# Sweet/Clean Romance Authors



## RoryB (Nov 14, 2016)

Hey there. I'm just joining up and starting on my journey. I've been lurking her for a bit. So I'm excited to finally dip my toes in the water. I've looked around and sort of stalked your threads (  ) and I've learned a lot. 

I write sweet/clean romance (though I hate to use that word to describe is as I don't think the steamy romances are dirty or anything) and I was wondering if there were any other writers of that niche genre who I could connect with as I wrote my book and got it up to publishing shape. I know how important it is to get second opinions and to have friends in the genre. So, I guess this is me looking for friends. 

Can't wait to meet you guys


----------



## PearlEarringLady (Feb 28, 2014)

Hi RoryB, and welcome to Kboards! You're in the right place to learn about every aspect of self-publishing.

I write Regency romances, which I describe as traditional - I don't like the term 'clean', either! I don't know of any groups specifically for the non-steamy sub-genre, apart from one FB group for historicals that's not very active. However, for romance generally, I can recommend Romance Divas at http://forums.romancedivas.com/. Therein lies everything romance!

If anyone else knows of any groups for us non-steamy authors, I'd love to hear about them too!


----------



## Elizabeth S. (Oct 20, 2016)

I write sweet romance under a pen name and would love to connect with other writers who do as well! Mine is in the vein of Debbie Macomber, and I'm still working on getting my first book ready for publication. 

If you ever need a beta reader, shoot me a message.


----------



## Liadan (May 15, 2015)

Thanks for starting this thread, RoryB!  I'm just starting revisions on my first book in "clean" romance and have been lurking at KBoards for a while, too, trying to learn as much as I can and just starting to connect with people.  I'm really grateful for the links to those groups.  I write romantic suspense, and am still trying to figure out the boundaries of "clean" and "sweet" as well...

I have more experience writing / editing nonfiction than fiction, but I'm happy to beta read as well.


----------



## Matt.Banks (May 5, 2016)

Just last night I listened to the Self Publishing Roundtable's interview with 'clean and wholesome' writer Susan C Daffron. So this topic is very appropriate!

I don't like the term "clean and wholesome". "Clean" I can understand but the wholesome part? What does that even mean? It feels like a value judgement.

Anyway, I write fantasy romance, and there is mild cursing, violence and there is definitely sex, it just takes place behind closed doors. But there are also a couple of instances where the character(s) think about sex or talk about their sexual attractions/desires. Nothing is graphic, it's all pretty tame in my opinion, but would that count as clean?

It seems the Clean and Wholesome category is mostly contemporary or historical romance, would readers respond well to romance/paranormal as well? The category is pretty new so time will tell what resonates with readers.

This also brings up a question I've had for the longest. I've read some "New Adult" books, and yes, so far, all of them have been steamy but is there a market for New Adult books that aren't steamy? In my mind, New Adult is an age range, like Middle Grade or Young Adult, and not a heat level, but would it be sabotage to categorize a books as New Adult when the sex is all fade to black?


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

Matt.Banks said:


> I don't like the term "clean and wholesome". "Clean" I can understand but the wholesome part? What does that even mean? It feels like a value judgement.


The newer terms came from Christian romance expanding. Here are some pretty good rules of thumb:

Clean = No sex, little to no cursing, and little to no violence (may or may not have Christian values AND may or may not be explicitly religious) 
Wholesome = No sex, cursing, or violence (will have Christian values, but not explicitly religious) 
Inspirational = No sex, cursing, or violence (is explicitly religious)

Although, you will see A LOT of crossover categorizing.


----------



## Contrarian (Oct 12, 2016)

Nice to find other sweet book writers. I've seen so few of them, I sometimes think I'm the only one around.

I write sweet, traditional Regency romantic comedies that sometimes contain fantasy, paranormal or science fiction. There's some mild swearing, my characters definitely think about sex, and they're doing it behind closed doors. They may be some mild violence. Pretty tame stuff.

I don't like the "clean" and "wholesome" labels, and I don't use those keywords, either, because I don't want to go into the Inspirational category. Unfortunately, there isn't a category for sweet romances. I wish there was.


Linda


----------



## 69959 (May 14, 2013)

Charmaine said:


> The newer terms came from Christian romance expanding. Here are some pretty good rules of thumb:
> 
> Clean = No sex, little to no cursing, and little to no violence (may or may not have Christian values AND may or may not be explicitly religious)
> Wholesome = No sex, cursing, or violence (will have Christian values, but not explicitly religious)
> Inspirational = No sex, cursing, or violence (is explicitly religious)


No wonder there's so much confusion! I think that's why I've gone with the term "sweet romance" although mine are in the clean & wholesome category.


----------



## writer-artist-mom (Feb 21, 2015)

My books are fantasy/romance and while there is violence, the romance only goes as far as kissing.

As a reader, I love finding books that have more than just one kiss, and preferably a good makeout but still have the sex (if any) behind closed doors. It's really hard to find, because most clean romance books have a barely-there kiss which is disappointing to me personally, but I also don't want to read the steamy parts that most non-clean romance books have.


----------



## Alpaca Lou (Mar 14, 2016)

LilyBLily said:


> Here's a question: Perusing dear old Amazon recently, I saw a lot of mail order brides books in westerns, evidently historical, maybe contemporary. Know anything about this trend?


I also find it pretty interesting that there are so many mail order bride romance novels lately. Here's my take...

A lot of today's dating starts off on websites and apps, where you're clicking and swiping through a sea of humanity making yes/no decisions about people based mainly on their photo. It feels like there's infinite possibility, but it also feels shallow and superficial. It can also feel very hard to commit since there are so many other people just one swipe away. So someone might want to wait for that magical nonexistent perfect person, and end up with lots of frustration.

The mail order bride books are almost the exact opposite of internet dating; they've committed before they even know each other! I think people like the idea of being matched up with someone (who is wonderful and who one is super compatible with, even if it doesn't seem like that at first) and be kind of socially expected to make things work. It's also interesting because many romance novels _end_ with an engagement or marriage - in these books that happens towards the _beginning_ and it's just the beginning of their journey.

And then the other thing is that these books usually incorporate the theme of moving from a boring life to a more rustic, and/or affluent one. Everybody likes it when the peasant gets to move to a fancy castle!  (Except the handsome baron's mother, who wants him to marry this princess who is very beautiful but also cold and cruel, just like her.)


----------



## Shanna Moncuse (Jan 26, 2016)

Would anyone here have a few suggestions of sweet/clean romance reads? I have a sister who is really into romance, so I'd be happy to surprise her with some new books!


----------



## Charmaine (Jul 20, 2012)

LilyBLily said:


> Also, to be blunt, I'm not writing for a born-again Christian audience, or even a Christian audience as such. I have heard tales of judgemental people going around 1-starring books they consider not "clean" enough for their tastes; I do not want to attract them by using terms they consider their own. I recently had to ask Amazon to remove one of my books from being listed in the inspirational category. How it got there, I do not know.


The 1*s do happen, but I've mostly noticed them only on historicals and the complaint was more that it was anachronistic than anything else.

My best advice is to call it a Sweet Romance. Sweet has no religious connotations and the audience tolerates a wide range of sensuality as long as it's not graphic.

I should also mention that most authors targeting the clean/wholesome/inspirational/sweet readers USUALLY have a heat rating/ advisory at the end of their blurbs.

*I believe using the keyword 'clean' puts you in inspirational.



Eliza Marie Jones said:


> My books are fantasy/romance and while there is violence, the romance only goes as far as kissing.
> 
> As a reader, I love finding books that have more than just one kiss, and preferably a good makeout but still have the sex (if any) behind closed doors. It's really hard to find, because most clean romance books have a barely-there kiss which is disappointing to me personally, but I also don't want to read the steamy parts that most non-clean romance books have.


I read all heat levels, but what you described is my favorite one, too!  Those books so hard to find! I usually just stumble into them by happy accident.


----------



## farrago (Oct 29, 2013)

Oh, Glory! I appreciate this thread. I usually keep my mouth shut. So, it is nice to have a voice for a change. I write bedroom scenes but no body parts. I know my audience. We all know where the body parts go so I don't give them an anatomy lesson. If it helps, I'll share a few review comments on my books.

"This is a sweet, clean romance with a little angst thrown in, but nothing that turns the joy of turning pages off. Highly recommend!"
"Finally found a romance author who doesn't write 3-4 pages detailing the sex."
"It's one of the best romance novels I've read. So tastefully told. It goes to show you that there's no need to be so racy, or trashy, porn-like if you've a truly a good story to tell."
"I am also a fan of how [author] writes romance without all of the details that are unnecessary to understand the passion between two people."
"A perfect mix of tears and laughter, it is so much more than a romance. It is sensual without being too much sex."
"If you love your romance with a beautiful and well thought out story, characters older than teens/twenties, and sex to be sensual not crass..."

Well...that's enough of that. But it speaks to readers who will and do enjoy a good story sans ripe sex. I don't use vulgarities or the eff bomb. Not going there. I think I used sh*t once in stream of conscious. It fit, so I left it. I don't write religious overtones, but a character, especially with children will speak to going to church or going to heaven. My characters get intimate before marriage. As a rule I make a point of safe sex, using condoms. I write what the story calls for. I do have a pair of subcharacters of alternate life styles. I don't allow anyone~editor, proofreader or another author get in the way of that. Not. I put one book in Classic category. Other times I just list them as contemporary or women's fiction or general fiction, and only put romance in the key words. Another I put in humor. However for promo sites, I'm restricted pretty much to romance. Sometimes, women's fiction.

I can share this: There is an audience for well-written relationship/romance novels sans sex on every page. But I don't write to trends. I don't write series either. My forte is stand alone. Sometimes I go overboard on the pathos.

All of my units, the few I have published, are in Select. I don't trade reviews or critique. But I do promote and co promote romance along with other genres my colleagues write: sci-fi, cozies, mysteries, historicals. No erotica. I respect an author's choice of what to write, but our audiences are different. I don't trade reviews or buy reviews. I'll share this too. I don't associate with indie authors who skirt Amazon's rules because I am not going to jeopardize my books. I'm not a best selling author, don't pretend to be, but I usually have a book in the money most months. Depends upon my promotion schedule and what my ordinary life throws at me.

I love to co-promote and network because it works and sells books. We need one another because the market is in such flux. Would love to hear from romance authors who enjoy networking. Adding this: I'm not interested in 29 page 'books'. Impossible to sell. Or cliffhangers. Readers despise those. But! If you would like chat, email me at [email protected] Or you may visit http://enovelauthorsatwork.com I blog about indie authorship for the little guy, like me.

If not, great good luck on your journey. This is an awesome industry. I love it.


----------



## Liadan (May 15, 2015)

This thread is so encouraging!  Based on you've all posted, I'm starting to get a better sense of where the lines are in terms of explicit sensuality.  Since I'm writing romantic suspense, though, now I'm wondering about what constitutes too much violence for a book to fit within the clean / sweet category.  

