Clean Romances discussion

Hi Clean Romances group,

I am an author who writes historical and romance fiction. I avoid any graphic sexual content in my historical romances. But I was wondering, just how clean is a 'clean' romance? I have a Regency romance novella not far from release. It is a sweet romance, and has no sex scenes. I tend to think it would be clean enough, but wanted to make sure before I label it as that. I would not want any readers to be offended.

The guidelines say 'kissing only'. But what exactly does that mean? The only scene in my novella which could be an issue is this: h and H have married. It was a marriage of convenience, rather than a love-match. H has made no moves to consummate the marriage, and sleeps in his own separate room. h has started to develop feelings for him, and knows that getting an heir was a big reason why H married. She decides that H must be waiting for her to make the first move. So she comes into H's bedroom after they have turned in for the night. He is sitting at the desk. He is surprised to see her, but she lies down on his bed anyway. He walks over, then leans low over her, taking his weight on his arms. There is some sustained eye-contact and heavy breathing. Then he pulls away and tells her he can't do it. h flees in tears.

Nothing much happens physically, but the situation is sort of sexual, because that was what she came in for.

Is that clean/wholesome?

Wow, that's questionable? I call that passion. What's romance without passion? Otherwise, it's just plain boring! I label all of my romance novels wholesome and clean for the simple fact that it's about finding that rare true love and the passion that only the other person can bring out of you; and I make sure that love and passion is obvious; no one night stands or sex before you're married, etc., etc.

I really wouldn't see why that's not considered clean, though. Hope your book does well:)

Sounds squeaky-clean to me! Actually I prefer romances with strong physical attraction and some knee-weakening kisses.
If a couple can't light each other's fire, why on earth would they marry?

In the case of arranged marriage/marriage of convenience, still don't see love developing without the sparks of chemistry, or adultery would soon come, when the unfulfilled mate gets those sparks from another.

The Highwayman of Tanglewood by the Queen of Kissing Scenes-Marcia Lynn McClure is a good example.

LOL!!! C., I couldn't agree with you more. I love the way you put it:)

I would consider what you have written clean. There seem to be a wealth of different opinions on what constitutes 'clean'. For me, it means that any description cuts away before it gets to touching areas normally covered by clothing, if you get my meaning! ;-) But others will have different points of view.

Groovy wrote: "LOL!!! C., I couldn't agree with you more. I love the way you put it:)"

Thank you! :D

Lynne wrote: "I would consider what you have written clean. There seem to be a wealth of different opinions on what constitutes 'clean'. For me, it means that any description cuts away before it gets to touching..."

Yeah, I like it when he pulls her against him, as he's deepening the kiss, even maybe cupping a breast, but no more. I like it when he groans, too, lol! Hey, I want clean, but not Christian!

I like them realistic, but if they get any more graphic, they turn either vulgar, or hilarious, for me! I guess voyeurism just isn't for me!

And back when I tried the more graphic romances, they either made me roll my eyes, cringe, or crack up[all mood killers], so I prefer to avoid those.

Yeah, I tend to cringe when they get too indepth.

I agree with a lot of what's been said here. I think the other thing to consider is that the main focus of the book shouldn't be sexual either. I read a book a while back that was about an arranged marriage and was perfectly clean in the fact that there were no descriptions of sexual activity. But so much of the story had to do with whether or not they would consummate the marriage, and when they would and on and on and on. Having that be such a central theme of the story made it feel less "clean" even though it technically was a clean romance.

I know what you mean Miranda. I have come across quite a few like that, where it seems every chapter was about lusting after each other, especially on the Hero's mind! If that's all he thinks about, then I just feel like he's nothing but a 'man-whore' wanting in her panties!

So.. no more than occasional... lustful thoughts, either, lol!

Thankfully, there are also many authors who are skilled at writing strong physical attraction, and steamy kisses, while being able to keep it clean.

I totally agree with Miranda. If all the story is about whether or not they're going to have sex, then that kills it for me. I got into romance reading and writing because of some wonderful authors that wrote about love from the heart, the physical attraction, and the "steamy kisses" between them--true love.

Sex does not necessarily equate with love.

Groovy wrote:"Sex does not necessarily equate with love."

So very true, Groovy! I think many divorces involve couples who didn't realize that, and had too little else to base their relationship on.

Groovy wrote: "Wow, that's questionable? I call that passion. What's romance without passion? Otherwise, it's just plain boring! I label all of my romance novels wholesome and clean for the simple fact that it's ..."

