Hi, everyone!

[tn_tiger]

I just had some questinos about romance novels without sex scenes -- or, at least, where sex is implied rather than shown. How does everyone feel about these?  Does anyone prefer them? I know that inspirationals and regencies usually don't have sex scenes.

Comments

[xonceinadream]

Personally I feel like the less sex scene the better. It gets boring after a while and I find myself skimming past it anyway, just searching for any dialogue or anything that might be important. It's almost worse in the historical romances that imply rather than show explicitly because they're all so similar.

[teshara]

To much is not a good thing, but nothing isn't all that great, either.

My favorite author's books were typically a rocky start, some sort of Big Problem, trepedatious love, and then some sort of hot scene with a fade to black before it got too carried away.

Then I read another novel in the series. OK, so it started out with a Bitchy Ghost and a Hot Guy. They can't touch. OK, I get it. Fine. The book goes on, the Big Problem shows up. They fix it. She's about to turn into a human... and then the epilogue starts and she's delivering triplets. It was so freaking abrupt!

Not even one kiss. Because true love obviously means mechanically popping out offspring spawned by an affectionless union is the best ending evar!!! (Because they fought for the ENTIRE BOOK and were totally mean to each other. When they got to the end she was just starting to warm up to him.)

I was so pissed I never bought another book again.

[tudorpot]

A well written romance without sex is far more enjoyable than one with cardboard characters, tell not show and lots of sex. Heyer is very good, also Carla Kelly - her English Historical's are brilliant. Some of her later ones have well written sex scenes.

[butterbadger]

I prefer that a book have at least one sex scene. I've tried reading the ones where it's *couple goes into bedroom, fade to black,* but that just hasn't been fulfilling enough since my teen years. I have enjoyed some of those books, but I feel like I would have enjoyed them even more if there had been a little more detail. My favorite books have a few brief sex scenes (ie 1-3 pages); I find myself skipping through if a scene takes up pages and pages (looking at you, Stephanie Laurens).

I remember one time I unintentionally read a Christian romance novel, and it was such a strange experience. Overall it was a fun read, but definitely not what I'm looking for when I want to read a romance novel.

[dark_x_huntress]

Good question. I personally do not like reading romances with fade to black scenes, it's such a cop out, but I don't want raunchy sex scenes that don't do anything to further the characters' relationship. That said, labels for romances exist for a reason. Erotic romance means the sex scenes are more descriptive and more frequent. Erotica is just sex, not necessarily a story. Two descriptions that I would have liked to have known BEFORE I picked up certain books. The Regency romance I read do have sex scenes in them and I don't mind because they're well written.

Oh and I prefer to be told before I start a romance novel if there is sex and what kind (menage, BDSM etc) because there are some "trends" that I just can't get into.