Happily Ever After Book Club discussion

So, Annette posed this question earlier and I thought I'd place it here so we can more easily discuss it. Here's what she said "In your minds, what is the difference between Sweet romance and Clean romance? Do you all consider the terms interchangeable? Or do you consider one to be cleaner than the other?"

This probably depends on the reader. To me, sweet and clean mean the same thing. But, I've learned from experience that it does not mean the same to others. I grabbed a book once and multiple reviews called it a "sweet romance" but it ended up having descriptive sex scenes, so I would not consider it sweet or clean. I guess they considered the romance sweet and the love scenes tasteful (?) so maybe compared to what they normally read it was sweet to them.

And just because this has been on my mind a lot lately, what are your thoughts of sex in books. Do you consider it porn? I do. I think there isn't really a big difference between a descriptive sex scene in a book vs a sex scene in a video. It seems to becoming very rampant in books and much more acceptable than it used to be.

I thought sweet and clean were the same, but I'm learning that they aren't... Because sweet to me means quaint and old-fashioned, which to me means clean.

I don't think sex should be described in books, ever. I personally am okay with closed door because it is a huge part of marriage and being intimate with another person. But I don't think we ever need to be in the bedroom with them.

My lovely publishers (The Wild Rose Press) categorize my clean romances as "sweet," which is defined as not containing any explicit sex scenes. They are also considered "sensual" since they have kissing.

However, I have also come across several reviewers who will take a spicy to erotic book and say the couple's romance is "sweet." I guess it all boils down to the intent and definition of the reviewer...

When I first started looking for clean romances, I ended up thinking that Sweet Romance was even cleaner than Clean Romance, but then I read some of them and decided it was the opposite. And since then I've concluded that everyone has their own definition. To me, when I think of sweet, I think of innocent, so maybe that's why I thought they would be PG.

I know that even in the clean romance world, there is a broad definition. Some would prefer no sex, or even innuendo, while others just don't want the sex to be described.

I guess I just wish that if a publisher is going to take on a label like sweet, or clean, that they would make it clear what that means to them. Sometimes even if they keep it to only kissing, there is still sexualized situations, or even fantasies.

Maybe we need to start a squeaky clean romance genre. :)

I would LOVE a squeaky clean romance genre!
I too have learned that "sweet" is not necessarily "clean" so I tend to stay away from them unless someone highly recommends them and says that they are, in fact, clean.

I do consider explicit sex in the written word pornography as much as in the visual form and just as much an addiction problem that can destroy marriages/families. On that note, considering my view just stated you would think I read "kisses only" rated G romances. Yet I am with Alisa. Intimacy between a man and woman whom are married is sacred beautiful experience that is more than physical, but one spirit touching another spirit emotionally. I, like Alisa, have no problem with sex being "fade to black" or being alluded to having had happened totally "off screen" by characters married to each other. I don't want to be in the marriage bed with them, but have no problem with them describing the emotional psychological feelings they have with their spouse through this connection.

Kim, I feel the exact same. I don't mind fade to black and closed door intimacy, I don't think it needs to be glossed over or ignored. There was one book, a marriage of convenience story that was so ignored I was literally shocked with the girl announced she was pregnant. It hadn't been talked about at ALL so I just assumed they hadn't done anything. And in their case it needed to addressed, at least for me. They had been friends for EVER and had to get married, I think so he could adopt his niece & nephew. So, it should have been addressed how they went from friends to lovers, because something like that would affect their relationship and it always bothered me that it was so glossed over. So yeah, I don't mind it being addressed, but if its open door or descriptive that is crossing a line that shouldn't be crossed, IMO. :)

I agree completely with Kim as well. You all can put it into words so much better than I. :)

Yes, I don't think it should be ignored either. As Kathy said, sometimes the way it's done is ridiculous. There's nothing wrong with intimacy, I just don't want a detailed account of the act.

Alisa wrote: "I thought sweet and clean were the same, but I'm learning that they aren't... Because sweet to me means quaint and old-fashioned, which to me means clean.

I don't think sex should be described in ..."

Perfectly stated and I totally agree!

I have also learned via reviewers that 'sweet' does not guarantee absence of graphic sex scenes! I make it a point to read 1-2 star reviews plus the 4-5 star ones,that's how I have often avoided objectionable content.

However, that being said, I do prefer my romances to describe sparks flying chemistry between the male/female leads and some knee-weakening kisses, or the attraction just isn't realistic to me,and I can't stand so-called romances that have none of that and just the wedding kiss at the end of the book! I would have never married my late husband if his kisses and my attraction to him wasn't special.