Thanks:)

Thanks to everyone who replied. That has definitely helped me with knowing what can rightly be labelled 'clean'.

The only other question I have is: how important is marriage when it comes to any sex that happens? I have a Victorian historical romance published, Beguile Me Not. The h is powerfully attracted to the H, but it is definitely not focused on lust. She meets the H at a ball and falls in love. But he is a humble artist, while she is from a wealthy family. So she rejects him. Then they meet some months later, when he is shipwrecked off the East Coast of New Zealand, and washes up on the beach of the sheep station the h is staying at (it is set in New Zealand). The h is engaged to another man, whom she does not love, but intends to marry because her family approve. She is deeply in love with the H, but still determined to marry the other man. But she wants to have just one night with the H before she marries. She comes to his bedroom, and they make love (there are no graphic details). They later marry. I had thought that this was not clean. What you people think?

Miranda wrote: "I agree with a lot of what's been said here. I think the other thing to consider is that the main focus of the book shouldn't be sexual either. I read a book a while back that was about an arranged..."

I agree. Clean does not have to mean 'no passion'. I did a scene in my medieval romance/mystery The Heart of Darkness which was really intense, but the H and h didn't even kiss. It was all about her feeling him pressing against her, his hot breath on her lips, the bead of sweat running down his muscular chest. He was teasing her, proving false her claim that she wasn't attracted to him!

C. wrote: "Lynne wrote: "I would consider what you have written clean. There seem to be a wealth of different opinions on what constitutes 'clean'. For me, it means that any description cuts away before it ge..."

I know, C.. I am the same. Some of the spicy scenes in romance novels are kind of hilarious! I certainly have come across some that made me snigger when I wasn't meant to be.

I agree, Odelia and C. That's why I no longer write love--'sex'--scenes between married couples. Readers' imaginations can create them so much better:)

But to answer your question: For me, that would not be considered clean. I'm a Christian, and I do not approve of sex or making love outside of marriage even in novels. Others may feel differently since your characters end up marrying.

As long as there are no graphic details I would be fine with sex before marriage, because let's face it, almost every couple has had sex before marriage, whether they admit it or not, lol!

Even scripture says(KJV)~1 COR 7:36 But if any man think that he behaveth himself uncomely toward his virgin, if she pass the flower of her age, and need so require, let him do what he will, he sinneth not: let them marry.
Description of pre-martial sex, (he took her virginity) but not a sin if they marry.

I have read many wonderful romances where a young couple gave into passion, yet for some reason didn't marry, and a child was born, unknown to the father, yet circumstances bring them back into each other's lives, and there is a wonderful HEA!

BTW Odelia, love the scene you describe in your book 'Heart Of Drkness'! :D

Emphasis on "Let him marry" not fornicate, just saying:) I'm proud to be in the small group that did not betray my Christian values in that area. So, as you may guess, that would not be okay with me.

Even though I do not agree, I respect others opinions...So the lesson of this thread is that 'clean' can have different meanings to different readers:)

Guess, it would strictly depend on if you are writing for a Secular audience or a Christian audience.

I don't believe Christian publishers will allow premarital sex.

If the incident is detail free and a one time thing, yes, that's clean enough for me.

It's fascinating seeing people's views... being non-clean wouldn't actually stop me reading a book I liked the look of, in fact there are several modern romance series I enjoy (because there's actual romance in them as well) but I wouldn't describe a book as clean if there's sex in it, before or after marriage.

Ok I might if it's just a throwaway fact rather than a basis of a discussion, or if it fades to black at the end of the book etc but if it's a plot point then for me it's not clean.

I don't include passion and kissing between H & h in the definition of sex btw, there has to be attraction or what's the point?

I wonder if this would be more about the difference between 'clean' and 'wholesome'? Wholesome would be more about moral judgements, while clean might be more about the content itself, rather than the situation it happens in.

Christian publishers would want clean and wholesome, not just clean.

C. wrote: "As long as there are no graphic details I would be fine with sex before marriage, because let's face it, almost every couple has had sex before marriage, whether they admit it or not, lol!

Even s..."

Thanks:) I have added 'The Heart of Darkness' to this group's shelves. It definitely fits the 'clean' criteria, but still has chemistry.

Odelia wrote: "I wonder if this would be more about the difference between 'clean' and 'wholesome'? Wholesome would be more about moral judgements, while clean might be more about the content itself, rather than ..."

