write in a separate document and tell myself I wouldn't use. (I always did, so finally I stopped kidding myself and went for it. I'm circling around to the thread topic again, because I'm just good like that, in noting that in my house, we call those "money scenes.")
> 
> The thread provided some entertaining momentary distraction during my creative endeavors.


Oh my goodness. I have a phone sex scene in my WIP that I wrote with my hands over my eyes. It took me two hours to write four paragraphs. That's how shy I felt. I can barely bear to read it over much less edit it. But I've established that character as being a master of phone sex/dirty talk in three books, so I have to deliver.

You get over your shyness about writing sexy scenes with practice.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Crystal_ said:


> Oh my goodness. I have a phone sex scene in my WIP that I wrote with my hands over my eyes. It took me two hours to write four paragraphs. That's how shy I felt. I can barely bear to read it over much less edit it. But I've established that character as being a master of phone sex/dirty talk in three books, so I have to deliver.
> 
> You get over your shyness about writing sexy scenes with practice.


Laughing some more. My scene last night was 2,500 words. I got over my shyness pretty fast.  (I have a phone sex scene in Bk 2. Pretty hot, too! That's a fun thing to write.) The funny thing is that I'm a mild person in real life who doesn't swear, etc. Been a mom since my mid-20s. All my old friends, let's say, have been quite surprised to discover this side to my personality after all these decades. But what do I care about showing who I really am? If not now, when?

I say, why not. Life's short and hard, and sex in books is fun, harmless, and practically free. I happen to be good at writing it, I enjoy the heck out of it, it intensifies the romance, it pays for some nice things in my family's life, and maybe it even helps somebody else's real life be a little bit better. No downside.


----------



## kathrynoh (Oct 17, 2012)

Funnily enough, I used to write erotica and had no shyness about it whatsoever. Now I am more hesitant. I wonder if it's because now I have a readers that I interact with and realise that real life people are reading those sex scenes?


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

kathrynoh said:


> Funnily enough, I used to write erotica and had no shyness about it whatsoever. Now I am more hesitant. I wonder if it's because now I have a readers that I interact with and realise that real life people are reading those sex scenes?


I think I had to get over it fast, because my friends, husband's colleagues' wives, etc., read my books from the start. It was awkward and embarrassing at first, but as a friend told me at a party in about Month One, "You can't put that genie back in the bottle." And if my friends and family have read the books, not much else to be embarrassed about.


----------



## Diane Patterson (Jun 17, 2012)

When they bring it up, always start with "So, did it turn you on?" Allow the conversation to proceed naturally from there.


----------



## Veronica Sicoe (Jun 21, 2015)

Diane Patterson said:


> When they bring it up, always start with "So, did it turn you on?" Allow the conversation to proceed naturally from there.


*snort*


----------



## A.E. Wasp (Jan 24, 2015)

Rosalind James said:


> I say, why not. Life's short and hard, and sex in books is fun, harmless, and practically free. I happen to be good at writing it, I enjoy the heck out of it, it intensifies the romance, it pays for some nice things in my family's life, and maybe it even helps somebody else's real life be a little bit better. No downside.


I find this very inspiring.  And once my teenagers and my 84-year-old mom knew what kind of scenes I wrote, who else was left to care about?


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

I'm still horrified that my dad read my first book and that was over a year ago.


----------



## DashaGLogan (Jan 30, 2014)

Well, it has a lot to do with how well you do in the first few days of your launch, sex, no sex, or a little sex.
I'm making that money too with Chick Lit Romantic Comedy, with non-explicit sex in it. Funnily enough, I make that money in Germany. It is a bit like it used to be on .com a few years ago (peeps should think about having their work translated...) I find the US market very difficult at the moment for everything, if you are not one of the people who have created a large fanbase early on. 
If you have a good product, visibility is the key on Amazon. No way around it. And if you can get it, you will sell.


----------



## C. Rysalis (Feb 26, 2015)

Crystal_ said:


> I'm still horrified that my dad read my first book and that was over a year ago.


Hah. I'm so glad my dad doesn't speak English


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I think, for me, it's that I don't write any sex I'm embarrassed to write. Yeah, it's dirty stuff, but I don't do pain or humiliation or degradation, and I always, always write explicit consent. It's sex-positive, communication-positive stuff between two people who love each other and are concerned first and foremost for each others' safety and pleasure, and who will be married or engaged by the end of the book. If anybody thinks I'm terrible for writing that--I probably don't care about their opinion anyway. That's how I look at it.

Some people don't like some things, of course. Some people like my books despite the sex (they work fine without it), or skim the sex. That's fine by me. I figure that's what the "forward" button on your Kindle is for. If they're going to read me telegraphing "X nasty thing ahead!", go ahead and read it, and then write to me to tell me I'm disgusting, I'm going to think (and maybe say)--next time, when I let you know in flashing red letters that that disgusting practice is coming up in the next chapter, you might want to FRIGGIN' SKIP IT. And if you don't, I'm going to assume you enjoy being shocked and titillated. Which is fine, too, but I'm not going to change, so if you don't like it, go read Amish romance. 

So there.


----------



## Sylvia R. Frost (Jan 8, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> The idea that romance is stupid and somebody will write it better, so it's not stupid, is also, sadly, not original.
> 
> Mystery's stupid, too. Most murders don't get solved. Jack Reacher also doesn't exist. If he did, he'd be in prison. Sorry.


I am FRAMING this quote.

(And working on editing our interview with you, once I finish my latest release!)


----------



## A.E. Wasp (Jan 24, 2015)

Crystal_ said:


> I'm still horrified that my dad read my first book and that was over a year ago.


That is hilarious.


----------



## ElHawk (Aug 13, 2012)

The Dancing Squirrel said:


> This is quite enlightening. Being a heterosexual female with no interest in the sex lives of others, I had no idea that most women aren't having a great time when they have plain old "banging" sex. I assumed that most women are like me; I had no reason to think otherwise.
> 
> I'll have to think about this.


I didn't say we don't have a great time with it. Just that it's exceedingly rare for the majority of women to reach orgasm that way. Depending on which study you consult, the number ranges from about 75% to 85% (of women who require stimulation of *ahem* a certain other body part in order to get there).


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

ElHawk said:


> I didn't say we don't have a great time with it. Just that it's exceedingly rare for the majority of women to reach orgasm that way. Depending on which study you consult, the number ranges from about 75% to 85% (of women who require stimulation of *ahem* a certain other body part in order to get there).


Yep. Sorry, Betsy, but I'm gonna say: I write both things happening at once. That way it's exciting but realistic for a majority of my readers, and shows that my guy's as focused on the woman as he is on himself (which is why it's a fantasy, perhaps).

