Clean Romances discussion

So I came across this group that discusses 'clean' romance, or as it says in the description, 'old-fashioned love stories,' and I'm wondering, does the lack of sex in romance add to, or take away from the romance? Does not including sex let the focus fall on the romance, or does it take away from the love story's realism? What do you think, and why did you join a group about sexless romances?

I don't necessarily consider "clean" romance "sexless" romance. To be honest my romance with my husband is not sexless at all. The sex is private. I think a clean romance is a romance that keeps the sex private. My children never see the sex part of our relationship (naturally!!), but they do see the romance. They see us talking, laughing, holding hands, kissing etc. I would never dream of letting anyone see more then that. When I read a book I don't need to have it all spelled out for me to understand that something is going on in the bedroom. Do I prefer the characters be married first? Sure. Is that a necessity for it to be clean? Not for me. I just want the sex to be off screen. I think an author that has to include a sex scene to portray romance is sort of lazy. Aren't there other ways to portray a loving romantic couple? I understand that they will be having sex if they are in love, especially if they are married, or committed adults. I just think an author who can express their love and romance without including the sex is a better author, and I will choose that author's books. That is why I joined this group.

I'm a tension writer. Tension is what draws me to a story. A story doesn't have to have sex in it for me to read it. Sex doesn't display romance to me.

I see romance as: Candlelight dinner, movie date, massage, etc.

Those are the things that I like to write about. In my present story Trespassing, my hero is a dangerous bad boy and yes, skin is shown. What can I say, he's bad.

Right, maybe I should rephrase: romances that don't show the act on-screen.
I think of romance much in the same way, but the reason I asked this is because I don't know what's worse;
a) a well-written romance that drags on way too long with nothing happening, not even a kiss,
or
b) a badly written one where the characters don't really love each other but jump to sex right away.

I don't know, both are frustrating. But I'm still wondering if showing sex takes away from the romance or whether it makes the romance more realistic.

I think showing the sex takes away from the romance. When the sex is described in all it's detail the romance is gone, in my opinion. When something that private isn't private anymore, the romance goes out the window. I think a door closing on the scene is much nicer, and more romantic.

I, too, see sex as a private matter. What I want is a good story where there is a good plot, good writing and some surprises in amongst the romantic tension. What I want in romance is will he win her heart, will interesting obstacles develop, will the obstacles be overcome. I also want to be able to move along in a book. If the touches and drooling are overdone, you sit there, in one place, waiting for the couple to get it over with so the story can continue. And I don't want to read about it anyway.

I started this group just to give readers an option. There are many (many!) romance groups that welcome and even celebrate sex scenes. But some readers, like myself, prefer the romance outside the bedroom, and yes, consider that most intimate expression of love to be a private matter, and hence prefer the bedroom door closed. This group isn't meant as a judgment on what other authors write. It is to give a place and voice to those authors and books who prefer to stress the romance outside the bedroom door.

And it is soooooooo nice to have such a place! Thank you.

Levina, showing the sex doesn't take away from the romance for me. I read and write both types of stories.

What does detract from the romance is the slam, bam, thank you ma'am type of sex where I'm supposed to believe that they're in love the minute they meet and have hog wild sex even though they don't know anything about each other. That may be titillating, but it's not romantic to me.

Whether the sex is on the page or not, I still want the romance aspect.

Delaney wrote: "What does detract from the romance is the slam, bam, thank you ma'am type of sex where I'm supposed to believe that they're in love the minute they meet and have hog wild sex even though they don't know anything about each other. That may be titillating, but it's not romantic to me.."

Nicely put. I hate it when two people who hardly know each other all of a sudden have an urge to sleep together. I was scowling out loud when my freshman English class read Romeo and Juliet and the two of them kissed five seconds after they met.

So, I guess the consensus is that a) is the better situation. It's only frustrating to the fans because they want to see more of the romance. If anyone's seen the anime Inuyasha or talked to fans of it, I think you'd know what I mean.

I know that sex is a big component of whether or not a book is clean. But for me foul language is another huge contributing factor. I am alone in this or do yall think it has to do with the cleanliness of the novel?

Levina wrote: "Delaney wrote: "What does detract from the romance is the slam, bam, thank you ma'am type of sex where I'm supposed to believe that they're in love the minute they meet and have hog wild sex even t..."