For example, in the book I'm working on, the main characters (a state police detective and a social worker) meet when one of her clients is attacked, and figuring out what happened is threaded through the book as their relationship develops.  I don't describe the attack in detail -- I mostly show the aftermath -- and there's no gore.  Can that fit within a clean version of romantic suspense?

Also, if there are authors that you think have successfully incorporated suspense or violence within the clean / sweet / wholesome category, I'd be grateful for suggestions to look at.  Thanks!


----------



## LadyG (Sep 3, 2015)

Shanna Moncuse said:


> Would anyone here have a few suggestions of sweet/clean romance reads? I have a sister who is really into romance, so I'd be happy to surprise her with some new books!


Shanna Hatfield's Pendleton Petticoats series was fun.



LilyBLily said:


> Here's a question: Perusing dear old Amazon recently, I saw a lot of mail order brides books in westerns, evidently historical, maybe contemporary. Know anything about this trend?


I love this trend! (Just wrote one, actually.)

I think part of the appeal is the idea of finding that One True Love without having to work so hard to actually find him/her. It's right there where they least expect it. The hero and heroine agree to a loveless marriage for whatever reason only to find love after all.

Personally, I think that there is a growing trend toward "clean" romance because the pendulum is swinging back after going to the opposite extreme for a while. Hot and steamy romance will always sell, but I think there's a segment of readers who are getting tired of the trend and looking for something different.


----------



## Kristy Tate (Apr 24, 2012)

So glad I checked KBoards this morning! I write squeaky clean and would love to cross-promote. The series I'm working on started out as a YA, but my characters are going to head off to college, so I was wondering/worried about transitioning into NA and if it can be done. Thanks for the encouragement.


----------



## Shanna Moncuse (Jan 26, 2016)

LadyG said:


> Shanna Hatfield's Pendleton Petticoats series was fun.


Thank you! I'm going to look that up!
(Plus, the author has a pretty cool first name! )


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

For those looking for reads, there are several groups on goodreads to cater. Some I seen also have a section for authors, but make sure to read rules of each group. Just go to groups under the community drop down and search. One group that is very large with over 3000 members is called clean romances. They also specifically say they are not for christian or inspy as there are many other groups for that. I can't speak for the content there as I don't search out sweet or clean. I hate the word clean to describe romance with the passion of a thousand suns.  
But then I read romance for romance, it might have none or a lot of sensuality and super hot steam, just what fits the characters and the story. I err on the side of sensuality though overall.  

But readers will find what they want in groups, forums, recs. And yes, I have seen many very very tame books get the 1 star reviews about the "filth". I had to shake my head when I saw Mary Balogh get those comments. Mary friggin Balogh out of all people.


----------



## Talbot (Jul 14, 2015)

What a great thread! I'm dipping my toe into romance with a couple of holiday stories and this is helping me out immensely. Especially 'sweet.' Even though they take place on or around Christmas they're more funny/romantic than inspirational/devout and I want to avoid those categories so I don't disappoint anyone.


----------



## Talbot (Jul 14, 2015)

Atunah said:


> Mary friggin Balogh out of all people.


GASP! You cussed! MOD! We need a mod over here!


----------



## LadyG (Sep 3, 2015)

CKC Author said:


> I figure the stories are there for people who just want something almost sickeningly sweet and cute. They all follow the basic scenario of woman has a cute puppy, cute puppy helps her find love. There's no angst or drama. It's just a fun escape. (Unlike, say Something Worth Having where the main character is dealing with a breast cancer diagnosis and being attracted to a man in a relationship.) There are reasons I use multiple pen names...


I know you're talking about your own books here and not ALL "clean" romance, but I don't think a clean romance has to be "sickeningly sweet" or "just a fun escape." A clean romance can also contain angst, drama, heartache, etc -- it just doesn't contain descriptive sex or excessive violence.


----------



## 69959 (May 14, 2013)

I was excited when I heard about a hungry market for clean romance. I had a lot of fun with my contemporary romances, but I think I've missed the mark on that series. For a genre with a hungry readership, I just haven't seen it. My other series (Urban Fantasy/PNR and Contemporary Suspense) do so much better. All of my books are technically clean (no on-page sex, little if any swearing, suspense without gory violence) but the romance doesn't do as well. 

My sweet romances have: no sex before marriage, little to no language, some suspense, often touch on real-life issues (such as grief, loss, substance abuse, eating disorders) and end with a happy ending and warm fuzzies. Maybe the readers don't want the suspense, but I have reviews saying the suspense is just right. Though my books have comedy, the definitely aren't romantic comedies.

I think that after I finish this series, I'm going to stick with urban fantasy and missing kids. Seems to be what I do best.


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

Eliza Marie Jones said:


> My books are fantasy/romance and while there is violence, the romance only goes as far as kissing.
> 
> As a reader, I love finding books that have more than just one kiss, and preferably a good makeout but still have the sex (if any) behind closed doors. It's really hard to find, because most clean romance books have a barely-there kiss which is disappointing to me personally, but I also don't want to read the steamy parts that most non-clean romance books have.


This is kind of how I feel about it. I'm currently writing 2 series to be released in 2017: one series is sweet historical romance and the other is fantasy romance. For the fantasy books, there is definitely sex although mild. For the sweet romance...I'm slightly more confused about what my approach should be. I enjoy reading romance that's sweet with good vibes, themes, and just fun. I prefer historical romance over contemporary...but the mixture I enjoy in these is hard to find. Most of the sweet historical books I come across are all either Victorian, Regency, or Western and I only like reading the latter. My stories are set in the vintage era. Not sure how they'll do...but I'm not betting on them doing extraordinary either. There is sex behind closed doors which is something I don't see at all in current sweet romance. I have to admit this bugs me, because sex is a part of being human and although I don't like reading too much sex (mostly because it's boring to me), I do like knowing if the couple does it or not.


----------



## Mara B. (Jul 6, 2015)

Shanna Moncuse said:


> Would anyone here have a few suggestions of sweet/clean romance reads? I have a sister who is really into romance, so I'd be happy to surprise her with some new books!


I just finished reading _The Magic of Ordinary Days, _ by Ann Howard Creel. . It isn't quite sweet/clean romance because of one bedroom scene. It's not graphic but not behind closed doors either. It may be close to this type of category. What I really liked about the overall story was how it showed growing into love gradually.

I am probably the target audience for many inspirational romances, but sometimes even I find them too religious. Maybe because I didn't have any specific faith for many years. I often find myself reading what used to be called regular (not inspirational) chick lit as well as women's fiction. But I like Marian Keyes, and I'm sure that's not considered "clean"!

Oh, OH, I just thought of a really great book which may be classified as literary fiction, but could easily be considered a smart and sweet romance. Major Pettigrew's Last Stand, by Helen Simonson.  (They did eventually have sex, but it was fade to black.)


----------



## UnicornEmily (Jul 2, 2011)

Try The Daughters of Allamont Hall for clean Regency romance:

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B01H0TNQFO/?tag=kbpst-20

They're fun. 

Also, if she likes fantasy as well as clean romance, recommend Shanna Swendson to her.

https://www.amazon.com/dp/B000FCK5XA

She writes clean new adult fantasy romance. And it's great stuff.


----------



## CoraBuhlert (Aug 7, 2011)

I second the recommendation for Shanny Swendson. She's fabulous and her books are completely safe for more tender readers.


----------



## PearlEarringLady (Feb 28, 2014)

UnicornEmily said:


> Try The Daughters of Allamont Hall for clean Regency romance:


Thanks for the shout-out!

Try A J Goode's Letters To Caroline for a clean Western mail-order bride romance (I'm enjoying it very much).


----------



## Lauren P. (Jul 3, 2014)

jmb3 said:


> I can't for the life of me figure out how to respond to a quote on these boards. Haha.


Just click the quote button at the top right corner of the post you want to reply to.


----------



## LadyG (Sep 3, 2015)

PaulineMRoss said:


> Try A J Goode's Letters To Caroline for a clean Western mail-order bride romance (I'm enjoying it very much).


Thank you, Pauline! You just made my day!


----------



## Can neither confirm nor deny that I am W.R. Ginge (Oct 12, 2014)

Hey!  

I also write clean romance (would technically fall into clean, wholesome as set out further up the thread). Kissing, but no sex before marriage (and only one fade-to-black after that in one of my books).

Mine are fantasy, some with a touch of steampunk, some with murder, some with kidnapping, and one little scifi all on its lonesome.

If you're looking for reccs of the same kind of thing, I always recommend Kate Stradling (oh boy I love her books) and Intisar Khanani (same, love them so much!) as well as *coff*my own*coff*  

All clean reads, all with developed romance, and all with 3 dimensional characters, and heaps more besides


----------



## Nix Whittaker (Nov 21, 2016)

I write sweet romance science fiction and steampunk. I do this because I want to write the kind of books I would read and I find a romance novel that spends too much time being more like the karma sutra than actually telling a story is not for me. My favourite romance stories often don't have the couple even hooking up until book three or four. Like Patricia Briggs Mercedes series or Lindsay Buroker's Emperor's Edge series or when I was younger Daine and Numair from Tamora Pierce. They have some bedroom action but not graphic and it is the sparks that are more important anyway. So that is what I write now. My latest story I actually have the raunchy bits happen in between the books. I might write it as a short story but it means anyone can read my books without me having to blush. Erotic writers are braver than I am.
FYI if you visit my site you can ask me to review your book. (nixwhittaker.com)


----------



## MaryLee (Jul 1, 2016)

[size=12pt]]I am so glad I found this forum!

But, sorry to hear that romances are down. Has the market been too saturated? Or are women desiring more edgy reading like crime dramas with an occasional attraction thrown in to satisfy the hormones?

I say this only because I wrote a contemporary romance that is getting ready for a launch in March. It is in final editing now. The cover is finished, the title is _You Are the Song_. I can't figure out how to attach the cover art so you can see it.

I have a lot to learn from other authors and readers as well. Any replies would be most appreciated!


----------



## Mare (Nov 3, 2015)

LadyG said:


> I know you're talking about your own books here and not ALL "clean" romance, but I don't think a clean romance has to be "sickeningly sweet" or "just a fun escape." A clean romance can also contain angst, drama, heartache, etc -- it just doesn't contain descriptive sex or excessive violence.


Exactly. It would be as difficult for me to read a "sickeningly sweet" story as it would be to read a story where the sex is a word by word telling of how it's done. I tried to read a Debbie M. and was surprised by the sex scenes-clean and sweet it was not!


----------



## skylarker1 (Aug 21, 2016)

I've got two different series with different 'heat' levels. As a member of Romance Writer's of America, I'm used to people rating their work by flame levels. Erotica might be 'five flames,' Inspirational 'one flame.' 

My Fairy Godmothers' Union stories are all sweet, no more than two flames, or I'll bill them as PG, where my other series and a stand-alone are R-rated, maybe three or four flames tops. The PG/R ratings are ones familiar to the general public and that makes them a big help when it comes to describing my work so that potential readers know what to expect.


----------



## Kristen Painter (Apr 21, 2010)

I write FTB (fade to black) paranormal romance and cozies (if there is sex, it's off screen, but there's plenty of kissing and sexual tension, light violence when there is any, mild if any cursing), and I'm doing very well.