(And for everybody who commented/wants to comment about what women "should" do, how they "should" take control and not settle for, blah blah--this thread is about writing romance, primarily, or writing/not writing sex in whatever genre. It's less important what women "should" do and much more important what they actually do, fear, and wish for. I want to write something that resonates, and if it helps give them words to ask for what they want (i.e., to do what they "should," or to expect more?), that's a bonus. But if I want to SELL BOOKS, I'm going to write what they wish for, what they'd love, how a guy could help make them feel special and desired and cherished and lusted after and sexually fulfilled.)


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

ElHawk said:


> I didn't say we don't have a great time with it. Just that it's exceedingly rare for the majority of women to reach orgasm that way. Depending on which study you consult, the number ranges from about 75% to 85% (of women who require stimulation of *ahem* a certain other body part in order to get there).


----------



## angela65 (Oct 8, 2014)

Anarchist, this is probably my all-time favorite scene from Friends. Courteney Cox was brilliant.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Rosalind James said:


> Yep. Sorry, Betsy, but I'm gonna say: I write both things happening at once. That way it's exciting but realistic for a majority of my readers, and shows that my guy's as focused on the woman as he is on himself (which is why it's a fantasy, perhaps).


Sometimes the comments you make have me wondering about the type of men in your life. Are you just being cute, or have you really been with guys that didn't care one bit about your pleasure? Cause I only had that happen once in my life, and I was so shocked I seriously weighed my chances of getting away with murder. Cause in my head, decent men just aren't like that.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

kcmorgan said:


> Sometimes the comments you make have me wondering about the type of men in your life. Are you just being cute, or have you really been with guys that didn't care one bit about your pleasure? Cause I only had that happen once in my life, and I was so shocked I seriously weighed my chances of getting away with murder. Cause in my head, decent men just aren't like that.


See my comment above. For romance to sell, it has to resonate. It's not about me. It's about what women wish for, what they long for, what would be great to have. Considering that 80% of women have faked it and judging by my mail and reviews, I suspect I've got a reasonable handle on it.

Times have also changed. I think younger women (under 30) are able to be more communicative, and younger men may be more open to listening/doing different things. And yay for that. Most of my readership is married and over 30, though. Many of them are over 40, I suspect. I was just talking to my sister recently, and she was mentioning how many women she knows (we're over 50) are so glad when their husbands lose interest, because they've never enjoyed it. I know what attitudes were like when I was growing up and a young woman (until probably age 50, to tell you the truth). Books like FSoG, whatever you think of its literary value or the negative aspects of the relationship, opened things up a little even for older women.

Writing romance is as much sociology as anything else, I think.

Everybody else can write it how they want, though. That's the beauty of this job. You get to do it the way that you think works best.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Rosalind James said:


> See my comment above. For romance to sell, it has to resonate. It's not about me. It's about what women wish for, what they long for, what would be great to have. Considering that 80% of women have faked it and judging by my mail and reviews, I suspect I've got a reasonable handle on it.
> 
> Times have also changed. I think younger women (under 30) are able to be more communicative, and younger men may be more open to listening/doing different things. And yay for that. Most of my readership is married and over 30, though. Many of them are over 40, I suspect. I was just talking to my sister recently, and she was mentioning how many women she knows (we're over 50) are so glad when their husbands lose interest, because they've never enjoyed it. I know what attitudes were like when I was growing up and a young woman (until probably age 50). Books like FSoG, whatever you think of its literary value or the negative aspects of the relationship, opened things up a little even for older women.
> 
> ...


I wasn't suggesting you don't "get women", clearly you know what your fans want. I was more asking, "is this really a thing?" "Do enough guys act like this that it's a thing?" The guys I write care about their partner's happiness, but I never thought about it as some sort of wish-fulfillment, I thought of it as "that's how men are". And I realize my life experiences aren't a universal, so I was sincerely asking if you were making a joke or if that was really the norm and I've just been lucky not to realize it.

And yeah, I've heard that a lot of women fake it, but that doesn't necessarily mean most men don't care. The opposite actually, if they didn't care, there would be no need to fake it.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I don't think most guys care as much as the guys in my books care, no, or are as willing and able to work hard. Or are as sexy. 

I don't really know for sure. I know that readers tend to really like my guys, so I'm doing something right, and that something about that fantasy guy is appealing, so I have to assume that he's better than most guys in reality. Why would you read a romance if the guy wasn't sexier and better than most guys in reality? 

Maybe women who are extremely satisfied with their partners don't read romance, but I doubt that, actually. I do know that women who read romance have more sex than women who don't, but whether that's cause, effect, or both--who can say?


----------



## angela65 (Oct 8, 2014)

Rosalind,
Reading through this thread has been entertaining, to say the least. I've decided to write romance myself. Who doesn't need more romance in their lives?   Your posts have been very educational from a writing standpoint. A romance course in a few short pages.

After reading about your heroes, now I have to buy your books. They sound so yummy!


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Rosalind James said:


> I don't think most guys care as much as the guys in my books care, no, or are as willing and able to work hard. Or are as sexy.
> 
> I don't really know for sure. I know that readers tend to really like my guys, so I'm doing something right, and that something about that fantasy guy is appealing, so I have to assume that he's better than most guys in reality. Why would you read a romance if the guy wasn't sexier and better than most guys in reality?
> 
> Maybe women who are extremely satisfied with their partners don't read romance, but I doubt that, actually. I do know that women who read romance have more sex than women who don't, but whether that's cause, effect, or both--who can say?


I wouldn't say the male leads I adore are "better" than real guys. I'd say they are more exciting. But they are exciting in a way that if they were real they'd be in jail. There have been times where my stories are described as a "very romantic case of Stockholms" and I can't even argue with that assessment.

I love drama. Everything from Jerry Springer to pirate kidnappings, but only when it's not my drama. That's probably why I can love the romance that I do without wishing that my life was anything like that. I'd make a terrible hostage. _Kayci sobs uncontrollably until the last page. The end._


----------



## Elliott Kay (Jan 12, 2016)

Responding to several things:

Original question: My sci-fi has no real sex scenes (little pillow talk in books 1 and 3), and it sells noticeably better than my urban fantasy, which is both romantic and suuuuper smutty. Yes, there's a market for books without sex, even in the low-priced indies. "Sex or no sex" is a pretty minor consideration.

Comments on men not focusing on women's pleasure: This is a comment I've heard from women who are friends of mine and women I've dated. Yes, it's a real phenomenon. Too many guys get most of their practical sex ed from porn, and what's going on there is overwhelmingly slanted to please a male gaze. It's a real thing, and it's also one of the easiest ways a guy can separate himself out from other guys...once you get to that point, obviously. I mean wearing a t-shirt saying "I'm focused on YOUR pleasure first!" isn't likely to get you much interest. Honestly, I'm surprised whenever anyone is surprised.