Levina, I think some kind of middle road is possible. I include kissing in my romances (some readers have even called my kissing scenes "sizzling"), but there's no sex in the story and the kisses aren't graphic so much as they are filled with emotion. I haven't seen Inuyasha so I can't comment on that, but I think a lot of readers are looking for the powerful emotions of romance, rather than a blow-by-blow description of its physical manifestation.

Beks wrote: "I know that sex is a big component of whether or not a book is clean. But for me foul language is another huge contributing factor. I am alone in this or do yall think it has to do with the cleanli..."

Foul language can definitely ruin a book for me, but I know other readers who seem to gloss right over it. Some have a tolerance for some words and not for others. Our group can't monitor everything, however, so we've chosen only to monitor the romance. We do have a thread where readers can make comments on language in specific titles if they'd like to share their concerns with other readers, but so far, no one has much used the thread.

Sex has become an temporarily joyous sport-like activity. There are a few of us that find sexual relations and good language a sacred and special God-given gift. To make it casual or cheapen it further with filthy language is deplorable to us who value it so highly and want our children to do the same. The structure of the family is being demeaned and made as a joke but it is that very sure structure that has made our country great and joy and inward peace everlasting.

I don't like to read anyone cuss.

Joyce, a kissing scene can be sizzling, even without the writer writing it that way.

Some people believe that kissing is more intimate than sex or love making. I see sex and love making as two different things.

Kissing can be very sizzling. It depends on how you write it, and I think it largely has to do with the characters themselves; you can't have a good romance with flat, one-dimensional characters, can you? With strong, well-developed characters the powerful emotion Joyce mentioned is probably more likely.

On the subject of language - I think cussing can be effective when it's used as emphasis of strong emotion. If it's sprinkled everywhere like foul glitter it sort of loses any potency.

In the words of clean romance queen Marcia Lynn McClure, "It's all about the kissin'" :-)

Hurray for kissing~!

I wonder what a sizzling kiss feels like? Because I wouldnt know ;p

For me it depends. I think that like others have said, when the sex is a physical manifestation of the romance that the characters are feeling, I'm happy to go with the flow and read about it - so long as it is well written. Clunky sex scenes with weird words (like "love milk") bug me. I do not like it when sex takes place when the characters have not had the chance to even get to know each other. I do not like immediate attraction that overpowers all other brain functions. I do not like endless sex scenes that keep interrupting the flow of the story.

As for language, only the c-word annoys me. I watched an interview with the amazing Stephen Fry recently. He pointed out that a lot of the words we are not supposed to say in public are ones that represent the physical manifestation of love. However, words that represent horrible pain are perfectly acceptable ("Oh, I was stuck in the queue for two hours. It was torture.") That got me thinking.

@Rea: Stephen Fry IS amazing. Excellent observation on his part. So glad you shared that. @Natalie: you expressed exactly what I was thinking on this subject. @Debra: thank you for creating this group. So great to have found some like-minded readers.

Personally I think sex is such a vital part of a marriage that to parade it around in literature and movies is disgracing it. With all of the media and technology invading our lives hardly anything is private anymore. That is one part of marriage that should be kept between a couple. These books that parade it around like it's entertainment are belittling the romance and connection. Romance isn't just sex. It's more than that. It's tension- sexual tension even- but it's not in displaying the act of sex for the whole world to perv over.

Personally for me, I prefer a clean romance. I don't think it's necessarily a disgrace, if people want to write about or read a book with sex in that's their choice but for me, the Romance in a story doesn't need the description.
I love the innocence of falling in love. When the writer describes the skipping of a heart beat or the electricity that runs through your body as hands accidently touch. The lack of breath when looking into each others eyes. That for me is it all. Theres so much sex everywhere and lets face it I'm a mother of two, I know what you do I don't need to hear it from somebody else. I believe sex should be private. If a book has it in I'll carry on reading but I will lose a little respect for it and look forward to the parts without it, maybe I'm just old fashioned.

Angela wrote: "Romance isn't just sex. It's more than that. It's tension- sexual tension even- but it's not in displaying the act of sex for the whole world to perv over."

Yes, for me the romantic sexual tension is so much more exciting to read. And it can be done well without the characters actually doing the deed on the pages. Great dialogue, sizzling kisses, and genuine character emotions can all make the tension come alive.

I've said before that once the deed is done, the romance is over. And of course I am referring to a novel. My husband and I have been together for nearly 20 years, and he still surprises me with the sweet little things he does. Sometimes when we walk the dog, he'll move over next to me and hold my hand. Most of the time he's gruff with a quick temper, so when he does stuff like that , I find it especially sweet and romantic.