----------



## Joynell Schultz (Oct 29, 2016)

RoryB said:


> Hey there. I'm just joining up and starting on my journey. I've been lurking her for a bit. So I'm excited to finally dip my toes in the water. I've looked around and sort of stalked your threads (  ) and I've learned a lot.
> 
> I write sweet/clean romance (though I hate to use that word to describe is as I don't think the steamy romances are dirty or anything) and I was wondering if there were any other writers of that niche genre who I could connect with as I wrote my book and got it up to publishing shape. I know how important it is to get second opinions and to have friends in the genre. So, I guess this is me looking for friends.
> 
> Can't wait to meet you guys


Welcome!

I don't like "clean" romance either--my stories aren't "clean" as I do drop a few swear words her and there...and perhaps some violence too. I can't wait to see yours in "print".


----------



## DallaceyGreen (May 15, 2017)

Hello everyone,
I am a clean romance author. My readers say I have a fresh new perspective to romance that they enjoy. My characters are deeply moving, intensely loving and tenderly warm people. 
Here is a list of my books with the link bellow.

Second Best
Is It Worth It
For A Lifetime
Alone In My Memories
An Independent Woman

_Edited. Promotion not allowed outside the Book Bazaar. PM me if you have any questions. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## Piano Jenny (Nov 30, 2016)

I am still trying to figure out what I can/do/should write and I'm thinking "clean/sweet romance" might be it.

My latest novel, _Only Twenty-Five_, I guess technically falls into that category, or at least close to it. I definitely _don't_ write historical or Christian romance, which it seems like a lot of "clean romance" is.

This might be a good place to ask, what are some common tropes in sweet/clean (other than the obvious)? What particular beats do those readers really want?
Also, what demographic tends to read it? Older women? Single? Married? Religious? Something else?


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

I'm currently in the process of writing book 3 in a clean western bride series. The biggest trope I see in (at least western romance, dunno about Victorian or Regency) are bridal tropes. Mail-order brides are huge. Yes, many of these books are labeled Christian but, as a Christian myself, I will tell you that God and Jesus and the Bible are typically not in those books. It confused me at first, but from what I gather they're just feel good books with inspirational messages. My books aren't under the Christian category even though they're clean.

As per demographics...definitely middle aged ladies. I see their pictures in Goodreads when they add my books.  I'm 39 and I read those books. So...mature women, mostly, although I do have one man on my email list! Love it!

But basically, just read read read! Those books are not always "sweet" per say, some have heavy messages, others are lighter in nature, it depends. My bridal books are popcorn--short, uplifting, and hopefully with an "aww" effect although the last one has a shootout at the end (seriously couldn't resist, the hero is a sheriff). I've read contemporary sweet by Steena Holmes, Sweet Memories was the book, and really enjoyed it even though I don't read contemporary. So, I recommend her books as a starting point, since I write historical I can't really guide you anywhere else...unless someone here can.


----------



## C. Gockel (Jan 28, 2014)

My sci-fi series actually has a romance that is central to the plot. There is only one couple in the three books, but first two books end with a HFN and the last has a HEA. There are fade to black sex scenes that I actually heard were very good.

Right now I'm writing a PNR and I'm having a lot of fun with it. There will be a fade to black sex scene, but there has been UST, flirting, kissing, and almost sexy times. I love UST. 

I've been so happy to find that there are other authors and readers who like fade-to-black. I really don't like a lot of sex scenes, they don't do anything for me, and I wind up skimming to get to the plot.


----------



## ceejay13 (Apr 3, 2017)

I was wondering, how 'clean' is a clean romance? Just kissing? Or can the h/h get to second base?


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

ceejay13 said:


> I was wondering, how 'clean' is a clean romance? Just kissing? Or can the h/h get to second base?


Well...I got somewhat poetic in one book and in the others it was make out, touching leading to the act then fade to black. What finally motivated me to give in was my mother-in-law asking to read my books. I'm (secretly) hoping she'll recommend them to the ladies in her Bible study, ok?  So yeah, I stopped writing sex. Besides, like C. Gockel and Lily, I also have stopped reading sex. It's been a recent change though. I just found myself getting bored with it and well, I enjoy the emotions and story more than the sex. It's like giving the characters their privacy.


----------



## EllieKeaton (Apr 12, 2014)

ceejay13 said:


> I was wondering, how 'clean' is a clean romance? Just kissing? Or can the h/h get to second base?


I write "clean" historical romance books and am doing quite well under a different pen name. I have been told clean means no pink bits. My characters definitely have sex but nobody sees it. But its there in the way they look at each other etc etc.

I also cover kidnapping, rape, child abuse, spousal abuse and everything else you would get in any book. My readers love it because I hint at it never go into detail. Example my latest book, the heroine wanted to divorce her husband for abuse. My readers knew what he did to her but it was never on page.

Clean romance doesnt mean you don't have sex. The sex is there, everyone knows they want each other and when they will be together etc. Its sexual tension without any graphic details. To me, its means you have all the elements of a romance novel but without giving your readers a biology lesson.

There is a market for it but yes if your book lands in the Christian market you will get the one star brigade. Seems I was too "catholic" to be a real Christian in one of mine!!

I think there is a market in every niche for "clean" books - ya etc. BUT all my friends who write in the same genre as I do make more money by writing spicy. So if you want the dollars that might be a consideration for you.

Good luck and I would second the facebook group Clean Indie reads. If you are ever in doubt of what clean means those guys will tell you


----------



## ceejay13 (Apr 3, 2017)

Lorri Moulton said:


> I went to the Clean Indie Reads Facebook page, read their link to "clean" and I'm still not sure what it means. Everyone seems so vague, when it comes to the sex scenes. Obviously, if there's no sex in the book...that's an easy choice. I wish there was some kind of rating system for romance to let the readers know what to expect. How much is too much?
> 
> And on the opposite side of the question, how much is not enough? If you say this book has adult romance scenes, then readers expect more than what might be in the book. So confusing! LOL
> 
> ...


Like you, I remain ultimately confused  In my completed historical, I have 3 sex scenes, fairly short and non pant-by-pant details, with the door closing on two after the, er, preliminaries. The consummated scene isn't romantic. Not an assault, but it's an arranged marriage and I opted for realism over immediate passion and love because I'm not writing a historical romance; the love grows over time. Yet a friend wo read the book said she felt uncomfortable with the scenes. In my second WIP, there are again a few short scenes and the fade to black, like a tv movie. I think my dear late mother would be ok reading both stories. My SIL read 50 Shades so she'd wonder why it's so tame.  So I don't know, 

As for reading in Bible study, both historicals predate so no worries there  But some believe Alexander is the 10 horned beast mentioned in Revelations. Or maybe the prophecy in the Book of Daniel? Have to look that up.

I am thinking of pulling a short novella (novelette?) to beef it up to novel length and 'clean' romance is popular... but I do have the h/h get to second base.  Thanks, guys for the info.


----------



## Tia Morris (May 21, 2017)

Thanks Rory, for starting this thread.    I am new to the genre (and new to these boards) and trying to identify how to write my story so I don't offend readers. This thread has been very helpful! My book has no sex, just kissing, but there are thoughts of sex and sexual desire. I write contemporary.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

ceejay13 said:


> I was wondering, how 'clean' is a clean romance? Just kissing? Or can the h/h get to second base?


Squeaky clean. No second base. The thing to remember with sweet/clean and wholesome is that the focus in on the romance, not on the sex--so no lusting or obsessing over physical stuff.


----------



## LadyG (Sep 3, 2015)

ceejay13 said:


> I was wondering, how 'clean' is a clean romance? Just kissing? Or can the h/h get to second base?


If it's important to the story, I would say it's all right for them to get to second base -- as long as it happens off-camera, so to speak. And near the end of the book, after a commitment has been made.

I've mentioned here before that I work as a lunchlady in a high school/middle school in a very small town. Some of the kids found out that I write books, and the librarian even agreed to carry my "clean" books in the school library. So I guess that's how I figure out where to draw the line on whether my book is "clean" or not: if the school librarian would allow it, it's clean enough. There are still character deaths (including a baby!) and some violent moments, and even a scene where the H/h spend a night sleeping in the same bed, but the series is still considered clean.

(And just to go off on a tangent for a moment, it's one of the best feelings in the world when a kid approaches me in the lunchroom to say, "Mrs. G, I read your book and loved it!" )


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

Lady G, that is super cool! 

One of my favorite shows ever is North & South. There is so much sexual and emotional tension between the heroes that it had me on my knees crying when they finally kissed at the end. THAT is clean romance. Emotion, ups and downs + emotion, more and more flaming hot desirous emotions. The kind that drives you mad wanting something, anything, to happen.

My 1940's romance was a poor attempt to write outside of cleanish romance. I suck miserably at writing sex scenes basically because they bore me to death. As a grown woman, I know how sex works. I also value sex as a renewal of marital covenant, and chose to write that book outside of my spiritual beliefs. I learned one thing, it wasn't for me, but I still love that story for other reasons even though it sells terribly. Probably because it was outside the norm for me, IDK. The clean romances I write sell better, even though one has a teeny amount of nudity described before fade to black. What matters most to me, however, is how sex brings the couples together, how it changes the nature of their relationship, which is possible to show without writing the actual sex itself.

Don't get me wrong, I'm far from being a prude, but I prefer emotions to sex any day. There's nothing hotter than seeing the way a couple gushes over each other, which is why I love weddings. Clean includes kissy faces, a bit of lusting but not taken too far, fade to black, but definitely sexual tension. Without ST, without emotions, there is no romance. And after all, we're humans and it's our primal instinct/urge to be intimate in that way with those we love.

Suppose the main reason why I write bridal romance is because marriage is hard, yet so so valuable. I've mentioned this before, but marriages of convenience and arrangement are my favorite romance tropes because the heroes are bound to strangers. I know my own marriage is hard and we knew each other for 10 months before we married. Imagine being married to someone you just met a week ago via telegram lol. I enjoy writing how lovers face challenges together, how they choose to love and respect yet recognize their humanity when they fail and flaw. I wish romance didn't get such a bad rep. I just recently left another writers forum because people there trashed romance all the time and it made me angry. Love is beautiful, love is valuable, and it changes/touches people's hearts and souls.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

PamelaKelley said:


> Squeaky clean. No second base. The thing to remember with sweet/clean and wholesome is that the focus in on the romance, not on the sex--so no lusting or obsessing over physical stuff.


Serious question. If you write "clean"--how do you write realistically from a man's point of view without having him lusting and obsessing? Or do you just write from the woman's point of view? And you don't feel you're leaving something out by not addressing the physical aspect of attraction?

Could be I just have too dirty a mind, not to mention, uh, physically. But I can't imagine what that relationship looks like. Especially considering what guys are. He's looking at you, and he's not thinking you have a nice smile, or only with part of his brain. The other part is imagining positions.