As for writing romance/smut/pick your term: my urban fantasy is stuffed with romancey material and frequent talk about feelings...and my audience is predominantly male. My favorite reader reaction is that my books are like Anita Blake or True Blood with the genders reversed & healthier relationships. Turns out there are plenty of guys out there who want mushy love stories, too. There's a market for everything.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Elliott Kay said:


> Comments on men not focusing on women's pleasure: This is a comment I've heard from women who are friends of mine and women I've dated. Yes, it's a real phenomenon. Too many guys get most of their practical sex ed from porn, and what's going on there is overwhelmingly slanted to please a male gaze. It's a real thing, and it's also one of the easiest ways a guy can separate himself out from other guys...once you get to that point, obviously. I mean wearing a t-shirt saying "I'm focused on YOUR pleasure first!" isn't likely to get you much interest. Honestly, I'm surprised whenever anyone is surprised.


Color my worldview altered. Now I'm trying to figure out why my experiences are different. Maybe it's cause I'm 36 and access to porn when I was a kid meant 20 minutes in front of the beta max before someone's parents caught us. Not like today, when any smartphone will do. Or maybe cause my taste in men tends to be more towards sweet than confident, which is weird compared to my peers.

Very interesting. I'll have to think more on it.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

I think most men care about their partner's pleasure but romance heroes typically take it to the next level. They're a lot more goal oriented. That's all I can say without starting to get dirty.


----------



## kathrynoh (Oct 17, 2012)

I've met quite a few guys who don't care about their partners pleasure. Well, not that many... *blush* but I"m way over 36 yo! I think it can be due to a few things - inexperience, lack of technique or just plain selfishness. Maybe a bit of a cultural thing too. When I lived in Japan, I found guys there way, way focused on making sure you were happy before they started. But again, small sample size. 

I think that one of the big reasons for the success of Fifty Shades was not just the story itself but that woman could use it as a conversation starter. It's pretty tough to say to a guy that he's been doing it wrong for the last 10-20 years and far easier to ease into it by saying they'd read something they'd like to try in a wildly popular book.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

kathrynoh said:


> I think that one of the big reasons for the success of Fifty Shades was not just the story itself but that woman could use it as a conversation starter. It's pretty tough to say to a guy that he's been doing it wrong for the last 10-20 years and far easier to ease into it by saying they'd read something they'd like to try in a wildly popular book.


THIS. When I get those emails, I'm thrilled. It's not that a woman doesn't love her husband. It's just that she's missing out, and she knows it, and men's egos tend to be fragile.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> THIS. When I get those emails, I'm thrilled. It's not that a woman doesn't love her husband. It's just that she's missing out, and she knows it, and men's egos tend to be fragile.


That's the other big difference between romance heroes and regular guys. Romance heroes, even the cocky ones, don't let their egos get in the way of sex. And they tend to not have the insecurities that plague many regular guys.


----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Rosalind James said:


> THIS. When I get those emails, I'm thrilled. It's not that a woman doesn't love her husband. It's just that she's missing out, and she knows it, and men's egos tend to be fragile.


Oh, so it's not that they are heartless bastards, they just think they are hitting it out the park when they are really just bunting? That coupled with all the fake orgasms makes perfect sense now.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

kcmorgan said:


> Oh, so it's not that they are heartless [illegitimate persons], they just think they are hitting it out the park when they are really just bunting? That coupled with all the fake orgasms makes perfect sense now.


I don't know. Like I said, I think I know what, at least, many romance readers like to read (a guy who's focused on them and their pleasure and determined to give it to them), and I'm pretty sure that lots of them don't have it.

I also know that women don't talk much about this stuff, and that things like romance novels have (like porn for men) given them an unrealistic view of what sex should be and how they should respond, and that lots of them fear they don't measure up. I know that women who are among the 15-25% who get there the way (traditional) romance novels tell you, and women who get there waaaaaay more in a single session than average (which is something like 5-25%, depending what studies you believe) tend to assume that every woman can do that. And that women who CAN'T do either thing can also think that those other women are making it up.

So . . . whatever. I just write a guy I think is sexy, and a guy I'd want to marry, and a woman with vulnerabilities and fears. Fears that the hero is going to understand, and vulnerabilities that he's determined to make better. I mean, it's fiction. I get it. But to work, it has to touch something real in a reader, something she can identify with or at least empathize with. And perfect characters don't tend to touch that spot. Readers may be annoyed by imperfect characters, but they'll at least respond. They'll at least FEEL. And romance is about wanting to feel.


----------



## PityPityPity (Apr 10, 2016)

Thank you all so much for this conversation.

I write Fantasy with a strong romantic subplot but no explicit sex scenes -- I've tried, but I end up feeling self-conscious and the words just don't flow. I'm going to think about what you all have said and have another try.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

StormChild said:


> Thank you all so much for this conversation.
> 
> I write Fantasy with a strong romantic subplot but no explicit sex scenes -- I've tried, but I end up feeling self-conscious and the words just don't flow. I'm going to think about what you all have said and have another try.


Read different things at different levels, would be my advice. I wrote sexier than the tradpubbed books, because I enjoy the sex scenes a lot in them as long as 95% of the book is the romance. But I don't write any explicit body parts or physical descriptions of "life down below." Others write more of that, with euphemism or with body parts named. Just be aware you can go to many different levels once you open the bedroom door--whatever works for you.

I don't like hearing about where his tongue or his whatever is and what fluids there are and so forth. Kinda squicks me out to be honest. I prefer using my imagination that way. I want to know what act they're doing and how she's feeling. (Or how he is--I write from both POVs, but the less gentle it is, the more likely I am to write it from hers, so the reader is assured of full consent and enjoyment). Readers who like what I do say it's super-erotic but classy. Others say it's nasty or "just gentle loving with not much described." You won't please everyone no matter what you do, so write it in a way that you find sexy and would like to read, and there will be others who enjoy that particular level.

Or keep the door closed. I think poorly written sex is a lot worse than no sex. And you can do a LOT with sexual tension, teasing, and sexytalk.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

Rosalind James said:


> "life down below."


You can get special shampoos for that.


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)




----------



## kcmorgan (Jan 9, 2013)

Lydniz said:


> You can get special shampoos for that.


This is one of those moments I went reaching for the emoticons only to realize posts don't have them. So here, this is as close as I can get.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Ha, that was funny! I was just trying to stay on the right side of the cattle prod, using my creative-writing skillz.


----------



## FMH (May 18, 2013)

I think when the authors here say they make 5K easy without sex, it would be cool to quantify how many books they've got out. Just checked several and there's a ton in their accounts. One was 40. I hope you're making 5K a month at with 40 books! 

Sex is fun. But it's part of the story - it ain't everything. 

Kinda like life. 

And if it's PART of the story (I'm not talking about Erotica where it is most if not all of the story) then leaving it out because one can't talk about sex stuff makes me raise my eyebrow. Especially if you have little ones running around. A stork didn't bring them.