But we're here to talk about books. I agree with the rest of you who say you are old-fashioned and like a good clean romance. It's what I've always read and what I have striven to do in my book, El Rey: A Novel of Renaissance Iberia. I make allusions to sex but never outright describe the act, and of course, plenty of restrained desire. For me, if I'm reading a book and it's all enflamed body parts and graphic descriptions, I tend to skip those sections out of sheer embarrassment. And when they happen over and over again...geez! I can't even get into the book let alone enjoy any romance.

I, too, am old-fashioned and prefer that sex be a private thing between a man and woman. Do not need to read about it anymore than I want to know what my friends or neighbors do in their private moments. Also do not prefer reading cuss words any more than hearing them.
I love reading about healthy courtships, marriage and married partners who enjoy each other and their life experiences. That, along with many other things, helps me stay romantic.

I enjoy/prefer clean romances, and yes, the tension is what makes a great romance novel. I love reading and writing tension. I usually stop reading a book where a couple is in bed in the first chapter. If there is no build-up of the romantic relationship before "the deed is done", I lose interest. I don't necessarily agree that the romance is over once the deed is done (in a novel), but it can't happen before the couple is committed, or it may be used to show the turning point in the relationship and they are committed from then on.
I am guilty that I have written a (as in one) "love scene" in each of my first two books in my current romance series, but I feel the scenes were tastefully done, and not overdone, and were there to emphasize the love between the couple. In the third book in the same series, there is no sex, and also no implied sex. It just wasn't right for that particular story.

In Patricia Leslie's , the courtship, while rapid, is one of romance and a growing mutual attraction, so that when they finally come together, it is a resolution of an impossible tension - but you DON'T get the graphic details. I like being able to fill in the blanks with what I think would be a perfect encounter. When I reread, the details in my mind can change depending on my mood. (Disclaimer: I'm the husband of the author, but I love the book [believe me, I was terrified I would hate it - talk about a marriage destroyer - but I honestly admire it, and I have high standards.]) Anyway, no graphic sex, but you know they are "doing it," and totally enjoying themselves. Take a free look on Kindle, and register to win a copy on Goodreads.

To the original post, that asks the question: "does the lack of sex in romance add to, or take away from the romance?"
I don't see why you have to seperate the two. It seems as though there is this implied idea that sex is not and can not be romantic.

Ed Wagemann wrote: "To the original post, that asks the question: "does the lack of sex in romance add to, or take away from the romance?"
I don't see why you have to seperate the two. It seems as though there is t..."

Yet, you must keep in mind that this group is about clean romances. As someone who writes BOTH straight romance with sex scenes and clean romances without them, I can and do separate romance from just plain sex. While one often accompanies the other, they are NOT the same thing. A clean romance story can often be more romantic than one that has lots of sensuality involved. In fact, I find some of today's romances, especially those which lean toward erotica, while they might be well-written with a good secondary storyline, to be completely un-romantic. My opinion to the original question, "does the lack of sex in romance add to, or take away from the romance?", is that it depends entirely on the story and the targeted market of readers.

Beks wrote: "I know that sex is a big component of whether or not a book is clean. But for me foul language is another huge contributing factor. I am alone in this or do yall think it has to do with the cleanli..."

I agree, the language is a big component. I love a book that can express anger, and frustration, without the cussing. I know a couple words here and there are normal, but the "F" bombs are unnecessary. I truly cringe when it's not even the characters cussing, but the narration! I love an author who can make you feel the frustration, but not the filth. I like finishing a book feeling better about my own life and myself, not the other way around. Being behind the bedroom doors make me feel unsatisified, and always wanting more. I believe the explicit sex is the same as porn. It ignites the same senses, and makes the "Clean romances" unsatisfying. Like they need more action or something?

Alyson, does the term "clean romance" then imply that sex is NOT clean? That it is dirty somehow?

This quote might apply to my question.

"We don't see things as they are, we see them as we are." — Anaïs Nin

Not dirty, but intimate and private. Not something that I want dulled by media.

Again, I think that depends on the readership, Ed. A 'clean' romance is simply a way to describe a romance story that does not contain explicit sex, versus a romance story that does contain sex. It's quite simple really.

Alyson wrote: "Again, I think that depends on the readership, Ed. A 'clean' romance is simply a way to describe a romance story that does not contain explicit sex, versus a romance story that does contain sex. ..."