I don't write only sex. Far from it. Sex scenes are 5% of the book. It's mostly sexual tension anyway rather than the sex itself. But I can't imagine leaving sexual feelings out of a romance. I also don't get why. Who is your reader for the clean stuff? (Rather than just sweet, which I've read plenty of and which can be plenty hot.) Genuinely interested. I have readers who are 80+ who write to tell me they enjoy the steamy parts, and I'll bet most of my readers are over 35 and married. (Married women who read romance actually have more sex.) So I don't think it's age. Are they mostly very religious?


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

Rosalind, I write from the male pov all the time and they do lust. It's...natural. Women lust, too. It's what I call sexual tension, and it absolutely belongs in any romance ever. At least that's my take. For me, clean means fade to black/sex behind closed doors/sensuality vs sexuality.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Mari Oliver said:


> Rosalind, I write from the male pov all the time and they do lust. It's...natural. Women lust, too. It's what I call sexual tension, and it absolutely belongs in any romance ever. At least that's my take. For me, clean means fade to black/sex behind closed doors/sensuality vs sexuality.


Thanks. That's I guess what I'd call "sweet romance." I mean, Eva Ibbotson, fantastic writer--she never showed the actual sex, but they definitely had it, and she had plenty of sexual tension (which I love).

I was more thinking about Pamela's description of "clean romance," which sounds, like, well--courtship/romance with no sexual feelings, which is something I don't recall reading.


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

Rosalind J said:


> Thanks. That's I guess what I'd call "sweet romance." I mean, Eva Ibbotson, fantastic writer--she never showed the actual sex, but they definitely had it, and she had plenty of sexual tension (which I love).
> 
> I was more thinking about Pamela's description of "clean romance," which sounds, like, well--courtship/romance with no sexual feelings, which is something I don't recall reading.


Well, Linda Bridey writes clean western historical romance and they have sexual tension in those books but it's pretty toned down. It's still there though and they have sex off page (the characters discuss this/change when it happens). There was a review on one of her books that complained about it having too much sex, but about as close as she got to writing sex was him kissing her on the bed and that was it! So, a million shades of clean, I guess.


----------



## Kessie Carroll (Jan 15, 2014)

:gloomily reading this thread:

You know what's a hard sell? Sweet werewolf romance. I love shifters, but I also love world building and suspense. There's plenty of sexual tension, especially in my werebear story, but nobody gets it on on camera. Apparently that doesn't appeal to readers! Who knew, right?

They're also historical fantasy. So .... Haha, I expected these to sell?


----------



## AsianInspiration (Oct 12, 2016)

Rosalind J said:


> Serious question. If you write "clean"--how do you write realistically from a man's point of view without having him lusting and obsessing? Or do you just write from the woman's point of view? And you don't feel you're leaving something out by not addressing the physical aspect of attraction?
> 
> Could be I just have too dirty a mind, not to mention, uh, physically. But I can't imagine what that relationship looks like. Especially considering what guys are. He's looking at you, and he's not thinking you have a nice smile, or only with part of his brain. The other part is imagining positions.
> 
> I don't write only sex. Far from it. Sex scenes are 5% of the book. It's mostly sexual tension anyway rather than the sex itself. But I can't imagine leaving sexual feelings out of a romance. I also don't get why. Who is your reader for the clean stuff? (Rather than just sweet, which I've read plenty of and which can be plenty hot.) Genuinely interested. I have readers who are 80+ who write to tell me they enjoy the steamy parts, and I'll bet most of my readers are over 35 and married. (Married women who read romance actually have more sex.) So I don't think it's age. Are they mostly very religious?


Rosalind, with all due respect, I think you have a very distorted view of men. I'm not saying this as an insult, I mean, I probably have a very distorted view of women too. It's very hard to understand the other gender.

But I noticed this a couple months back when I asked questions about what exactly counted as romance, whether there are romance stories for men or in a man's POV, etc. I was extremely surprised to see the responses from you guys assuming how a man's idea of romance is James Bond style, go with a different girl every episode, and that that was not okay in the romance genre.

Men are not all like that. I am absolutely against cheating, whether it is in story or in real life. To me, a relationship is so much more than sex, sex is a very small part of it, and if I were to ever attempt writing romance/love stories, they would never have any explicit sex scenes, ever. I know everyone always makes a disclaimer about not making judgments on others blah blah blah to be PC. I'm not going to do that. Explicit sex scenes would annoy me and make me stop reading immediately.

I understand that I'm obviously not the target audience of romance books. I'm just saying, men don't always think about sex sex sex all the time, without caring about who they're doing it with.


----------



## S.R. (May 19, 2016)

PamelaKelley said:


> Squeaky clean. No second base. The thing to remember with sweet/clean and wholesome is that the focus in on the romance, not on the sex--so no lusting or obsessing over physical stuff.


This definition sounds more like inspirational romance to me. I read and write contemporary "sweet" romance. Most of what I read, and all of what I write, includes off-screen sex (once they've reached the point of falling in love)...and plenty of sexual tension. I agree that it's not about "obsessing about the physical stuff" but the reality is that men and women certainly think about it, notice it, and feel lust. To me, it's creating a strong chemistry that's based on a lot more than physical - but the attraction is undeniable.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I didn't say men think about sex all the time without caring who they're doing it with. I said that men think about sex when they're attracted to a woman. That doesn't mean it's the only thing they think about, but it's sure one of them.

It also doesn't mean they cheat or they want to cheat. But they fantasize. And let's just say that I don't think the internet is ever going to run out of viewers.

Been married 31 years, have two grown sons and lots of male friends who tell me the truth. I think I understand men pretty well, and my long-married readers tell me the same. 

Different people also have different sex drives and sexual experiences. For most men, sex isn't a "very small part" of a romantic relationship. (I read a lot of studies for research. Also--just no. It isn't.) And absolutely, some women who enjoy sex don't want to read about it. My best friend and my sister both skim my sex scenes and don't understand why my readers enjoy them. i write them because I love them, actually. If I didn't like to write them, I'd write what others here do--sweet romance with high sexual tension. But I like the payoff. 

My thanks to those who answered my question. I still don't really get the "clean romance" thing, but I don't have to, I suppose. My apologies for sending the thread somewhat askew. Backing out now.


----------



## AsianInspiration (Oct 12, 2016)

Well, maybe when you have time, you can watch an asian drama like 1 Litre of Tears, Sekai no Chuushin de ai wo sakebu, tada kimi wo aishiteru, autumn in my heart, etc.

Maybe you might not consider them to be "romance" since they don't have an HEA, but I think they are good examples of what the stories would be like when they are "clean". Who knows, maybe you can get some ideas from them.


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

AsianInspiration said:


> Rosalind, with all due respect, I think you have a very distorted view of men. I'm not saying this as an insult, I mean, I probably have a very distorted view of women too. It's very hard to understand the other gender.
> 
> But I noticed this a couple months back when I asked questions about what exactly counted as romance, whether there are romance stories for men or in a man's POV, etc. I was extremely surprised to see the responses from you guys assuming how a man's idea of romance is James Bond style, go with a different girl every episode, and that that was not okay in the romance genre.
> 
> ...


Your comment just made me smile. This is very true. I learned the other day that statistics show men in married/long-term relationships are usually the partners that stop having sex first. Who knew? But, also to counter your response in a way, a lot of romances out there are written with heroes/heroines in their younger years so maybe that makes a difference? (younger meaning under 35)


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

AsianInspiration said:


> Well, maybe when you have time, you can watch an asian drama like 1 Litre of Tears, Sekai no Chuushin de ai wo sakebu, tada kimi wo ai[crap]eru, autumn in my heart, etc.
> 
> Maybe you might not consider them to be "romance" since they don't have an HEA, but I think they are good examples of what the stories would be like when they are "clean". Who knows, maybe you can get some ideas from them.


Thanks, I think I'm doing all right.


----------



## AsianInspiration (Oct 12, 2016)

Mari Oliver said:


> Your comment just made me smile. This is very true. I learned the other day that statistics show men in married/long-term relationships are usually the partners that stop having sex first. Who knew? But, also to counter your response in a way, a lot of romances out there are written with heroes/heroines in their younger years so maybe that makes a difference? (younger meaning under 35)


Well, I'm 24.5 currently. I mean, chances are, I probably think about sex a lot more than girls my age (but I wouldn't really know how girls think). But to me, an ideal relationship, one that I want to fantasize/dream/read/watch about isn't just two people getting it on constantly or thinking about doing those things. I'm satisfied with just imagining a girl sleeping in on my shoulder while quietly watching the sunset, thinking about our future. To hold her in my arms, and know that she's happy with me. That's what I want to fantasize about, and that's what I'd want to read about or watch in a drama. If I wanted sex scenes, I'd watch porn or something.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

LilyBLily said:


> Not all men are the same. I've read plenty of social science hooey. I reserve the right to write about talkative men who hate sports and enjoy discussing their feelings. I draw the line at a bunch of them getting together and having a tea party, though.


I've got a husband exactly like that. (Minus the tea party.) He still thinks about sex a fair amount.  Since I started writing romance and he started reading it, he's started sharing a lot more (after 30 years together), and it's been pretty eye-opening. One of the hidden benefits from my new job--I've gotten to know him so much better, and he's gotten to know me, too. In my generation at least, stuff often doesn't get discussed, and that's a shame, because people could be having a way better time.

I asked one of my sons about a particular scene that one of my beta readers didn't like. (I won't mention the subject.) She asked what woman would want that, and what man would enjoy it. My son said, "Ninety-nine percent of men are turned on by that. The other guy's lying."

You (man or woman) can be romantic, can be tender, can be gentle and connect at a soul-deep level at important times, and still think about sex and love sex and fantasize. I think that's the disconnect I see with this "clean romance" thing (NOT "sweet romance.") As if sex is separate. It isn't. Orgasm, for both men and women, releases oxytocin, the bonding hormone (same hormone that bonds mothers and babies, released from nursing) and makes them feel closer emotionally as well as physically. As one example. I'm not talking "social science." I'm talking about biology and chemistry and, yes, evolutionary psychology. We're higher beings, and we're mammals.

Now I really AM bowing out. I love lots and lots of sweet romance. Georgette Heyer. Eva Ibbotson. LaVyrle Spencer. And many others.


----------



## PearlEarringLady (Feb 28, 2014)

Rosalind J said:


> Serious question. If you write "clean"--how do you write realistically from a man's point of view without having him lusting and obsessing? Or do you just write from the woman's point of view? And you don't feel you're leaving something out by not addressing the physical aspect of attraction?


You've only got to read Jane Austen to see how it's done. The men don't get a huge amount of POV time, but they do get some and while Darcy certainly obsesses over Elizabeth, there's no visible lusting.  It would have been there, and you get his passion from his behaviour and his words ('you must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you') but it's not shown on screen.

That's the kind of Regency that I attempt to write (although I don't aspire to Jane's level of wit or social observation, obviously - who could?). I address the physical aspect by having the hero thinking about the whiteness of the lady's skin, her sparkling eyes, a curl of hair that falls enticingly over her face or having him kiss her hand (a pretty forward thing for a man to do to an unmarried lady, let me tell you!). Plus all the other elements of falling in love - the fast-beating heart, stumbling over words, acting awkwardly and wanting to be with the beloved at every moment. Naturally the hero also wants to rip her clothes off and get his end away, but that's not actually mentioned explicitly.