So...what's the big deal - because 12 pages in this thread - 12 heated pages that aren't heated from deep kisses and huge...is a big deal. Why so squeamish when we all want some good lovin.'


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

I'm one of those no sex scenes 5K a month people.

I have 6 novels, a novella, and three short stories in one series. (Soon adding another short story / novella--it's 12,000 words long.)

I have one book and a novella in another series. Soon to be TWO books in that series. Knock on wood.

One standalone short story; it makes nothing, but is very cute!

CG


----------



## NoCat (Aug 5, 2010)

95% of my income is from 7 books (one is perma-free).


----------



## Wayne Stinnett (Feb 5, 2014)

FMH said:


> I think when the authors here say they make 5K easy without sex, it would be cool to quantify how many books they've got out. Just checked several and there's a ton in their accounts. One was 40. I hope you're making 5K a month at with 40 books!
> 
> Sex is fun. But it's part of the story - it ain't everything.
> 
> ...


The nine in my sig line, plus the first in a spin-off series are all without sex, except for Fallen King, but that's a demented woman who kills during sex. They earn a minumum of five figures a month. My latest release (two days ago) will earn five figures by itself in May.


----------



## Redfox (Apr 26, 2016)

Lydniz said:


> You can get special shampoos for that.


So... like... I signed up to ask... any brand names you can recommend 
RF


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

Rosalind James said:


> "life down below."
> 
> 
> 
> ...


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Another thing to note: A sexy guy (because that's mainly what sells) isn't sexy so much because of all the banging they do and how explicitly you describe it. He's sexy because of how he moves, how he walks, how slowly he turns his head, how much he seems to know exactly what he's doing, even if he's not pushy AT ALL. ("Alpha" does not have to mean "jerk." It means "confident." Lots of my most alpha guys are soft-spoken and deliberate.) How he looks at the heroine, how he talks to her. How he takes up his space in the room, and how he draws energy toward him. 

You don't have to write sex to succeed big in romance. IMHO, you probably do have to be able to write some version or iteration of that guy.


----------



## blemmet (Jun 30, 2013)

Rosalind James said:


> Another thing to note: A sexy guy (because that's mainly what sells) isn't sexy so much because of all the banging they do and how explicitly you describe it. He's sexy because of how he moves, how he walks, how slowly he turns his head, how much he seems to know exactly what he's doing, even if he's not pushy AT ALL. ("Alpha" does not have to mean "jerk." It means "confident." Lots of my most alpha guys are soft-spoken and deliberate.) How he looks at the heroine, how he talks to her. How he takes up his space in the room, and how he draws energy toward him.
> 
> You don't have to write sex to succeed big in romance. IMHO, you probably do have to be able to write some version or iteration of that guy.


THIS. A thousand times this. ☺


----------



## BeMyBookBaby (Apr 18, 2016)

Anarchist said:


>


So I started this thread as a way of gaining confidence in my "steam-free" writing, and the potential earning power.

Instead I have learned so much about sex, feminism, plotting and laughed WAY too much. You guys rock. ESPECIALLY you, Anarchist, for this gif, and Lydniz for your snark. Where is the giggle emoticon? Y'all are disappointing me, Kboards, with your emoticon selection.


----------



## anniejocoby (Aug 11, 2013)

I'm reading this thread with interest, as I'm seriously considering, and have been for awhile, getting out of romance. I'm getting to the point where I just.cannot.write.another.gd.sex.scene. I mean, how many different ways can you describe it? The sex scenes slow me down considerably, as I'm starting to despise writing them, and, once I do start writing them, it's sheer tedium for me. After this next novel, I think I'm done for awhile. I might come back to romance and try my hand at "sweet" romance with the closed door. I don't know yet. More likely, I'm going to change genres altogether. I'm considering both urban fantasy and cozy mysteries. Can I do either of those genres without sex?


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

anniejocoby said:


> I'm reading this thread with interest, as I'm seriously considering, and have been for awhile, getting out of romance. I'm getting to the point where I just.cannot.write.another.gd.sex.scene. I mean, how many different ways can you describe it? The sex scenes slow me down considerably, as I'm starting to despise writing them, and, once I do start writing them, it's sheer tedium for me. After this next novel, I think I'm done for awhile. I might come back to romance and try my hand at "sweet" romance with the closed door. I don't know yet. More likely, I'm going to change genres altogether. I'm considering both urban fantasy and cozy mysteries. Can I do either of those genres without sex?


Cozy mysteries don't usually have sex from what I know.

This isn't really aimed at you as you clearly know what works for you, but for whoever else--I write steamy, but I write only 3 sex scenes, typically, in 100K. You don't have to write sex scene after sex scene to write steamy romance. My sex scenes are only 5% of the book. You also don't have to keep raising the bar. It's more important that there be urgency and connection and heat than that anything outlandish happens.

Typically, I'll write one almost-there, where maybe she's satisfied and he's not, one first time, and one more risque other time. Possibly one gentle time, not much described, a paragraph or two. Mostly the sex is between 50-70% of the book or 60-80%, because after that, for me, it has to shift back to being about the heart connection.

That obviously doesn't work for NA, erotic romance, paranormal, whatever. But it's worked very well for me in contemporary romance and romantic suspense. It even worked with my sexy romance, though there was a little more sex. A LOT of the sexyfeels weren't "doing it," though--they were about feelings and words and teasing rather than bodies. One of the sexiest parts is where he's touching her arms and saying sexy things (with no bad words). He hasn't even kissed her.

I know that readers get bored, also, reading sex scene after sex scene. Not all readers, but a sizable percentage of women who enjoy sex in books. So lead them up to it slowly and deliciously, satisfy them a few times, and then let them bask in the afterglow.

So to speak.


----------



## Amanda M. Lee (Jun 3, 2014)

anniejocoby said:


> I'm reading this thread with interest, as I'm seriously considering, and have been for awhile, getting out of romance. I'm getting to the point where I just.cannot.write.another.gd.sex.scene. I mean, how many different ways can you describe it? The sex scenes slow me down considerably, as I'm starting to despise writing them, and, once I do start writing them, it's sheer tedium for me. After this next novel, I think I'm done for awhile. I might come back to romance and try my hand at "sweet" romance with the closed door. I don't know yet. More likely, I'm going to change genres altogether. I'm considering both urban fantasy and cozy mysteries. Can I do either of those genres without sex?


If you try doing sex in cozy mysteries they'll boot you from the club before showing you the secret handshake. All sex stops at the door in cozies.


----------



## anniejocoby (Aug 11, 2013)

Amanda M. Lee said:


> If you try doing sex in cozy mysteries they'll boot you from the club before showing you the secret handshake. All sex stops at the door in cozies.


Good to know! Whatever genre I choose, I'm going to read a ton in so I can get a handle on it, but it's great to know that cozies demand no sex. What a relief!!!!