Although I need to really think that over in my slow mind, I never thought of it that way, Odelia, but that's a good point. I always admire the wealth of smartness on these threads:)

I have added Heart Of Darkness to my TBR list. :D

C. wrote: "I have added Heart Of Darkness to my TBR list. :D"

I hope you enjoy it:) It is available on Amazon in Kindle ($3.50) and paperback, and on Kindle Unlimited.

Odelia wrote: "I wonder if this would be more about the difference between 'clean' and 'wholesome'? Wholesome would be more about moral judgements, while clean might be more about the content itself, ..."

I would think that "Wholesome" should include ethical principals as much if not more as moral ones, as the latter are strongly bound to culture and religion and not necessarily may be "wholesome" at all.

Odelia, It sounds like the kind of sexual tension I like to read. When I review books, I place a movie rating tag-- G, PG, R, X, XX, XXX and "I'm not reading this" on books. If I seeing what it is written it is rated as the movie would be. Just like the G rated movie is all about each person's moral fiber, the book will be also. Each reader has their own thoughts on wholesome. (PC, not PC, war, violence, guns, no guns, fights for what you believe, be judgmental, never judge anyone, environment friendly) It's crazy. Write what the characters would really do. Think about your book's rating as a movie rating and then ask, "Is that my audience?"

Noe wrote: "I would say clean romance means no bad language and no descriptions of sex. I wouldn't put a passionate kiss in the category of sex unless hands are going places and so on. It seems to me that what..."

Hmm, I don't think I can agree with that.

I cannot imagine romance without sexual tension/physical attraction/ passion/lust/chemistry/sparks... whatever one wants to call it.

If my late husband of 30 years and I had not had that, and we did until the day he died, we would not have married, each other, we would have married others that we did feel it with!

I once read "Don't marry someone you can live with, marry someone you can't live without". I believe THAT is romance in it's complete package. :D

I agree with Noe in that clean means no bad language, graphic descriptions of sex, or no sex at all. A romance book without passion, passionate kisses, and the other emotions C. described isn't a romance novel, it's a children's book! I consider my romance novels clean and wholesome; I write about true love, and I LOVE having my two characters experience all of those emotions. That's the way it SHOULD BE in life!

And C., good for you! I'm so sorry your husband is no longer with you, but boy did you have it all when he was alive!!!!! I hope one day to find that, but until then, I'll continue to write about it:)

And that saying of yours is absolutely correct!!!! THAT is romance in it's complete package:)

Thank you Groovy, yes we met when he was stationed at the same AFB as my career Air Force dad, through a mutual friend. He became my best friend first before I fell for him. Funny, when we first kissed I didn't even like the way he kissed! It wasn't until I fell for him, that I came to love his kisses, and the deeper I fell, the more good-looking I found him, so it definitely was not insta-lust for me. We loved talking and joking first[so I love witty banter in my romances]. We just enjoyed each other's company so much. He told his mom that I was the first girl he could ever really talk to. He was somewhat shy, but I put him at ease and continually asked him questions, so it drew him out. I found his different background fascinating, as he was raised country and poor, in eastern Kentucky, and though he didn't have a southern accent, I liked the way he pronounced certain words differently, sometimes causing me to ask~"what" several times, which always made us laugh, lol!

I hope that you find your heart's mate soon, and I wish you success with your writing. Just keep reading, reading, reading until then. IMO, the best writers are also Avid readers.

What a lovely description of your path to marriage, C.! That’s exactly the arc I like to see in fiction—though maybe with a little more conflict, it being fiction after all. Personally—though I know I’m in the minority here—I like the attraction to come long after the mental connection is made, and to be mostly implicit. I can fill in those gaps for myself!

Sorry for chiming in so late, but THANK YOU for this discussion. I really enjoyed reading through everyone's ideas on what clean means.

I think this just highlights the fact that "Clean" is a spectrum, not a discrete point.

Personally, I agree with Groovy and Noe. When I look for a clean read, I want a romance with no or minimal bad language and no explicit sex scenes. Kissing is a must. Cinderella, Sleeping Beauty, and Snow White got to kiss their princes why shouldn't my characters?

Having said that, I completely respect there are people who fall on spots of the spectrum far away from me. This is why I favor a system where we put ratings (G, PG, PG-13) on books.

I also would love to see books have such a rating system!

I agree with Groovy on what is clean. I have been rating books in my reviews with a rating system, like the movies, because I know not everyone agrees with me.

What I'm gathering from this discussion is, if sexual tension isn't part of the plot, then a book isn't a romance. Am I reading that correctly?