I should add that clean Regency is a relatively small niche. Most readers seem to prefer the steamy variety.


----------



## AsianInspiration (Oct 12, 2016)

Rosalind J said:


> You (man or woman) can be romantic, can be tender, can be gentle and connect at a soul-deep level at important times, and still think about sex and love sex and fantasize. I think that's the disconnect I see with this "clean romance" thing (NOT "sweet romance.") As if sex is separate. It isn't. Orgasm, for both men and women, releases oxytocin, the bonding hormone (same hormone that bonds mothers and babies, released from nursing) and makes them feel closer emotionally as well as physically. As one example. I'm not talking "social science." I'm talking about biology and chemistry and, yes, evolutionary psychology. We're higher beings, and we're mammals.


Thank you for this, Rosalind. In reading what you wrote, and trying to explain my POV, I think I realized something. I was completely baffled by the concept that romance HAVE to end in an HEA/HFN. Frankly, I thought it is absolutely ridiculous. Why should a romance only end in HEA?

But reading what you wrote, I think I understand now. There's a fundamental difference between the Asian mentality and the western mentality. Western readers want an idealized _ending_. Eastern readers want an idealized _process_.

Sure, people think about sex. People also think about hunger, or sleepiness, laziness... but that's not what we want to be reading about. We want an idealized relationship that transcends the physical, that transcends the biological needs, just two people deeply in love, willing to do anything for each other. They are so much in love that the sex is basically completely irrelevant. In a way, it feels like sex "cheapens" the story, like entering a cheat code to speed up process in a game.

You argue that sex shouldn't be "separate". I argue that stories shouldn't need an HEA, because obviously relationships don't always end in an HEA. I think although our views are basically completely opposite, the reasons are very similar.

I know you're obviously doing very well Rosalind, but I suggested those asian dramas purely because they are "clean", and would show how "clean" stories would be executed. You don't have to watch them if you don't want to obviously, but it really is interesting learning about how different cultures treat things differently.


----------



## LadyG (Sep 3, 2015)

I'm pretty new at the whole clean romance thing, so take my opinion for whatever it's worth here. In all my romances, I write about half the chapters from the man's POV, and and they definitely think about sex. It's all part of building the attraction and tension.

But it's _how _they think about it that makes the difference; in any kind of romance, "clean" or not, it's possible to show sexual attraction without having the guy run around thinking, _"wow, I wanna do her right here, baby_!" Maybe he notices the curve of her hips and decides it's time to head outside for a while before he does something he'll regret. They accidentally touch and he is distracted by the feeling of her silky smooth skin. There is a chaste embrace, but he is aware of the way her body feels pressing against his.

I have a scene in one of my clean 1870's romances where the hero walks in on the heroine climbing out of the loft with her skirts hiked up so she doesn't trip over them. He knows it's not proper for him to see what he's seeing, but he also knows that he's enjoying the show. And when she realizes he's there and tries to cover herself, she falls and is caught by him for a nice little moment in his arms when they BOTH have some improper thoughts and racing heartbeats. Totally clean, totally safe, but also a moment in which both characters are thrown off-balance by the strong physical attraction between them.


----------



## AsianInspiration (Oct 12, 2016)

At the risk of putting words in her mouth, I think Rosalind refers to those types of stories as "sweet" rather than "clean".


----------



## PearlEarringLady (Feb 28, 2014)

AsianInspiration said:


> At the risk of putting words in her mouth, I think Rosalind refers to those types of stories as "sweet" rather than "clean".


And this is why it's all a big, confused mess. I've spent a lot of time trying to work out the difference between sweet and clean, if there even is any, and I've given up. I call my Regencies traditional and that's it.


----------



## LadyG (Sep 3, 2015)

AsianInspiration said:


> At the risk of putting words in her mouth, I think Rosalind refers to those types of stories as "sweet" rather than "clean".





Rosalind J said:


> Serious question. If you write "clean"--how do you write realistically from a man's point of view without having him lusting and obsessing? Or do you just write from the woman's point of view? And you don't feel you're leaving something out by not addressing the physical aspect of attraction?


I believe I was expressing my own opinion in response to her question "If you write "clean"--how do you write realistically from a man's point of view without having him lusting and obsessing? Or do you just write from the woman's point of view? And you don't feel you're leaving something out by not addressing the physical aspect of attraction?"


----------



## LadyG (Sep 3, 2015)

PaulineMRoss said:


> And this is why it's all a big, confused mess. I've spent a lot of time trying to work out the difference between sweet and clean, if there even is any, and I've given up. I call my Regencies traditional and that's it.


I just read your entire Regency series and I guess I think of it as both sweet AND clean. Either way, I enjoyed it.


----------



## PearlEarringLady (Feb 28, 2014)

LadyG said:


> I just read your entire Regency series and I guess I think of it as both sweet AND clean. Either way, I enjoyed it.


Wow, thank you! Although I'm not sure that helps me understand the difference between sweet and clean, lol!


----------



## BeMyBookBaby (Apr 18, 2016)

My understanding of clean is that there is no swearing, etc, as well as a sweet romance. I don't think sex is implied, even in fade to black scenarios, it's all more so about how bad he wants to kiss her, and she's hella interested in that too, and sure, the more adventurous readers might take a second to imagine taking that further, but they don't have to. They don't have to read about all these "lust filled impulses" that are in a lot of romance books these days.

I'm not complaining, there are more than enough people on the planet to enjoy all types of romances, but personally I prefer no sex scenes in my romances. I'll happily read one, during a novel, if I REALLY like the couple, but it's rarely an enjoyed read. For me, it's a skim at best. Just ain't my thing. It bores me, and I'd rather my pages were filled with banter and sexual tension and hope, than the dirty details that my mind can make on it's own. And I'm not a christian audience, either. I just often find sex scenes in books lazy and formulaic, whereas there are so many ways a potential couple can awkwardly ruin their impending romance. That's the good stuff to me. I also like the way a sweet romance develops after they get together, where as the naughtier books, in my experience, spend a lot of time reimagining or referencing the sex again, and that's dull to me too. Sex is just a portion of a relationship, and I like to see more of the characters than just a gallery of different positions.

Here's a quote from an online article that expands on both definitions...



> "Sweet romances are usually looked at as being a sweet, falling in love story between two people, with obstacles, but they are usually about the freshness and excitement of falling in love with someone, and how the relationship develops. Sweet romances are usually not dark stories.
> 
> A clean romance is looked at as being a little different. There is still no explicit sex, but the plot is generally darker, and therefore, the author doesn't feel the "sweet" label fits. "


The last bit about a clean romance having a darker plot is also quite relevant. The heroine could be the victim of an assault, and during the story recover her innocence and find the criminal, as well as fall in love, without actual sex.

Food for thought, anyways.



PaulineMRoss said:


> You've only got to read Jane Austen to see how it's done. The men don't get a huge amount of POV time, but they do get some and while Darcy certainly obsesses over Elizabeth, there's no visible lusting.  It would have been there, and you get his passion from his behaviour and his words ('you must allow me to tell you how ardently I admire and love you') but it's not shown on screen.
> 
> That's the kind of Regency that I attempt to write (although I don't aspire to Jane's level of wit or social observation, obviously - who could?). I address the physical aspect by having the hero thinking about the whiteness of the lady's skin, her sparkling eyes, a curl of hair that falls enticingly over her face or having him kiss her hand (a pretty forward thing for a man to do to an unmarried lady, let me tell you!). Plus all the other elements of falling in love - the fast-beating heart, stumbling over words, acting awkwardly and wanting to be with the beloved at every moment. Naturally the hero also wants to rip her clothes off and get his end away, but that's not actually mentioned explicitly.


PaulineMRoss you have officially converted me to your books. I'll be picking up a copy ASAP. Anything even remotely Jane related is my perfect read.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Rosalind J said:


> Serious question. If you write "clean"--how do you write realistically from a man's point of view without having him lusting and obsessing? Or do you just write from the woman's point of view? And you don't feel you're leaving something out by not addressing the physical aspect of attraction?
> 
> Could be I just have too dirty a mind, not to mention, uh, physically. But I can't imagine what that relationship looks like. Especially considering what guys are. He's looking at you, and he's not thinking you have a nice smile, or only with part of his brain. The other part is imagining positions.
> 
> I don't write only sex. Far from it. Sex scenes are 5% of the book. It's mostly sexual tension anyway rather than the sex itself. But I can't imagine leaving sexual feelings out of a romance. I also don't get why. Who is your reader for the clean stuff? (Rather than just sweet, which I've read plenty of and which can be plenty hot.) Genuinely interested. I have readers who are 80+ who write to tell me they enjoy the steamy parts, and I'll bet most of my readers are over 35 and married. (Married women who read romance actually have more sex.) So I don't think it's age. Are they mostly very religious?


Not religious at all....at least my books are not, but I do know some of my readers are. That's what they like about the sweet/clean books is that the focus isn't on the physical it's on the emotional, the sweet side of romance. My sweet books fade to black so there is sex but it's just off-screen and I don't show anything more than kissing. No mention of body parts. There is the man's point of view in all the books and he's attracted but not focused on what she looks like naked (he may well be thinking this, but it's just not shown in these books). With my 'clean' books and I hate that term but it is what it is, there is no sex before marriage. The readers are very strict about that. I mostly write sweet and there is sex, but it's not on the page.

There are a lot of readers that want this. That don't want to go into the bedroom with the characters. As a reader, I am definitely in the less is more category too. I'll read steamier books because of the storylines but after the first sex scene, I usually skip the rest to get back to the story. I hear the same from most of the readers in my niche.


----------



## PearlEarringLady (Feb 28, 2014)

Ellie Keating said:


> PaulineMRoss you have officially converted me to your books. I'll be picking up a copy ASAP. Anything even remotely Jane related is my perfect read.


Thank you! If you like JAFF and an authentic Janeite writing style, try Clara Benson's 'The Lucases of Lucas Lodge', about Maria Lucas (not a Bennet or a Darcy in sight!).


----------



## S.R. (May 19, 2016)

Since there's not a terribly clear definition of clean/sweet among authors or readers, I thought I'd add one other area where the blurry lines caused a problem.

A few months ago? - I can't remember the exact date - K-lytics published a new report that was all about clean/wholesome romance being a fast growing niche. I hadn't noticed so much growth in the sub-genre as growth in authors using Amazon's new-ish category designation. I bought the report to see if I was missing something important.

Upon downloading it, I made a quick skim of the methodology - they pulled data from the books in the clean/wholesome category and also scraped books described as "sweet" in the blurbs for a total data pool of approx 2,200 titles. The report listed details for the top 100 sellers they identified. I immediately noticed that they had pulled in multiple titles from super steamy authors like Lauren Blakely, and a different author that described her book in the blurb as "panty melting" hot (the blurb was printed in the report  ). If a quick skim could identify a handful of miscategorized titles (and big sellers to boot) in just the top 100, I could only imagine how many were in the full data pool, which I had no way to see.