----------



## anniejocoby (Aug 11, 2013)

Rosalind James said:


> Cozy mysteries don't usually have sex from what I know.
> 
> This isn't really aimed at you as you clearly know what works for you, but for whoever else--I write steamy, but I write only 3 sex scenes, typically, in 100K. You don't have to write sex scene after sex scene to write steamy romance. My sex scenes are only 5% of the book. You also don't have to keep raising the bar. It's more important that there be urgency and connection and heat than that anything outlandish happens.
> 
> ...


That's great to know, Ros! If I do come back to romance, I'll probably do more like you're doing. It's good to know that you can get away with less sex in a straight contemporary romance book. My books are all more erotic romance, with some NA thrown in, and it's just...bleh. No mas. Enough. I keep wishing that NA would get away from sex, sex, sex, but it doesn't seem that it's going to anytime soon. That and the fact that I find misogynistic boy-men to be distasteful, and I don't like writing heroes like that, but you apparently have to in order to really succeed in the genre. There's just a lot that I don't like about the genre that is burning me out to the point where I haven't written much for months, aside from one really short novel that was like an addendum to my best-selling series, Broken, and I put two sex scenes in there, both super-short. Other than that, I can't bring myself to write a word. I definitely need a change of pace....


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

anniejocoby said:


> That's great to know, Ros! If I do come back to romance, I'll probably do more like you're doing. It's good to know that you can get away with less sex in a straight contemporary romance book. My books are all more erotic romance, with some NA thrown in, and it's just...bleh. No mas. Enough. I keep wishing that NA would get away from sex, sex, sex, but it doesn't seem that it's going to anytime soon. That and the fact that I find misogynistic boy-men to be distasteful, and I don't like writing heroes like that, but you apparently have to in order to really succeed in the genre. There's just a lot that I don't like about the genre that is burning me out to the point where I haven't written much for months, aside from one really short novel that was like an addendum to my best-selling series, Broken, and I put two sex scenes in there, both super-short. Other than that, I can't bring myself to write a word. I definitely need a change of pace....


Man, I don't blame you. I'd hate writing that too. I don't even want to read it. But you can write successful romance without it. My latest couple heroes are 33 and 37, and the 33-y-o is a widower with an 11-y-o daughter. I write guys who are definitely on the tough-but-tender side, and probably my readers' favorite hero is a mid-thirties widower with 2 kids. That book sold a LOT, and it was allll about family life, with recipes in the back--and three quite steamy scenes. (The fact that he was a 6'4", 250-lb. professional rugby player didn't hurt, though.)

I know the trends are all abouts the bad boys and all the sex, and I know writing to trend is a favorite thing for indies and I can see why, but . . . my non-trend books have had quite a long tail, and I get much better sellthrough across series than in my one trendy book. On that one, the alsobots are ALL books in the same trend. They just want to read another sexy billionaire book--so there's less author loyalty. And that author loyalty, that desire to read YOUR books and tell somebody else about YOUR books, is what makes a book take off, I think. So there's that aspect.


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

anniejocoby said:


> That's great to know, Ros! If I do come back to romance, I'll probably do more like you're doing. It's good to know that you can get away with less sex in a straight contemporary romance book. My books are all more erotic romance, with some NA thrown in, and it's just...bleh. No mas. Enough. I keep wishing that NA would get away from sex, sex, sex, but it doesn't seem that it's going to anytime soon. That and the fact that I find misogynistic boy-men to be distasteful, and I don't like writing heroes like that, but you apparently have to in order to really succeed in the genre. There's just a lot that I don't like about the genre that is burning me out to the point where I haven't written much for months, aside from one really short novel that was like an addendum to my best-selling series, Broken, and I put two sex scenes in there, both super-short. Other than that, I can't bring myself to write a word. I definitely need a change of pace....


NA is flooded with trendy books that aren't true NA. It's a bummer. Most popular NA is pretty sexy but I don't think you have to write immature guys. I certainly wouldn't write a misogynistic guy.

My NA series does well with heroes who are relatively mature (for their age. They're still in their early 20s so they lack some widsom relative to much older heroes). Some of them are overly cocky or unfair in the terms they set for the relationship or overly hot and cold or too pushy, but you've got to have some character development. The guy can't be perfect at the start.


----------



## EvanPickering (Mar 8, 2016)

Rosalind James said:


> Another thing to note: A sexy guy (because that's mainly what sells) isn't sexy so much because of all the banging they do and how explicitly you describe it. He's sexy because of how he moves, how he walks, how slowly he turns his head, how much he seems to know exactly what he's doing, even if he's not pushy AT ALL. ("Alpha" does not have to mean "jerk." It means "confident." Lots of my most alpha guys are soft-spoken and deliberate.) How he looks at the heroine, how he talks to her. How he takes up his space in the room, and how he draws energy toward him.
> 
> You don't have to write sex to succeed big in romance. IMHO, you probably do have to be able to write some version or iteration of that guy.


This is very much what I imagined to be true about romance. Intuitively, it's similar to what guys find sexy about girls in a story (or at least, from my perspective). Sure, there's how she looks which is obviously important. But honestly too much description of a woman's body feels kinda cheap to me. It's more about how she presents herself; feminine yet independent, intelligent and with emotional depth/complexity. Female characters I've felt most attracted to in stories often was because of _how_ they were throughout the story.

It's awesome getting to hear from the writer's perspective, and all in all I'm really glad for all the romance-writing discussion in this thread, it's just awesome to get the female romance-writer's point of view of how and why.

There's romantic threads in my novel, one sex scene, which is basically just passionate foreplay then fade-out. Even though it is post-apoc and pretty graphic at times, it's funny--I didn't feel comfortable writing a graphic sex scene. Doing so would feel gratuitous and... inappropriate? because the scene was from the guy's point of view. I don't know, but I'd way rather fade-out. I don't know if I've read any post-apoc novels with explicit sex scenes. It's kinda funny, we'll show brains being blown out but we won't show the down and dirty hahaha.

Anyway, thanks for sharing your perspectives on romance...It's invaluable to me


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

EvanPickering said:


> It's kinda funny, we'll show brains being blown out but we won't show the down and dirty hahaha.


So you'll show brains being blown out but you won't show brains being f-ed out 

(Sorry Betsy, I had to go there).


----------



## kathrynoh (Oct 17, 2012)

I don't write a lot of sex in my books. Not from intention but that's just how it ends up. Because I use the enemies to lovers trope a lot and write in a series, it seems inappropriate to have too much sex in book 1 when the couple haven't acknowledged their feelings for each other. Then I feel like the heat level for the next books should stay around the same. Maybe I'd sell more if I had more sex in my books but who knows?


