AAR

[Tee]

This topic has been discussed before here several times. What we can agree on is that porn, erotica, whatever, have boundaries that stretch. And they stretch differently from individual to individual. Five years ago, reading certain types of passages in novels may have sounded like porn to some of us, but now it's tantamount to just dipping your toes in water. The more you're exposed to it, the less it bothers you and the parameters are pushed out even more.

So what's new? You and I and others may agree some things are not porn, but who's to say what another person feels about it? Maybe the OP could have been more tactful in describing what she doesn't care for but we got the gist of her post. I don't think she was being mean, just truthful to herself. Just for fun, below are the first two definitions of pornography from the Merriam-Webster online dictionary:

Definition of PORNOGRAPHY
1: the depiction of erotic behavior (as in pictures or writing) intended to cause sexual excitement
2: material (as books or a photograph) that depicts erotic behavior and is intended to cause sexual excitement

So, maybe the OP wasn't so way off-track anyway. Regardless, we know what she meant; she just used a word that some didn't like. Many of us have decided long ago that we read what we like no matter what other genre readers think. So, we need to give the same leeway here among fellow romance readers.

[dick]

I didn't take offense at the OP's wording. I've been a long-time defender of romance fiction, but that doesn't mean I can't look at it objectively. I, too, think some of the sex scenes in romance fiction are pornographic or very close to it. Further, I often sense that the author of those scenes seems to have deliberately made it so, for the intensifying diction of the graphic descriptions of the actions is obvious. I've been around a number of years. I'm not unfamiliar with sex. I'm not easily shocked or put off . Recently though, I read a romantic suspense in which the first sex scene was, in my estimation, so pornographic I ceased reading. That wasn't what I bought the book to read.

[clutterconqueror]

Thank you, Tee. You said that much more diplomatically than I.
_________________
http://www.shelfari.com/o1518129820

[Yulie]

[Tee]

[clutterconqueror]

Thank you again, Tee, for your words of wisdom.

I would like to apologize for my own heated words. I'm sure there was a better way to express my opinion. Next time I won't read the boards before I've completed my first cup of coffee . And perhaps even wait a day before I respond
_________________
http://www.shelfari.com/o1518129820

[xina]

Actually, my very good friend, who I introduced to the Sookie books, loves them and is not a romance reader, but I think she liked them..partly for the romance, has gone on by herself to read and enjoy JR Ward. She calls them *vampire porn*. I didn't start defending the genre when she said that, because she is my friend and I'm happy that she is putting her toe in the romance pond. However, I do think when romance is labeled as porn on these boards, some of us..many of us, get our hackles up. It is sort of like poking fun at that beloved crazy aunt. We love her and do it in fun, but when someone we are not familiar with starts doing it, we take offense. I certainly don't want to judge the OP in that she doesn't respect the genre and I don't want to scare her off the boards. I think it is helpful to have all sorts of opinions in a discussion.
_________________
"As you wish"
~The Princess Bride

[clutterconqueror]

xina wrote:

[Lynda X]

One reader's porn is another's "tasteful romance scene."

As an American, living in a society completely saturated by sexuality, I find this whole porn thing very interesting. Certainly, the word porn is disapproving, but by earlier standards, we are surrounded by "porn," from the media, mainly. I'm sure I don't need to count out the ways that people in conservative societies would see our whole society (and do) as pornographic. The word just reflects our deep-seated discomfort with sex, surprising in this day and age, especially by women. Even today, when men can admit that they like porn in most groups (male interest is so commonly known now, that I think most [?] people would laugh at any man who stoutly declared he didn't like porn*), but somehow, women still can't like it. I've never had the guts to respond to the flung disclaimer "Romances are just porn for women," with "Yeah. And that bad because. . . ?" Let me rush to say that I don't believe this accusation is true, but it reflects society's discomfort with women reading--let alone, getting excited by--sex scenes.

* In an effort not to offend people, let me say that I think porn especially appeals to all men, but that many men disapprove of it. I "disapprove" of many things that I am attracted to. (Mainly brownies).

[Tee]

[clutterconqueror]

And let's not forget today's "hot button issue" is porn v. romance, but tomorrow's might be the alpha male: overbearing neanderthal or hot-sexy hunk? (That's suppose to be a joke )
_________________
http://www.shelfari.com/o1518129820

[MissRubyJones]

Not to get into the fray, , but if I understand what OP's saying, and I may not, so if I'm putting words into your mouth OP, feel free to let me know, the problem is sex scenes for the sake of sex scenes -- they seem to be there just to fill a page count, rather than to further the story along. That gets on my nerves, too. I enjoy a love scene (big difference, yes), that either develops the characters or somehow furthers the plot, but sometimes, I find that sex scenes actually pull me away from the story.

Here are a few more recommendations, OP. They are all historical, I realized after listing them, because that's what I read most:

Poetic Justice - Alicia Rasley (free at amazon right now, btw, and does not go into much detail)

Suspicious Hearts - Julie Tetel Andresen (just a couple of love scenes that are very short and PG)

Rogue's Honor - Brenda Hiatt (again, just one or maybe two PG love scenes)

Most of Gayle Wilson's historicals and Carla Kelly's regencies have sparse or very PG love scenes, as well. In Gayle Wilson's "His Secret Duchess," for instance, the book opens with a love scene, but it's not gratuitous, and it's integrated into the plot so well that it seems perfectly natural.

I may be misremembering - and if I am, someone please correct me! - but I don't recall blushing or skipping pages, lol, in either "Flowers From the Storm" or "My Sweet Folly" by Laura Kinsale.

I'll second the Sheila Simonson rec, too - her books are closer to Georgette Heyer territory than most contemporary Regencies.

[clutterconqueror]

Oh, right, the original topic. I would suggest Sophie Kinsella and Katie Fforde, both English contemporary. I guess these would be described as "chick lit" but I found the romances satisfying.
_________________
http://www.shelfari.com/o1518129820

[Kristie(J)]

[Fenwick]

My reading tastes have changed through the years. I started out with Georgette Heyer and went to Signet then into the Avon Ladies etc. When Ellora's Cave started I bought weekly. Now I have gone back to my Heyers, Baloghs, Kellys, Chases, Hunters, Robbs and Signets. I think I wanted and needed different books for different stages of my life.

A few years ago I noticed a listing for Woman's Books for sale. The man stated his wife had left him and he was selling her "sex" books. What he listed were 4 ordinary Harlequin books and 2 Georgette Heyer titles. It was mean of me but I sympathized with his ex wife.