C. can no doubt explain it much better than I, but to me, I would describe it as passionate tension, since any book with consenting adults in it can have sexual tension and just be in lust. But that's my POV.

I say passion because clean romances are more about the attraction from the heart, not the need to have sex. They are attracted to one another, they love one another, and the tension it creates makes the story. Like I mentioned before, if there's no passion or kissing and that back-and-forth tension, then it's just a children's book.

Take it C!

Groovy wrote: "C. can no doubt explain it much better than I, but to me, I would describe it as passionate tension, since any book with consenting adults in it can have sexual tension and just be in lust. But tha..."

That sounds perfect to me Groovy, though I don't mind if the book also mentions that they liked the way the person looked, just as long as that is not the main focus and insta-lust, because I feel too many failed relationships are based only on that type of attraction, and then discover there is nothing else between them.

Noe wrote: "I would say clean romance means no bad language and no descriptions of sex. I wouldn't put a passionate kiss in the category of sex unless hands are going places and so on. It seems to me that what..."

Well put!

Thanks for the clarification. I'm trying to figure out genres.

Odelia wrote: "Hi Clean Romances group,

I am an author who writes historical and romance fiction. I avoid any graphic sexual content in my historical romances. But I was wondering, just how clean is a 'clean' ro..."

I would consider that and much more to be clean. I want the excitement of the foreplay....kissing, breathing, excitement etc. I just get cheezed out when I have to read about the finer details of anatomy.

Especially when the details are described in cheesy euphemisms—who ever thought the word tumescence would fail to break the mood??

LOL That always makes me think of '10 things I hate about you'.

I actually find crude worse than cheesy.

Sonia wrote "I want the excitement of the foreplay....kissing, breathing, excitement etc. I just get cheezed out when I have to read about the finer details of anatomy.

Excellently put, I totally agree! No further than the kissing, breathing, excitement, maybe a moan/groan or two, but I do want at least that much! Without it then there is no physical attraction/chemistry there.

That is nothing but a "platonic" relationship, and if that couple ever has sex/children, then I think that's just nasty....like two dogs going at it! It's all mechanical. Without the desire/passion, then forget about it!

If my late husband had not been able to "light my fire", then I sure would not have married him! The lust/desire has to be there, or it is nothing but a boring platonic relationship, not someone you long to marry and have children with, those are the people who end up cheating when someone comes along who does sweep them off their feet with powerful sexual attraction!

Sonia and C,
My thoughts echo yours. Less is more and very powerful.

Abigail wrote: "Especially when the details are described in cheesy euphemisms—who ever thought the word tumescence would fail to break the mood??"

Given that I had to look up what it means, no totally not breaking the mood. :)


C. wrote: "Excellently put, I totally agree! No further than the kissing, breathing, excitement, maybe a moan/groan or two, but I do want at least that much! Without it then there is no physical attraction/chemistry there. "

Never quite get these moaning/groaning heroes - what the hell are they doing? :D
But I always reconsider when I read "a sexy clean romance" in a description, it just sounds like a oxymoron to me...

I consider clean as a kiss only, usually towards the end - in the case of a historical romance novel. I like my characters to have a connection beyond the physical- a true meeting of the minds. I don't care for passionate kisses and don't consider make out scenes as clean. Lusting and making out is not romantic. A good waltz or touching hands without gloves can convey attraction and witty dialogue can show sexual tension. See Georgette Heyer as the gold standard.

For contemporary set novels, clean is no graphic details. It's enough to know what they did. I'd like fade to black or door closed. No body parts mentioned.

That really helps.

I’m entirely with you, QNPoohBear! I know some others in this forum like things warmer, excluding only explicit descriptions of sex, but I get sick of the pantings and palpitations as well. So “clean” is a spectrum, not a point.

I blame Georgette Heyer for defining the period romance and setting the gold standard! If she hadn't been so darn good, I might be willing to accept more, but the way she was able to convey romance without resorting to the physical was amazing! Venetia is my favorite. I can feel the chemistry between the heroine and hero but they don't even kiss once! The witty banter and the looks they give one another show the other characters and the reader, that these people are in love.

One of my favorite contemporary written Regency romances is A Phantom Affair. The hero is a ghost who can't touch the heroine without harming her. The author was challenged to create romantic tension without physical contact and it really worked. I loved the relationship even though I don't care for paranormal.

Hi guys! I've been watching this thread for a few days. I published my first romance last year (and the paperback this month) and really tried to bring in the emotional connection and attraction without much physical contact. I value love stories that are deeper than a physical attraction. I think it makes the reader care more about the characters.