----------



## EvanPickering (Mar 8, 2016)

Crystal_ said:


> So you'll so brains being blown out but you won't show brains being f-ed out
> 
> (Sorry Betsy, I had to go there).


hahahahah WP miss. I wanted to go there (in a bit more of an explicit way for the lulz) but I decided to restrain myself. That one made me LOL though


----------



## PearlEarringLady (Feb 28, 2014)

I love this thread. I hope it goes on and on for 200 pages. It's like sitting in a wine bar with a bunch of girlfriends having a drink or three and chatting about blokes and having a good laugh. And the occasional bloke wanders in and then wanders out again, slightly bemused. 

And I've learned a huge amount about writing romance, which is awesome, since I'm currently working on a series of traditional (ie clean) Regency romances for release later this year. So thanks, everyone.


----------



## RinG (Mar 12, 2013)

I was a bit nervous about writing a 6 part PNR serial with only 3 sex scenes. I've read a lot that says you need at least 1 sex scene per part, but it just didn't fit with the story. To my surprise, I haven't had any complaints. People have even described the books as "hot".

Of course, my sales aren't through the roof or anything. 

I'm really loving this thread though, and all the shares. Very educational.


----------



## Abalone (Jan 31, 2014)

Rinelle Grey said:


> I was a bit nervous about writing a 6 part PNR serial with only 3 sex scenes. I've read a lot that says you need at least 1 sex scene per part, but it just didn't fit with the story. To my surprise, I haven't had any complaints. People have even described the books as "hot".
> 
> Of course, my sales aren't through the roof or anything.
> 
> I'm really loving this thread though, and all the shares. Very educational.


I remember your numbers thread from last month. I believe the market of buyers has shifted away from paranormal romance or I'm wrong and it's simply a matter of competition plus time between releases.


----------



## A.E. Wasp (Jan 24, 2015)

I am also loving this discussion. It's been interesting for me particularly because I only write m/m or f/f romances. I do write fairly explicit sex scenes because I like them, I'm good at it, and what little fan base I have likes and expects them. 

The audience for m/m, as I'm sure you all know, is mostly straight women. I know many lesbian writers of m/m fiction. So that's the 'gaze' I write from. Straight women looking at men and I try to make it hot/sexy/true for them.

The lesbian audience is mostly lesbian & bi women. They have a different aesthetic, visually and textually (is that a thing? Can you have a textual aesthetic? You know what I mean). So the dynamics in the sex  scenes and the romance is a little different.

I had a straight male editor for this past book. And I noticed the changes he did to the sex scenes. He added the word 'rod' as a euphamism, and spelled come with a u. And it really disturbed me, pulled me out of the story. So we talked a little about what the difference was between porn and erotic romance.

I haven't written a m/f romance yet. Not sure if I will, but I'll be sure to read all y'alls books to get an idea of how it goes!


----------



## Crystal_ (Aug 13, 2014)

A.E. Wasp said:


> I had a straight male editor for this past book. And I noticed the changes he did to the sex scenes. He added the word 'rod' as a euphamism, and spelled come with a u. And it really disturbed me, pulled me out of the story. So we talked a little about what the difference was between porn and erotic romance.


Yes, to me that u is the difference between romance and porn. I can't stand the u! Both my critique partners are former erotica writers, so they are always spelling with a u in their notes and I cringe every time.


----------



## Veronica Sicoe (Jun 21, 2015)

Crystal_ said:


> Yes, to me that u is the difference between romance and porn. I can't stand the u! Both my critique partners are former erotica writers, so they are always spelling with a u in their notes and I cringe every time.


Now this is definitely a fine distinction I have never thought of. Very good to know.

Hands down the BEST thread on KBoards, apart from the number sharing ones.


----------



## A.E. Wasp (Jan 24, 2015)

Crystal_ said:


> Yes, to me that u is the difference between romance and porn. I can't stand the u! Both my critique partners are former erotica writers, so they are always spelling with a u in their notes and I cringe every time.


Down with the U! Yeah, it is a big thing.


----------



## Anarchist (Apr 22, 2015)

A.E. Wasp said:


> Down with the U! Yeah, it is a big thing.


Must... resist... making... joke...


----------



## A.E. Wasp (Jan 24, 2015)

Anarchist said:


> Must... resist... making... joke...


Do it, Or do it in a message.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

A.E. Wasp said:


> I had a straight male editor for this past book. And I noticed the changes he did to the sex scenes. He added the word 'rod' as a euphamism, and spelled come with a u. And it really disturbed me, pulled me out of the story. So we talked a little about what the difference was between porn and erotic romance.


Off-topic, but . . . why would an editor be changing your words? I expect an editor to comment if something is confusing, if she doesn't understand a character's motivations, etc. Changing words like that would be a Trip to All Caps for me.


----------



## A.E. Wasp (Jan 24, 2015)

Rosalind James said:


> Off-topic, but . . . why would an editor be changing your words? I expect an editor to comment if something is confusing, if she doesn't understand a character's motivations, etc. Changing words like that would be a Trip to All Caps for me.


We had a nice talk back and forth about what we could each expect and what I looked for in an editor. It was our first time working together. I probably won't use him again. Really nice guy, easy to work with, but besides the aforementioned things, there were exclamation marks added. I knew they were added because I almost never use them. And he changed my 'said' a couple of time to words I would never have used in this context, like 'hollered." Not a common word in my lexicon. Don't think I've ever used it, at least not without it being followed by "up the stairs". Done it, I'm sure.

This was my first experience with a paid editor. Now I know a little more what I need. And he did make some excellent suggestions.


----------



## Guest (May 5, 2016)

A.E. Wasp said:


> And he changed my 'said' a couple of time to words I would never have used in this context, like 'hollered."


HUGE. RED. FLAG.

An editor shouldn't be changing your words. Just no. Making suggestions, asking for clarification, pointing out repetition- yes.

But changing a said (which is invisible) into a telling tag would have me pulling the plug on that relationship.


----------



## Guest (May 5, 2016)

Rinelle Grey said:


> I was a bit nervous about writing a 6 part PNR serial with only 3 sex scenes.


I love Elizabeth Hunter's PNRs and would describe them as "hot" but the very few sex scenes she has, are focused on the emotional side as opposed to the physical (insert tab A into slot B). I think she balances it really well.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Rosalind James said:


> Another thing to note: A sexy guy (because that's mainly what sells) isn't sexy so much because of all the banging they do and how explicitly you describe it. He's sexy because of how he moves, how he walks, how slowly he turns his head, how much he seems to know exactly what he's doing, even if he's not pushy AT ALL. ("Alpha" does not have to mean "jerk." It means "confident." Lots of my most alpha guys are soft-spoken and deliberate.) How he looks at the heroine, how he talks to her. How he takes up his space in the room, and how he draws energy toward him.
> 
> You don't have to write sex to succeed big in romance. IMHO, you probably do have to be able to write some version or iteration of that guy.


