We started this discussion in the Euphemisms post, but I thought it deserved its own post. I'll copy over the conversation and we can take it from there.

#26 by: OstensiblyA date: 2 days ago
This is why I wish they would stop calling things stuff. Haha. Seriously, I wish I could float a memo thought Romancelandia that romance should go back to being less explicit. Save that for erotica. Romance love scenes are so much more romantic and sensual operating under less is more. Focusing more on emotions and feeling than tab a into slot b. And it would save everyone from reading words they can't stand, thereby ruining the scenes. Either it's jarringly explicit or overly flowery and ridiculous. Hell, maybe it would remind some authors that there IS a difference between romance and erotic romance. Sometimes it's really hard to tell the difference nowadays. You want people to like your books, which isn't happening if we're ripped out of the scenes cringing and shuddering then posting status updates screeching about terrible word usage in sex scenes!

#27 by: In No Particular Order... date: 2 days ago
Reply to post #26:
"Hell, maybe it would remind some authors that there IS a difference between romance and erotic romance." I seriously can't tell anymore. When you wrote that Victorial Dahl's book had a 19 page love/sex scene, I was surprised. And there are other authors that were never as explicit hopping on that train too. Meanwhile readers were probably reading those authors BECAUSE they kept things less graphic. That's just not everyone's cuppa! I love erotic, smutty novels but sometimes I want a break from that and now my go to authors for that are forcing the graphic stuff down my throat anyway. I'm with you; let's go back to a time when readers used their imagination...I don't need a play by play every time.

#28 by: OstensiblyA date: 2 days ago
Reply to post #27:
Exactly. If you want to write erotica, write erotica. But they've turned them into the same thing when they're not. I much more enjoy a less explicit story. And then if I want something else I can make the choice. You're right, they're forcing it down our throats and I don't appreciate that. And I've noticed authors moving that way, too.

And, yeah, I don't understand why Harlequin keeps publishing Victoria Dahl as romance, every book I've read of hers so far have been very, very explicit and the characters are all about sex, sex, sex. That's what their relationships are based on, that's almost all they do, then they're in love and supposed to call that a satisfying story. In my book that's erotica. (The last sex scene in the same book I'm reading was 16 pages, BTW.)

#29 by: AnnaLund2011 date: 2 days ago
Could it simply be, that Erotica is the new Romance? just throwing that out there.
I very much enjoy both kinds, but I like to know which one I'm reading :-)

#30 by: In No Particular Order... date: 2 days ago
I've not read VD's latest stuff but some of her earlier book were contemporary romance...I think that's why she has that label still. 16 pages...geez! Erotica or not, I don't need that much for one sex scene. The longest sex scene I've read to date was 35 pages. But there were like 5-6 ppl involved. It departed from anything resembling sexy after the first 5 pages, IMO. Emotion, sensuality....what are those?

#31 by: OstensiblyA date: 2 days ago
Anna, all I can say to that is no me gusta. There's a difference! There's more to life and relationships and especially romantic relationships than sex. Many authors have forgotten that. Sex scenes in books are really only satisfying to me when the characters have established a relationship, gotten to know each other, are good together. Not just immediately ripping off their clothes before any chance of emotion or feeling is involved.

INPO, The series I'm reading now is the earliest of her stuff I read. Actually the only other book of hers I read is the first of the Jackson series. It was like this to with too much sex and not enough relationship. I have two of her Donovan books (one and three, I'm waiting for the second to show up on sale so I can start reading them), I'm wondering if its too much to hope they'll be better about that. Oh and better about not using *that* heinous euphemism.

I can't remember what the longest sex scene I've read is. But I bet it'll be in one of the many menages I've read like you.

#32 by: In No Particular Order... date: 2 days ago
Usually love is portrayed as the reward for great sex instead of the other way around. Sometimes insta-sex can work in a story but it's not my pref to read it either. Give me a bit of time to get to know these characters and for them to know one another before they get down and dirty.

Fangirl was talking about this yday on her blog: http://einfachmich.booklikes.com/post/665852/post much more eloquently than I'd do it justice.

#33 by: AnnaLund2011 date: 2 days ago
Reply to post #31:
Oh I hear you, A! I miss romance. the sweeping off feet. the dancing, and flirting. I want there to be clearer divides between the two, when I want erotica I want erotica, and when I want sensual sweetness I want romance. So often is the beauty destroyed by the damn dick entering the scene.

and to In No Particular Order: Jeanne Fangirl was indeed talking about this yesterday, and she has such a valid point! thanks for linking it here where it fits perfectly.

#34 by: OstensiblyA date: 10 hours ago
Ugh, yes, traditional romance, not sex = romance. I want that back so badly! Actual dating, and/or getting to know each other (without the first thought being sexsexsexsexsex), and compatibility. Then the sex being a reward for the real sexual tension that was built throughout. Oh, it's so good when it's like that. I love books like that so much.

I agree with Jeanne Fangirl's comment (on her blog). Look, I adore romance novels. But there are so many unhealthy tropes that are peddled to women as "normal", along with highly unlikely outcomes. A book can be romantic *and* (somewhat) realistic, but that takes a lot of effort, and the willingness to stray away from the traditional romance novel formulas.

I also believe that every major trend has a backlash, and what I'm gleaning from these posts is that some readers -- while not being offended by erotic romance -- feel that it's reached a saturation point and yearn for a return for romance that's driven more by mutual compatibility (and yes, physical attraction does play a role in that) and ... well, romance. That shimmery feeling of limerence and of "not knowing" how things will play out.

Given a choice, I'm *probably* going to reach for a romance novel that builds on a couple getting to know each other, a plot in which the h/H prove each other's love-worthiness to the other. I actually find that scenario more realistic -- more organic -- than I do a highly-charged erotic romance that ends with the couple falling in (romantic) love. I've just never known that to happen IRL, and I can only suspend my disbelief so much. :)