"She hadn't lied, exactly. Just embroidered a little."

We're only on the second page of the story!

Okay, no, there can be both: romance and erotica. My question is what in the hell makes this a romance and not an erotic romance? There is nothing between the hero and heroine but sex until like 83% into the book. Of course they only knew each other for like two days before getting it on. Sex is nearly all they think or talk about, really. It's so vapid and irritating. Gibson made sure to tell us repeatedly, ad nauseum that they want sex and they were only in it for the sex and nothing else and SEX IS ALL IT WILL EVER BE THEY'RE FRIENDS WITH BENEFITS THAT IS ALL THEY WILL EVER BE EVER UNTIL IT'S OVER LATHER RINSE REPEAT. There was so much in this book that was obnoxiously repetitive. It drove me nuts. Almost as much as there only being somewhat graphic sex between the two. And, really, they weren't friends with benefits. That would imply a friendship and there really wasn't one until about 80% into the book. And then it was only sort of an evolving relationship. I can think of maybe five conversations they had that didn't center around sex. And most of those devolved into sexual innuendo, sex talk, etc. anyway. The better description for them would be fuck buddies. That term denotes that the only thing between them is sex. I was so very annoyed throughout most of this book. I'm so supremely tired of erotic romances being marketed as romance. There needs to be a clearly delineated difference!

Then a thing happens and he's kind of there for her, sort of. Five days out of two months. And then she's in love. Cue my eye roll. How? And then he's in love. Seriously? HOW? How are they in love? Other than emotional upheaval there's no reason why she "falls" for him. And there's no reason why he suddenly wants her as a whole and not just for her body to break his 'I never do relationships' streak. You can tell us they are in love all you want, but I need you to show it to me. Gibson did not.

Then, if the above weren't bad enough, with seven percent of the book left this out-of-left-field needlessly over-dramatic bombshell is dropped. It has nothing to do with the hero and heroine as a couple, and then it's ignored! The book ends with NO FREAKING RESOLUTION OF THAT SUBPLOT. WHO FREAKING DOES THAT?! WHERE WAS THE EDITOR?? I'm still flabbergasted about this. Introducing the subplot in the first place was bad, but just letting it dangle there and ending the book? That right there has me thinking I won't be reading/listening to another Rachel Gibson novel.

Pg. 233