Quoting myself to say--I watched two "Wolverine" movies and one X-Men movie on the flight from NZ yesterday. Hugh Jackman in any role, but esp. as Wolverine--^ ^ ^--there you go. That's the guy. Holy tender side, Batman. And when he finally kisses the girl--Bow chicka wow wow. They don't have to show you the sex for you to know it's hot.

When he's on screen, you WATCH HIM. Look at the controlled, deliberate way he moves (well, when he's not killing things), at his face, the way it doesn't have big expressions, but is controlled. The way he faces up to something when it's going south. He's not some out-of-control bad boy, he's an under-control, strong, uberprotective man with a sensitive side.

That's my guy! Research right there!


----------



## Guest (May 5, 2016)

A.E. Wasp said:


> ...there were exclamation marks added. I knew they were added because I almost never use them....


That almost sounds like you had to hunt for the changes? Did he not use track changes so you could easily see and accept/reject them?


----------



## Abalone (Jan 31, 2014)

Rosalind, I always love reading your posts.  

I have to add that the C word with the U and then the M will always make me think of something pornographic. The first time I encountered "come" or "came" for that word, I was confused until I looked up the reasoning behind it. It makes a lot of sense to me now. I feel the more vulgar form of the word would instantly turn off many if not all readers.


----------



## NoBlackHats (Oct 17, 2012)

Rosalind James said:


> And when he finally kisses the girl--Bow chicka wow wow. They don't have to show you the sex for you to know it's hot.


Rosalind, just the fact that you typed out the words "bow chicka wow wow" has completely MADE MY DAY


----------



## Shelley K (Sep 19, 2011)

A.E. Wasp said:


> We had a nice talk back and forth about what we could each expect and what I looked for in an editor. It was our first time working together. I probably won't use him again. Really nice guy, easy to work with, but besides the aforementioned things, there were exclamation marks added. I knew they were added because I almost never use them. And he changed my 'said' a couple of time to words I would never have used in this context, like 'hollered." Not a common word in my lexicon. Don't think I've ever used it, at least not without it being followed by "up the stairs". Done it, I'm sure.
> 
> This was my first experience with a paid editor. Now I know a little more what I need. And he did make some excellent suggestions.


Oh no, no, no. That person shouldn't be allowed near anybody's prose, sorry.


----------



## Dhewco (Apr 10, 2016)

Thanks to the OP for posting the question. I don't think I could write romance. I was brought up Mormon by loving parents who wouldn't discuss sex at all. I had no role models (for romance/sex) except my marijuana smoking brother-in-law and I didn't like him. I could probably sue Steve Carell for that movie he made (the one where he waxed his chest, lol). 

The closest I've gotten to reading romance is Phylis Whitney or V.C. Andrews. (I read them because my mother had their books and they had kids my age as some of the characters. I thought I would relate.) Stuff like that are the reasons why I don't write romance. The closest I've come is when I wrote an alternative history novel about Edward V and had him marry a French princess and I based their romance on the fantasy novels by David Eddings...his two romances Belgarion and C'Nedra and Sparkhawk and Ehlana. I'm not sure how well I pulled it off. I lost the novel in a computer crash. 

Anyway, I've since gotten away with not having romance by writing characters 12-14yo and not having them in situations where there's young love. However, a new thriller wip has a detective beginning to fall for his partner and I'm winging it. Maybe it's time to dig out the later Andrews' novels? LOL.


----------



## chalice (Jan 5, 2013)

Rosalind James said:


> Quoting myself to say--I watched two "Wolverine" movies and one X-Men movie on the flight from NZ yesterday. Hugh Jackman in any role, but esp. as Wolverine--^ ^ ^--there you go. That's the guy. Holy tender side, Batman. And when he finally kisses the girl--Bow chicka wow wow. They don't have to show you the sex for you to know it's hot.
> 
> When he's on screen, you WATCH HIM. Look at the controlled, deliberate way he moves (well, when he's not killing things), at his face, the way it doesn't have big expressions, but is controlled. The way he faces up to something when it's going south. He's not some out-of-control bad boy, he's an under-control, strong, uberprotective man with a sensitive side.
> 
> That's my guy! Research right there!


*Sorry Rosalind I get where you are coming from, but Wolverine does not do anything for me. I only care about him when he is slicing and dicing things. However I will say I loved when he fought my girl Kelly Hu in the second X-Men movie. She played the part of Yuriko Oyama / Lady Deathstrike. Petty they did not end up together. Maybe then I could look at him differently.

Gorgeous Lucky B,
Shana Jahsinta Walters.*


----------



## Abalone (Jan 31, 2014)

It's been ages for me, but young love at middle grade was akin to sharing a grilled cheese sandwich during snack periods.


----------



## EvanPickering (Mar 8, 2016)

Re: Editors

It's so damn hard finding a good one, it seems. I think also about changing words, it depends on what you're paying them for. If it's line edits, then they should be changing words. And fixing grammar etc. If it's pure content/idea edit then yeah he's overstepping..

But in general, I think it's really helpful to have a [good] editor change some of the words. Often I'll just change it back if it stylistically doesn't fit, but that will commonly lead to me re-writing the sentence in a more compact, clear or powerful way becuase I see what the editor is driving at.

I will admit very often I looked at the way my editor wrote things and just knew it wouldn't fly with my style, but honestly she was almost always right about the content or delivery of what she was trying to re-write. And that's what really matters IMO.

/tangent


----------



## A.E. Wasp (Jan 24, 2015)

Anma Natsu said:


> That almost sounds like you had to hunt for the changes? Did he not use track changes so you could easily see and accept/reject them?


No, he did. I accidentally checked accept all changes in the middle of reviewing it.  Human error. The worst part of any system.


----------



## A.E. Wasp (Jan 24, 2015)

Dhewco said:


> Thanks to the OP for posting the question. I don't think I could write romance. I was brought up Mormon by loving parents who wouldn't discuss sex at all. I had no role models (for romance/sex)


For me, romance is all about the connection between the characters. That's the heart of it and if you create these three-dimensional characters with a strong connection, the romance is there. I read a very emotional, moving love story where the main character was aromantic. I think romance is one of those loaded words, like love and god, etc. I want my main characters (ones that I write and the ones in stories I read) to love each other in some way, to have a strong connection. Like Frodo and Sam in LOTR.

Obviously, if you are marketing something as a romance or a romance subgenre, you are promising things to your readers. And you need to deliver or people will be pissed. But that's no reason to be scared of it. It's a great place to explore and show growth in your characters, and characters growing and learning from their mistakes and how they impact other people is one of the best things about stories.

Sex isn't necessary, certainly graphic on-screen sex isn't usually necessary for a story. Even in my one story (paranormal romance) where the events are set in motion *because* of the physical sex act, I didn't have to write it the way I did. I just like to.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

EvanPickering said:


> Re: Editors
> 
> It's so damn hard finding a good one, it seems. I think also about changing words, it depends on what you're paying them for. If it's line edits, then they should be changing words. And fixing grammar etc. If it's pure content/idea edit then yeah he's overstepping..
> 
> ...