Actually, I'll clarify myself here. According to many romance publishers, erotic romance is categorized as explicit and very graphic (not what I write or like to read). Sensual or spicy contains sex(sometimes what I write) but not including every single unnecessary detail. Sweet is 'clean' romance, which, many times, can be more romantic. There are times when some things are better left to the imagination.

Thank you, Alyson, for clarifying the literary meaning of 'clean', which I believe was at issue here.

I'm not sure why Ed is trying to make us all change our opinion. We are here because we like a good romance without reading about sex. For me, I don't like the characters to even be doing it (unless they are married to each other!), let alone read about it. That innocence of falling in love is gone, and I put the book down. Of course, everyone is entitled to their opinion.

I don't think it has anything to do with sex being dirty just something that should be kept private between two people. I love clean romances because its innocent. The love is pure - untarnished!

Katherine, I'm not trying to make anyone change their mind. I'm interested in hearing every one's opinions here and expressing my own.

I've written a novel that I will soon publish and some of my proof readers have raised this question. My idea of a romance is when two people get to know each other and grow closer to each other in a "romantic" way. Which is different than say, a friendship, or student-teacher relationship or mother-daughter relationship, etc. Romance is about a special and specific type of love in which two people get close mentally, spiritually, emotionally and yes physically. So imo, excluding any of those types of closeness only makes for the story to seem less believable.

Ed Wagemann wrote: "Katherine, I'm not trying to make anyone change their mind. I'm interested in hearing every one's opinions here and expressing my own.

I've written a novel that I will soon publish and some of my..."

But being physically close doesn't mean the characters have to have sex or that the sex needs to be shown on page. And the whole "clean" for me is just an aid to identify a certain type of romance...it doesn't mean other books are "dirty." I personally prefer the term "sweet" but that term doesn't seem to be used much anymore. And even that term carries its own implications.
@Alyson: thanks for the clarification. :)

Yes, and if you're not sure about classifying your book as a 'clean' romance, you can always give a review copy to someone who typically reads in the genre for their opinion. Or you can always just call it a plain old romance.

Levina wrote: "Delaney wrote: "What does detract from the romance is the slam, bam, thank you ma'am type of sex where I'm supposed to believe that they're in love the minute they meet and have hog wild sex even t..."

I've seen Inuyasha and read the manga. Yes, it's a frustrating read with a strong tendency to drag out the plot. However, because there's so little overt romance, the romantic bits that exist become that much more powerful.

My experience has been that sex is such a powerful tool that it takes away from the rest of the narrative. Smaller gestures can be just as hot/passionate and don't take away from the story, allowing the emotional side to be both clear and believable.

I mean, if you've already shown a couple sleep together (in the euphemistic sense), any kisses afterward, no matter how emotionally charged, are going to fall flat. However, in general, if you keep sex out of the narrative, those kisses are still going to have power by the end of the story.

I will admit there are exceptions to this rule. I've read a couple. My experience has been that those are rare and have to be exceptionally good for them to work.

Wholeheartedly agree with that! Thanks, Amy!

I recently saw a movie I'd like to recommend, but since I saw no film suggestions post I chose this topic. It's Bright Star, the story of John Keats and the love of his life. It's a CLEAN movie, which I love and appreciate in this world who seems to be intent on putting a sex scene in EVERY romance film (or in practically ANY kind of film really) and yet it was a very romantic and passionate movie-

Thanks, Rosealba. It's on my netflix queue.

@ Reina I think I prefer Sweet Romance sounds much better than Clean Romance. "Clean" kinda conjures up some judgmental old church lady who is pointing her finger and warning about Satan.

Ed Wagemann wrote: "@ Reina I think I prefer Sweet Romance sounds much better than Clean Romance. "Clean" kinda conjures up some judgmental old church lady who is pointing her finger and warning about Satan."

:) If it's Dana Carvey's church lady, then...lol
Sweet is problematic as well, though, as it (to me) implies a certain tone, like in many Georgette Heyer novels, of being light and frothy, in a sense. And not all clean romances are like that...some can be dark and more serious in tone.
The terms are what we make of them, I think. And most important for me is to let readers know so they can make a better call about whether a book will fit their comfort level in terms of content.

Good point.
I didnt know that clean romance could be dark. How about the term Sexless Romance, would that be better?

Old-Fashioned Romance sounds like the best term.

That's what I used before I heard the 'clean' classification.