I emailed K-lytics and explained the issues and that the report was unusable in its current state. To their credit, I got an immediate response thanking me for bringing it to their attention and explaining the difficulty in vetting the titles and saying they'd scrub the data and send me an updated version. Sounded good...

Fast forward about three weeks, I realized I'd never received a new version. I emailed again and requested a refund. I immediately got the refund, which was great. The concerning part was that I also received an email that said they'd decided not to update the report after all. It said 80% of the buyers reported being happy with the original version.   It's their business to run as they see fit...but if you build your business on data analytics and choose to ignore clear data integrity issues, well, I won't be interested in any future offerings.

Anyway, that was the first and only report I'd purchased from them. Maybe other reports are more solid, I don't know. My recommendation would be to take a close look at the data and methodology before jumping on board with any of the conclusions.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Yep. I write sweet books with some steam. Except for one series which I wrote for Reasons (and which sells the least of all my books), the focus is not on the sex or sexual attraction so much as attraction to the whole person. Sex is the frosting, not the cake. There are lots of successful romance authors who focus more that way. It's still a big solid chunk of the market. I get described as writing sweet romance a lot. I feel like the line between sweet and some steam is pretty thinly drawn. Lots of readers read at both those steam levels. I always did. Don't like erotic romance or all the paranormal stuff or anything with a bare chest. Amused to see authors described as clean with bare chest covers. 

For me, it's not whether there is frosting or not. It's how good the cake is, and whether the frosting is homemade or from a can. 

My question was more about that line all the way over at clean. Sweet, I get (closed door). I don't get clean. Except that all that insistence on NO sexual feelings seems like they're writing for women who find sex dirty? And to me that's odd in romance. But there's a market I know. I'm figuring strict religions. I do find myself wondering if those women enjoy sex though. 

And Jane Austen is far and away my favorite author. Always has been.  What I love best is writing witty dialogue and banter and wry observation. And when I read Regency, I don't want sex in it. Anachronistic.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Rosalind J said:


> Yep. I write sweet books with some steam. Except for one series which I wrote for Reasons (and which sells the least of all my books), the focus is not on the sex or sexual attraction so much as attraction to the whole person. Sex is the frosting, not the cake. There are lots of successful romance authors who focus more that way. It's still a big solid chunk of the market. I get described as writing sweet romance a lot. I feel like the line between sweet and some steam is pretty thinly drawn. Lots of readers read at both those steam levels. I always did. Don't like erotic romance or all the paranormal stuff or anything with a bare chest. Amused to see authors described as clean with bare chest covers.
> 
> For me, it's not whether there is frosting or not. It's how good the cake is, and whether the frosting is homemade or from a can.
> 
> ...


That's why most of what I write is sweet. I'm not crazy about the term clean as it implies that sex is dirty. But it has come to mean books that don't have any sex at all, and there are readers who simply don't want it in their books, but still want the romance.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

PamelaKelley said:


> That's why most of what I write is sweet. I'm not crazy about the term clean as it implies that sex is dirty. But it has come to mean books that don't have any sex at all, and there are readers who simply don't want it in their books, but still want the romance.


Thanks for the answer. (And to all.) Very interesting discussion you guys are having. It's always appeared to me that there are so many markets in romance, there's room at wherever your own preferred steam level is. I certainly get the occasional email telling me they'd like the books better without the sex, so I know that audience is there. I do think the bar is higher (wait, that doesn't sound right)--that the midpoint has been reset in recent years, and mainstream contemporary romance, historical romance, and romantic suspense has become a fair bit steamier. (Actually, the most steam complaint reviews I've had have come on my romantic suspense books, for not focusing on the sex NEARLY enough! Pretty funny.)

But with that reset, a lot of readers have been left without their preferred level as mainstream authors have notched up higher. Particularly in indie. Which creates an opportunity for others.


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

Yeah...sex is a natural, beautiful, wonderful thing, and despite what our unmarried friends think (mine and my husband's), our intimacy life is healthy and strong. Sure, we go through dry periods like anyone does, but we still have long talks and walks and are intimate in other ways. Romance, in general, is a whole scope that includes sex but it's not the entirety of it. I love sweet romance too and tend to skip over parts in books with sex scenes simply because they bore me now. They used to not. 

Just the other day I finished a romance book set in the 1940's (which btw got a VERY important singer wrong by like 20 freaking years!) and it was sweet but downright naughty. It was hilarious, but she used the word 'member' like 30 times on one page alone. That's not what I call clean romance but I knew darn well what I was getting into. I read it because of the spanking lol. Skipped over the sex. The emotions were strong and hot in that book. Not sure yet if I'll get the other books in the series since I love reading 1940s time period but not much of it is out there. The audience is small, imo. Either that or I'm just a terrible writer lol. 

But I see clean sweet books selling strong on Amazon. Or maybe it's just what I read. The romance genre has something for everyone. When I was younger, I preferred steamy. Now, I enjoy emotions more. The audience is there though, for sure.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Rosalind J said:


> Thanks for the answer. (And to all.) Very interesting discussion you guys are having. It's always appeared to me that there are so many markets in romance, there's room at wherever your own preferred steam level is. I certainly get the occasional email telling me they'd like the books better without the sex, so I know that audience is there. I do think the bar is higher (wait, that doesn't sound right)--that the midpoint has been reset in recent years, and mainstream contemporary romance, historical romance, and romantic suspense has become a fair bit steamier. (Actually, the most steam complaint reviews I've had have come on my romantic suspense books, for not focusing on the sex NEARLY enough! Pretty funny.)
> 
> But with that reset, a lot of readers have been left without their preferred level as mainstream authors have notched up higher. Particularly in indie. Which creates an opportunity for others.


Yes, this so much. I think I have commented on this before. There aren't just 2 levels of sensuality in romance. There has always been the inspy/nada, which is a smaller chunk, then there is the middle which is the largest. It goes from warm to steamy. Its what I call the normal level. Balogh, Kleypas, Quinn, Ranney, Duran, Ashley, Young, Scott, etc. I could go on. But pretty much 90% of romances I read in my lifetime fall into the normal range. Then there is the erotic romance range which has Lora Leigh, Dohner, Dixon etc. The problem in recent years has been that suddenly there is a influx of erotic romance, some of it just plain erotica. And for some odd reason that has caused normal range authors to up their levels. So many times now I grab a historical romance, thinking its like always in the normal range, but it is actually in the erotic romance range. Which isn't what I am looking for. So now there is talk about all this clean stuff, but where is all the normal stuff. I stick with known authors on that to be honest. I have a hard time finding new authors for example that aren't in the ER range.

I run the other way if I read the word clean in reviews, blurb, etc. Its not that I don't read romances that don't have sex in them, but I won't go near those that point it out as some judgement call. It insinuates to me that sex and sensuality is somehow dirty. Its a turnoff to me. But then I read the scale up and down. Not so much all the way to erotica or erom anymore as there isn't much good stuff, but from none to steamy. I just stay away from judging. I read that and my mind goes to inspy, which I will not read.

Its a big genre.


----------



## AsianInspiration (Oct 12, 2016)

Atunah said:


> I run the other way if I read the word clean in reviews, blurb, etc. Its not that I don't read romances that don't have sex in them, but I won't go near those that point it out as some judgement call. It insinuates to me that sex and sensuality is somehow dirty. Its a turnoff to me. But then I read the scale up and down. Not so much all the way to erotica or erom anymore as there isn't much good stuff, but from none to steamy.* I just stay away from judging*. I read that and my mind goes to inspy, which I will not read.


You are free to read or not read whatever you want. However, what you're doing is EXACTLY what "judging" is. You're making assumptions on other people's values and thoughts based on a single word that they used, and because of it, you "run the other way". You "won't go near those that point it out as some judgement call", but you point out people who use the word "clean", and judge them for "judging".

Sorry, but you judge just as much as those people if not moreso. Feel free to get turned off by the word clean and stay far away from it, but don't pretend like you're on some higher ground of not making judgements, when you're doing the exact same thing you assume they're doing (though, who knows what they actually think? Maybe they're just trying to help other readers identify what kind of a story it is, and "clean" is the best word they know that fit the description?).

_AsianInspiration, make personal comments about your fellow members is not allowed here. Members have well responded to this post, so I'm leaving it in place but you are banned from this thread. See my PM. --Betsy/KB Mod_


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

What I believe Atunah's saying is that she stays away from authors who seem to be judging (judging sex as being "dirty" when they use the word "clean.") Not that she's not judging. 

It's a very important point for this group of authors to be aware of: that the word "clean" conjures up this idea in many readers' minds. If it were me, unless I were writing for that evangelical/Catholic/LDS/etc. audience, I'd use "sweet," not "clean." 

Your tone is too hostile for good discussion IMHO. You did the same thing to me yesterday by telling me I "don't understand men" or whatever it is. You're 24 or 25, right? Yeah ... maybe dial it back.


----------



## AsianInspiration (Oct 12, 2016)

I don't feel I was being hostile to you. If you quoted the whole sentence, you'd see me talking about how I don't understand women either, and that trying to understand the POV of the other gender is not easy. If you were offended, I'm sorry. I respect you and your experience, and I'm sure you know a lot more than I do, but we are only human, there's no way we can understand everything. You wrote something like "what else what men think about if not sex?" and, all I can say is... a lot of things.

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


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

Only one of my books is categorized under clean romance and right now it's #46 on a free run with no promo. Readers dig this stuff. BUT...it's the only one in the series that doesn't have at least a little bit of nudity in it. I get them to second base, maybe remove a layer, and then it's fade to black. I mean, come on, they're married for heavens sake.  I don't categorize my books under Christian anything even though I'm a Christian. To be frank, I don't include pastors and religion in my stories. Personally, because I think it does a disservice to the faith, but mainly because I like to write for ALL readers, not just religious ones. 

I'm going to agree with you here, Rosalind, in that sweet seems to be mainly what I write. Suppose I call it clean because there's no sex on the page except for in my 1940's romance but I don't think I did such a good job of that hehe.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

AsianInspiration said:


> I don't feel I was being hostile to you. If you quoted the whole sentence, you'd see me talking about how I don't understand women either, and that trying to understand the POV of the other gender is not easy. If you were offended, I'm sorry. I respect you and your experience, and I'm sure you know a lot more than I do, but we are only human, there's no way we can understand everything. You wrote something like "what else what men think about if not sex?" and, all I can say is... a lot of things.
> 
> This past post however, I'm sure I conveyed exactly what I was trying to convey. In fact, I really toned it down. If I were to say what I really wanted to say, I would point out how hypocritical it is to judge other people for judging. Some people simply don't deserve respect, unfortunately.


You misunderstood Atunah completely, and you misunderstood what I said pretty completely as well.

Regardless of your beliefs about who deserves respect (seriously?), if you don't communicate respectfully, people will turn you off.


----------



## Atunah (Nov 20, 2008)

Rosalind J said:


> What I believe Atunah's saying is that she stays away from authors who seem to be judging (judging sex as being "dirty" when they use the word "clean.") Not that she's not judging.


Correct, thank you. I think my post was very clear.

