Comments on: It’s Time to Revamp our Sensuality Ratings

By: Laura

Laura — Mon, 13 Feb 2012 21:18:24 +0000

I suggest separating out ‘hotness’/explicitness from the genders of characters involved in the sexual relationship(s) depicted in a book. For example, there are ‘sweet’ male/male romances (though they may be in the minority of m/m books) that shouldn’t be automatically rated as hot just because the two characters are both male. (same with f/f or any ménage pairing variation). Noting these relationships exist in the book is still likely worth doing, because each of us has our preferences as to what kind of pairings we prefer to read, but they aren’t representative of sexual explicitness anymore, if they ever were, and should not be conflated.

By: worldclock

worldclock — Wed, 08 Feb 2012 00:29:11 +0000

It’s Time to Revamp our Sensuality Ratings All About Romance’s News & Commentary Blog – just great!

By: Lucy Francis

Lucy Francis — Wed, 01 Feb 2012 16:26:03 +0000

I’ve used your ratings as a reader for years, but had intended on using them as a writer, so I have a standardized sort of way to let potential readers know what to expect from my books. I agree that it’s time for an updated version, and the separation described between hot and burning looks good. I agree with Suzette, though, that there needs to be another level between None and Warm. I think None looks good. Perhaps break down Warm into two levels: One, the reader is present but the sex is written very subtly, more about the emotions than the body parts or thrusting. Two, the sex is more vibrant, hotter but without delving into harsh language, or extraneous activities with toys, ropes, or anal. To me, oral could go with either Warm or Hot depending on whether the reader is given an overall view of the scene or an extreme closeup.

By: Suzette

Suzette — Mon, 30 Jan 2012 19:44:42 +0000

I love your website and come specifically for the ratings. I try to avoid books with explicit sexual content and trust the judgement of your reviewers to help me pick books. I don’t mind some nondescriptive sex and appreciate the “subtle” rating. I think “none” is too obscure. I want a rating between “none” and “warm” as these are the books I target.

By: Ellie

Ellie — Sun, 29 Jan 2012 06:29:56 +0000

I like a good, consistent heat rating, because that helps me pick out books that match my reading mood. Reading one you’re not in the mood for could spoil the best of books for a reader.

I don’t want a violence rating. There’s a lot of elements in books to appeal or repel and I don’t see the point in a violence warning, unless other tags were also added to books.

While the old rating system may need modernizing, I do not prefer the suggested one. “None” only makes sense to me when applied to women’s fiction, historical fiction or YA. Subtle or sweet are good descriptions for a kisses only type romance. Your other suggested ratings seem to be broken down by sexual act and don’t incorporate the amount of sexual tension and focus on sexual matters. Page counts of sex scenes also don’t matter to me, I don’t think they are equivalent to the hotness level.

By: pwnn

pwnn — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 21:57:03 +0000

I agree with the idea that frequency should be mentioned. More and more I’m finding it’s not the heat level I’m concerned with but the frequency and length – because too many and too long just becomes dull in most cases. I’d rather have more plot and character development than half a dozen 8 page sex scenes tossed in and a book with one Burning sex scene reads far less like romantica than one with half a dozen hot or warm ones.

I like the Violence rating idea as well.

By: pwnn

pwnn — Sat, 28 Jan 2012 21:38:55 +0000

Homosexual relationships are not any more erotic than heterosexual ones. Neither are the romances. They vary just like m/f. Almost Like Being In Love by Steve Klugar pretty much fade to black and kisses. A historical by Tamara Allen will have very subtle sexuality – or a sex scene far less explicit than in a 1985 Trad Regency by Balogh. A Josh Lanyon will usually have one or two relatively short emotion and character based sex scenes. Whereas one by K.A. Mitchell will be scorching like a Lora Leigh and others with truly hardcore bdsm or continuous sex might blow one’s head off. It’s all not the same.

The m/m designation as HOT or erotic as others have pointed out is just flat out mislabeling for many books. It’s just pandering to moral judgements on what isn’t seen as “acceptable” behavior. As if seeing a kiss between two men is the same as watching a man and woman fully engage in kinky sex because it’s just so perverted and taboo. This isn’t the 1950s, it’s not even the 1990s anymore.

Moreover, I don’t see who it would helpful to – not to anyone trying to choose between m/m books based on heat level certainly. And not to those who don’t want to read m/m at all – regardless of heat level.

By: Rwa kulszowa

Rwa kulszowa — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 20:17:58 +0000

Od dawna szukałem artykułu na temat It’s Time to Revamp our Sensuality Ratings All About Romance’s News & Commentary Blog . Dzięki

By: Jill Sorenson

Jill Sorenson — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 13:54:17 +0000

@Moriah

I’m not arguing against tags to indicate specific content, just scratching my head over the idea that rape or homosexuality makes a book “hotter.”

By: Moriah Jovan

Moriah Jovan — Fri, 27 Jan 2012 02:25:59 +0000

I also don’t see what rape has to do with anything. A book can be kisses-only with a non-titillating rape scene. I don’t like the idea of tying rape or sexuality with a heat rating.

I like forced seduction, which is frequently called rape by people who don’t like it. So if I see a tag with forced seduction, I’ll pay attention for my own reasons. Other people will pay attention for their reasons, which may not necessarily coincide.