I have three rounds of developmental/line editing, copy editing, and proofreading on all my Montlake books. Never, in four books, has the editor changed a word unless it's an obvious typo. It's ALWAYS a comment/query. It should always be a comment/query IMHO. At least for my books. I edit my stuff as I go, and by the time I finish, I've been over each sentence probably 20 times. What I wrote is what I want. I'll listen to a good editor's comment about how it reads confusing or whatever, but a big NO WAY on the changing words. She may even have a suggested change--I almost never take it. I'll take the meaning of it and rewrite the sentence. There's a reason I'm the author.

I did have one overzealous proofreader (proofreader!) on Book 1 who changed words. I complained to Montlake, and they offered to take the book back and have it re-proofed if I wanted. I was halfway through, so I said no and just merrily stet-ed away 80% of the changes.


----------



## EvanPickering (Mar 8, 2016)

Rosalind James said:


> I have three rounds of developmental/line editing, copy editing, and proofreading on all my Montlake books. Never, in four books, has the editor changed a word unless it's an obvious typo. It's ALWAYS a comment/query. It should always be a comment/query IMHO. At least for my books. I edit my stuff as I go, and by the time I finish, I've been over each sentence probably 20 times. What I wrote is what I want. I'll listen to a good editor's comment about how it reads confusing or whatever, but a big NO WAY on the changing words. She may even have a suggested change--I almost never take it. I'll take the meaning of it and rewrite the sentence. There's a reason I'm the author.
> 
> I did have one overzealous proofreader (proofreader!) on Book 1 who changed words. I complained to Montlake, and they offered to take the book back and have it re-proofed if I wanted. I was halfway through, so I said no and just merrily stet-ed away 80% of the changes.


So you don't even allow track changes? That's why I did with my editor. If I didn't want it, I denied the change, and rewrote it as I saw necessary. Sometimes I approved it if I felt it was in line with my style and content. Maybe it's just me but I feel like I'd miss some good line by line insight without track changes. Granted the BIG changes came from her general notes about the book, and I rewrote most of the book when it was done anyway so many of her line changes didn't matter anyway. But I felt I learned something from every line change even if I didn't keep the changes. I think that's what I found most valuable was the teaching-myself-to-fish part of it.


----------



## journeymama (May 30, 2011)

All I have to say is that this is a very inspiring thread. Thanks for sharing, you successful, brilliant authors!


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

EvanPickering said:


> So you don't even allow track changes? That's why I did with my editor. If I didn't want it, I denied the change, and rewrote it as I saw necessary. Sometimes I approved it if I felt it was in line with my style and content. Maybe it's just me but I feel like I'd miss some good line by line insight without track changes. Granted the BIG changes came from her general notes about the book, and I rewrote most of the book when it was done anyway so many of her line changes didn't matter anyway. But I felt I learned something from every line change even if I didn't keep the changes. I think that's what I found most valuable was the teaching-myself-to-fish part of it.


Sure, they do everything with track changes. But if there's a word repetition, for example, the editor will highlight both words and put "repetition" in a comment, so I know to fix one. She won't change one of them herself.

I thought about it, and the thing is--I was a copyeditor/editorial supervisor for 10+ years, so I don't need grammar correx or whatever. If I did, I'm sure the editor would be changing my words to fix the grammar. I shouldn't have been so sweeping in my statement.


----------



## RinG (Mar 12, 2013)

A.E. Wasp said:


> No, he did. I accidentally checked accept all changes in the middle of reviewing it.  Human error. The worst part of any system.


In this case, you can open up your original document, and compare the two, and there's a word function that will mark all the differences between the two.


----------



## Abalone (Jan 31, 2014)

There is? I've always used a third-party online service. *scratches head* But I did learn about inline editing in Word a few weeks ago. *Beaming smile*


----------



## Guest (May 7, 2016)

AA2014 said:


> There is? I've always used a third-party online service. *scratches head* But I did learn about inline editing in Word a few weeks ago. *Beaming smile*


Yep, it works fairly well 

Open Word (without opening a document) and go to the Review ribbon (if in newer word, the Review pane if in older). There should be a button labeled "Compare" with two options - Compare and Combine. Hit Compare and then select the two versions in the pop up. You can customize the label of differences from document 2, if you want.

Hit more if you want to change the configurations (actually lots of options there - like you can ignore formatting differences or the like). Hit okay, Word may appear to flash close a moment (normal), then it will pop up on screen with the compared version showing the changes plus the two original. The compare version will have changes set up with tracked changes so you can accept/reject as desired


----------



## EvanPickering (Mar 8, 2016)

Rosalind James said:


> Sure, they do everything with track changes. But if there's a word repetition, for example, the editor will highlight both words and put "repetition" in a comment, so I know to fix one. She won't change one of them herself.
> 
> I thought about it, and the thing is--I was a copyeditor/editorial supervisor for 10+ years, so I don't need grammar correx or whatever. If I did, I'm sure the editor would be changing my words to fix the grammar. I shouldn't have been so sweeping in my statement.


Hahaha it's okay, sweep away! I like hearing how other people do things, I was just surprised to hear people say editors can't touch lines!
Man, must be nice to have the grammar on lockdown. 10,000 hrs do ya good heheh 
One day I won't make grammar mistakes. Or so I tell myself lols


----------



## RomanceAuthor (Aug 18, 2014)

Rosalind James said:


> the 33-y-o is a widower with an 11-y-o daughter.


which one is that? I must have missed it )


----------



## Betsy the Quilter (Oct 27, 2008)

Rosalind James said:


> Quoting myself to say--I watched two "Wolverine" movies and one X-Men movie on the flight from NZ yesterday. Hugh Jackman in any role, but esp. as Wolverine--^ ^ ^--there you go. That's the guy. Holy tender side, Batman. And when he finally kisses the girl--Bow chicka wow wow. They don't have to show you the sex for you to know it's hot.
> 
> When he's on screen, you WATCH HIM. Look at the controlled, deliberate way he moves (well, when he's not killing things), at his face, the way it doesn't have big expressions, but is controlled. The way he faces up to something when it's going south. He's not some out-of-control bad boy, he's an under-control, strong, uberprotective man with a sensitive side.
> 
> That's my guy! Research right there!


Not to derail the thread, but we do have a Hugh Jackman thread...he's the patron saint of KBorads...

http://www.kboards.com/index.php/topic,7114.0.html


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Checked out the special thread and it was special!

My book with the widower etc is TAKE ME BACK (Montlake). Dec 2016. Worth waiting for I hope. Good hero! Four sex scenes in 145k words, but they were necessary. He has to show her he's good at pool, right? And then they got hot. 

Anyway, the sex is one small part but an important part of their connection. I liked what it brought to the (pool) table. Plus it was fun and they both really deserved it.


----------