I also find AsianInspiration come across hostile and too aggressive for my taste. Twisting words to something that was never said. repeatably. It makes me uncomfortable. As has been the case with him in previous discussions pertaining to romance. Which is why I will not engage him anymore.

I have said my 2 cents here. There are days when all the fun is taken out of the board for me. Back to reading for me.


----------



## S.R. (May 19, 2016)

[My posts have been deleted in response to the unannounced KBoards TOS change that was made by the new forum owner (VerticalScope) -- I do not agree to the new terms and have requested that my account be deleted as well]


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

SallyRose said:


> I always refer to my "fade to black" books as "sweet." Until reading this discussion, I thought that clean/wholesome was just Amazon's clumsy and unappealing way to describe fade-to-black romances. Now I'm thoroughly confused. If the inspirational category is geared toward books with a religious angle that don't have sex, drinking or bad language (I haven't read them, but that's what I've been told). And the clean category is for readers who, I suppose - after reading this thread, want the same thing without the religion aspect? How does an author effectively market a contemporary, fade to black romance on Amazon?
> 
> My books would be lost in the depths of the contemporary romance category if I focused on that as my main category...but by the definition being talked about here, they certainly aren't clean. My characters aren't driven by lust, by any means, but they do think about each other in a physical way, chemistry builds and they have sex before marriage (off screen)...and they even enjoy a good drink on a semi-regular basis  I guess the only "clean" rule I don't violate is salty language.
> 
> ...


Sally, there unfortunately is no 'sweet romance' category. Just clean and wholesome, which is a new category. I go ahead and put my sweet books there, and they have fade to black scenes. I haven't had any complaints yet and readers do seem to find my books in that category.


----------



## S.R. (May 19, 2016)

[My posts have been deleted in response to the unannounced KBoards TOS change that was made by the new forum owner (VerticalScope) -- I do not agree to the new terms and have requested that my account be deleted as well]


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I agree that's the issue. I like sweet romance and would never click on "Clean and Wholesome,"'and I'll bet you do lose that other half of your audience if you focus too hard on how your books are clean. I'd put your second category into Contemporary Women or something historical or whatever. I do well in Contemp Women, because it's women who want something else in addition to the romance--more to the story. At least I think so. I'm that reader. I care more about the story and characters than whether there is steam or not. 

Also keywords for possibly more categories or searches. That's what I'd recommend. Work hard to signal that other half of readers. Don't put "clean" in the description or say how there's no swearing or anything unless you are focused on only that super selective clean audience. My two cents as a more up and down the scale reader who loves historical fiction. Target both groups.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

SallyRose said:


> Thanks. Yes, it is unfortunate that there's not a sweet contemporary romance category, but I guess that would make it too easy
> 
> I'll probably keep mine in the clean/wholesome category for the time being. Being a small category, it's much easier to rank high and get visibility. Like you, I haven't had reader complaints, but I do wonder how many potential readers click away if they scroll down to read a few reviews and notice the "clean and wholesome" category heading listed in the book info.
> 
> I read both sweet and steamy, but if I wasn't an author with books in the clean category so I know it covers a gamut of stories, I might click away. There's something about the black & white nature of the descriptor that strikes me as a turn-off for many romance readers (even those who prefer books without the on-page sexy times). Unfortunately, there's no way to know how much reader gain there is from the small category ranking advantage vs. reader loss because of the category title implications.


I think there is a lot of gain actually. And that it outweighs any possible negative. Anyone who is going to be turned off by seeing the clean and wholesome tag probably isn't the right reader for my books anyway...in that they might be disappointed that there are no sexy times! lol I usually hit high in the category on release and I think being visible on the right in the hot new releases and on the top 20 first page is great for sales and gaining new readers that are specifically seeking those books.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Rosalind J said:


> I agree that's the issue. I like sweet romance and would never click on "Clean and Wholesome,"'and I'll bet you do lose that other half of your audience if you focused too hard on how your books are clean. I'd put your second category into Contemporary Women or something historical or whatever. I do well in Contemp Women, because it's women who want something else in addition to the romance--more to the story. At least I think so. I'm that reader. I care more about the story and characters than whether there is steam or not.
> 
> Also keywords for possibly more categories or searches. That's what I'd recommend. Work hard to signal that other half of readers. Don't put "clean" in the description or say how there's no swearing or anything unless you are focused on only that super selective clean audience. My two cents as a more up and down the scale reader who loves historical fiction. Target both groups.


I never describe my books as 'clean', even the ones that technically fall into that category. By putting them into Clean and Wholesome, the people who are searching for those books will find them that way. Otherwise, I also have them in contemporary romance and western and any other category that fits. I wish they would create a sweet romance category!


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

Pamela is right: basically the only way to sell sweet (besides sticking the word in a title) is to place it in the clean and wholesome category. Stinks, but c'est la vie.

@Atunah: I enjoy reading your posts. They're so purely from a reader perspective, and I respect what readers have to say. Being an author gives me a perspective that isn't pure (lol), so when a reader speaks, I listen. Please know that your povs are valued here.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

PamelaKelley said:


> I never describe my books as 'clean', even the ones that technically fall into that category. By putting them into Clean and Wholesome, the people who are searching for those books will find them that way. Otherwise, I also have them in contemporary romance and western and any other category that fits. I wish they would create a sweet romance category!


I just wish they'd create a erotic romance category so readers who want that could go there and other stuff would be out of it. Right now contemp rom is such a mishmash, and things like clinches and bare chests seem like they can be any heat level. So confusing for readers.


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

Rosalind J said:


> I just wish they'd create a erotic romance category so readers who want that could go there and other stuff would be out of it. Right now contemp rom is such a mishmash, and things like clinches and bare chests seem like they can be any heat level. So confusing for readers.


Oh, sweet Lord it's the same for fantasy. Last night, I was so frustrated trying to find the right keywords to put my fantasy romance book in a category without bare chests and animals on covers. I have to look up the categories by author names and find similar books with those keywords (not the author names, just seeing where they are placed), since going to the top 100 is NOT a pure way to do research anymore.


----------



## S.R. (May 19, 2016)

[My posts have been deleted in response to the unannounced KBoards TOS change that was made by the new forum owner (VerticalScope) -- I do not agree to the new terms and have requested that my account be deleted as well]


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Rosalind J said:


> I just wish they'd create a erotic romance category so readers who want that could go there and other stuff would be out of it. Right now contemp rom is such a mishmash, and things like clinches and bare chests seem like they can be any heat level. So confusing for readers.


They do have an erotic romance category. But I think too many authors are afraid to put their books there, thinking they won't be as visible. So, instead you see some very erotic stuff in contemporary romance.


----------



## S.R. (May 19, 2016)

[My posts have been deleted in response to the unannounced KBoards TOS change that was made by the new forum owner (VerticalScope) -- I do not agree to the new terms and have requested that my account be deleted as well]


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

PamelaKelley said:


> They do have an erotic romance category. But I think too many authors are afraid to put their books there, thinking they won't be as visible. So, instead you see some very erotic stuff in contemporary romance.


Ha shows what I know. I see that erom stuff all over the place, including Contemp Women. Really? Maybe if the contemporary women are all 20-year-old interns having BDSM relationships with their billionaire bosses. Seems legit.


----------



## S.R. (May 19, 2016)

[My posts have been deleted in response to the unannounced KBoards TOS change that was made by the new forum owner (VerticalScope) -- I do not agree to the new terms and have requested that my account be deleted as well]


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

Ah, I think I know what it is. You can put your book into Erotica > Romantic. But that is NOT a primary "romance" category. It's an erotica category, and writers quite understandably don't necessarily want their book shelved only in erotica. 

What they need is a Romance > Erotic category. But since Amazon doesn't call me up and ask for my suggestions (heaven knows why; I'd be so good at it), I guess I'll just have to endure "Babysitter Gang Bang" or whatever sitting next to my book on the Multicultural Romance list.


----------



## Dpock (Oct 31, 2016)

PamelaKelley said:


> They do have an erotic romance category. But I think too many authors *are afraid to put their books there, thinking they won't be as visible.* So, instead you see some very erotic stuff in contemporary romance.


My understanding is if you pick the Erotica or Romantic Erotica categories, you can't be in any other categories (via keywords or otherwise). If Romantic Erotica appeared as an option in Romance subcategories, there wouldn't be as much crossover into otherwise non-erotic Romance (New Adult, etc.).


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

Markus Croft said:


> I've never wished more that kboards had the crying laughing emoji.
> 
> I didn't know the difference either, so thanks Rosalind for asking. I'm one of those readers that would have never expected fade-to-black to be in Clean/Wholesome. *I assumed, like others, that category was a poorly veiled religious one*.


I think the Christian fic category is technically the religious one. Clean and wholesome isn't religious. At least I've never read anything religious from that category.


----------



## LadyG (Sep 3, 2015)

Mari Oliver said:


> I think the Christian fic category is technically the religious one. Clean and wholesome isn't religious. At least I've never read anything religious from that category.


Agreed.


----------



## crebel (Jan 15, 2009)

I'll throw in this reader's opinion for whatever it's worth.  The distinctions I have always made as they fit into today's available romance categories are:

Clean:  The heroine is almost always chaste until marriage, no swearing, no sexy times beyond a pounding heart/sweaty palms when the hero is near.

Sweet: Fade-to-black for anything beyond hand-holding/hugging/kissing, and the fade is only after it is a committed relationship and never a suggestion of cheating after the hero enters the story.

Inspirational:  A clean or sweet romance with a religious message at the heart of the story. 

I've been married to my high school sweetheart 39 years next month.  I don't read romances because I want to be the heroine.  I read romances to read about someone else finding their hero like I found mine and gaining their Happy Ever After too.


----------



## S.R. (May 19, 2016)

[My posts have been deleted in response to the unannounced KBoards TOS change that was made by the new forum owner (VerticalScope) -- I do not agree to the new terms and have requested that my account be deleted as well]


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

Markus Croft said:


> What I meant was: Clean and wholesome romance sounds like a category that would cater to readers that want their religious values mirrored in the fiction they read.


Ah, yes. I see what you mean. And yes, totally. Although in doing research, I've come across titles with bad reviews saying there was sex in the book even though it was placed in clean and wholesome. So, it seems to me that readers really are searching for purely clean.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Markus Croft said:


> I've never wished more that kboards had the crying laughing emoji.
> 
> I didn't know the difference either, so thanks Rosalind for asking. I'm one of those readers that would have never expected fade-to-black to be in Clean/Wholesome. I assumed, like others, that category was a poorly veiled religious one.


My understanding is that it was created because there was a demand for sweet stories without the religious component.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

But really, could they have chosen two more icky-sweet words? "Clean" and "Wholesome"? Sounds like Vacation Bible School. (No disrespect to Vacation Bible School.) Or "Young Life," the young Christian group when I was in high school. 

Really. Just no. And yes, Amazon may know more than I do, but I still think--just no. And I LIKE sweet romance, she wails!


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Rosalind J said:


> But really, could they have chosen two more icky-sweet words? "Clean" and "Wholesome"? Sounds like Vacation Bible School. (No disrespect to Vacation Bible School.) Or "Young Life," the young Christian group when I was in high school.
> 
> Really. Just no. And yes, Amazon may know more than I do, but I still think--just no. And I LIKE sweet romance, she wails!


I totally agree! Would be much happier if they had a sweet romance category.


----------



## S.R. (May 19, 2016)

[My posts have been deleted in response to the unannounced KBoards TOS change that was made by the new forum owner (VerticalScope) -- I do not agree to the new terms and have requested that my account be deleted as well]


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

PamelaKelley said:


> I totally agree! Would be much happier if they had a sweet romance category.


Yes! I wonder if there's any way of communicating this to Amazon. As it stands, we only have keywords to work with ATM.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I believe they created this category when they published a particular author who was writing this kind of romance (very clean) and doing very well with it. She belongs to a conservative religion, and I wonder if she had input. Pure speculation, but it seems like it has more of that "Approved" stamp on it--like what the Catholic Daughters are reading in their book group or whatever. I'm trying not to sound anti-religion, because I'm not (I've actually written FOUR of 22 books with heroes or heroines who are PK's), but I wish there weren't an "ick sex" vibe around this category name.


----------



## Lydniz (May 2, 2013)

Kristen Painter said:


> I emailed my rep to tell her Sweet Romance needs to become a category. Not that my input will make any difference, but it's always nice to have one's say.


I don't know if it will make any difference either. I see a lot of romances that are self-described as "sweet" but which are full of explicit sex.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Markus Croft said:


> I'm sure your understanding is more informed than mine. Rosalind's too. Mine was just my gut-reaction when I noticed the sub-cat for the first time. I didn't even look to see what was in there because I was sure I knew already by Amazon's choice of words. I learn something new every day.
> 
> I'm still stumped how the religious component gets dissected from the choices the characters make when waiting till marriage to have sex. No disrespect to the people who make that choice entirely independent of religious belief, but aren't most people waiting till marriage waiting because of those beliefs? While they might not have a job within the church, or have scenes going to church, just the fact that they want to do that implies it... doesn't it? Not that it matters. There are markets for a lot of things I don't personally get. I'm not trying to say there's anything wrong with it, just that I'm seeing a correlation.


The clean, wait til marriage stories, do attract the more religious readers but also allows authors to reach those readers without having to have a religion storyline. In Christian romance religion is a big part of the story. There are readers also who don't necessarily care whether or not the heroine waits until marriage or not, they just want to read about the romance and skip the sex scenes, so the clean ones appeal to both.

Keeping my fingers crossed for a sweet category at some point, as that would be a better fit for most of my books.


----------



## Rich Amooi (Feb 14, 2014)

Kristen Painter said:


> I emailed my rep to tell her Sweet Romance needs to become a category. Not that my input will make any difference, but it's always nice to have one's say.


Thanks for that, Kristen. Maybe they need to hear it seven times before they take action. 



Lydniz said:


> I don't know if it will make any difference either. I see a lot of romances that are self-described as "sweet" but which are full of explicit sex.


This confuses me, too. I consider my romantic comedies to be sweet because they don't have sex, but I have also seen sweet romances with sex. What's the difference? Are sweet romances just lighter on the drama? But even if they did add a sweet category, I'm guessing most of the contemporary romance authors would jump at the chance at getting their books in another category. Then that category will be just as swamped as the romantic comedy category.


----------



## Justawriter (Jul 24, 2012)

Rich Amooi said:


> Thanks for that, Kristen. Maybe they need to hear it seven times before they take action.
> This confuses me, too. I consider my romantic comedies to be sweet because they don't have sex, but I have also seen sweet romances with sex. What's the difference? Are sweet romances just lighter on the drama? But even if they did add a sweet category, I'm guessing most of the contemporary romance authors would jump at the chance at getting their books in another category. Then that category will be just as swamped as the romantic comedy category.


That's a good point. Maybe that is why they added Clean and Wholesome instead of Sweet Romance because they would all flood into it.


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

Sweet romance can have either sex or no sex, from what I've read/seen. The term 'sweet' has more to do with the feel of the story than anything clean & wholesome. There's an "awwww" vibe you get throughout the story, especially at the end. A heartwarming, melting feeling. Most of the sweet romance I've read, however, has had very little sex or fade to black, but the couples have been intimate for sure. I don't think I've ever read Christian romance even though I'm Christian. There are various reasons for that so I prefer to read more in the sweet side of things. Anyway, that's the best way I can describe it.

Also, yes, I agree with others that if a sweet category were to be put in, it would be inundated with stories that don't belong just like every other category on Amazon. It's frustrating and possibly my greatest pet peeve with the Amazon system/other authors. Everyone is fighting for visibility so they place their books in categories that they don't belong. Look up sweet historical romance and you get books on the search that are definitely not that. For now, my books go into the general romance & western romance categories.


----------



## Usedtoposthere (Nov 19, 2013)

I agree. I write a series that is absolutely sweet romance with sex. On the other hand I would know what the term meant and wouldn't put my books in there. But perhaps clean and wholesome is necessary after all. That's crystal clear on the sexy times at least.


----------



## Mari Oliver (Feb 12, 2016)

Markus, yes, that is my interpretation of sweet romance, from my own reading experiences and also research on Goodreads. There are heavy-ish issues covered in sweet books but the overall tone is still...well...sweet. Kind of like cozy mysteries give you the feel of curling up underneath a quilt by the fireplace and reading a good mystery, sweet books are like chocolate or icing laden cupcakes on a rainy Saturday while reading a journey of two people who fall in love and live happily ever after. 

One of the best visual examples of sweet romance is When Calls The Heart, which is a western/Canadian mountie romance series currently on Netflix. I'd post it up under the clean and wholesome category far as tv series go, but the overall feel of it is heartwarming like a warm slice of apple pie with vanilla ice cream. <3


----------



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

If I'd known there was any market for clean romance when I started, that's what I would have written. Since I didn't know that, changing now would lose me a lot of regular readers who like the mild sex scenes in my books.

As a reader I'm all for the clean category. The word is unfortunate, but it seems to be the one most used. It's not that sex has an ick factor for me. If you read a lot, and I do, you get to where lots of kinds of scenes have a yawn factor. I skim fight scenes, car chases, etc., in most books, and sex scenes in most romances. Set up after set up leads to a _oh, yeah, now xxx is going to happen._ With sex scenes it's not just that I've read some version of the same thing a hundred times before but also, if I'm fond of the characters, those scenes seem voyeuristic. Maybe that's just me, curmudgeon and all that.

As to the whole you must be religious if.... In contemporaries maybe, but in historicals, pre-marital sex, especially the just met and fall into bed kind without some strong commitment, can make the heroine look stupid, and stupid is another thing I stopped reading sometime ago.


----------



## Christine Kersey (Feb 13, 2011)

My guess is, Amazon's just using one of the BISAC codes. Here's a list of fiction codes http://bisg.org/page/Fiction

If you scroll down to romance, you'll see: FIC027270 FICTION / Romance / Clean & Wholesome


----------



## Rachelle Ayala (Nov 15, 2011)

AsianInspiration said:


> But reading what you wrote, I think I understand now. There's a fundamental difference between the Asian mentality and the western mentality. Western readers want an idealized _ending_. Eastern readers want an idealized _process_.


Wow, you captured it perfectly. I'm also in between cultures, western and eastern, and in Asian dramatic stories, it is more emotionally wrenching for the lovers to sacrifice and to go through so much, but end in tragedy. It moves the soul and gets you in the gut. But in American romances, things have to tie up into a happy ending. I suppose it's the basic optimism of Americans. We have this beautiful new world, freedom, democracy, rags to riches, and we are entitled to a happy ending.

I think in Asian stories, the sadness, tragedy, and grief actually show the characters as more in love because they don't get what they want, and what we don't get is oftentimes viewed as more valuable. Of course, I think that's what the Titanic movie was going for too. Where Jack and Rose are not together, except in the final dream-scene, or was it her death scene?

As to drawing out the sexual tension, if it is unfulfilled the story is so much more tragic and moving, in that there is not even the hope of a tiny baby or someone to carry on the hero's legacy. [And I bet most of you wanted Rose to have Jack's baby, but she didn't.]

That said, I write for American audiences, so even if I have Asian lovers, they do get their happy endings. I do like watching Asian dramas when I can, but they always make me want to cry. I remember watching one where the last scene is the World Trade Center and the heroine knows the hero is in that building.


----------



## Mxz (Jan 17, 2015)

Kristen Painter said:


> I emailed my rep to tell her Sweet Romance needs to become a category. Not that my input will make any difference, but it's always nice to have one's say.


I hope they do. I actually hope they allow every romance to tag one heat level and have a chart for those.

I have some that are sweet but wouldn't describe as "clean and wholesome." The "clean and wholesome" title to me sounds like religious without the religion and no mention or illusion to sex at all.


----------



## GUTMAN (Dec 22, 2011)

When I think of RomCom in film/TV, much of that has all the tension and ups and downs and complication and angst, but closed doors or no sex at all. I don't know a lot about romance, but are there indeed books like that--and is that clean romance.

And Rosalind, I'm probably the age of your husband. I agree with you. As you know, we do indeed think about sex. We think about it all the time. It's hard wired into our DNA.


----------



## Mara B. (Jul 6, 2015)

> I'm still stumped how the religious component gets dissected from the choices the characters make when waiting till marriage to have sex. No disrespect to the people who make that choice entirely independent of religious belief, but aren't most people waiting till marriage waiting because of those beliefs?


(delurking) Since you asked, I used to frequent a dating Internet forum many years ago where a few non-religious women were waiting until marriage to have sex. They were a small minority, but it was more than one person. They wanted the commitment of marriage before having sex for a variety of reasons, not due to any specific religious beliefs. It was just a personal decision. They'd even set up a mini-board to discuss this.


----------



## Cecelia (Jun 28, 2017)

Well my romance is clean and it is not getting a lot of hits - so I feel this catergory is not a great seller. However, saying that I resent finding titles that have heavy sex scenes slotted into the same catergory. 

Yes I am religious, but my title deals with some other themes and reasons for waiting. In fact, in some ways, it isn't so sweet. My themes include:

1) Being ready and emotionally mature enough to enjoy sex.
2) Avoiding domestic voilence in relationships.
3) Having the confidence to refuse to be "used". for example, when the other party is not fully into them...but puts the hard word on.
4) Waiting for true love. 
5) Protesting against RAPE and acknowledging that date rape or really heavy persuasion is also RAPE. 
6) Loss of self respect leading to depression and suicide.
7) Being feminist and not doing everything just because the MALE wants it!
 Seeking a partner who cares about your needs.

Yeah, I'm subtle with the representation, but being clean and wholesome doesn't mean vanilla!


----------



## Kristy Tate (Apr 24, 2012)

Cecelia said:


> Well my romance is clean and it is not getting a lot of hits - so I feel this catergory is not a great seller. However, saying that I resent finding titles that have heavy sex scenes slotted into the same catergory.
> 
> Yes I am religious, but my title deals with some other themes and reasons for waiting. In fact, in some ways, it isn't so sweet. My themes include:
> 
> ...


Thank you. You have a new fan just for saying this.


----------

