Colleen Gleason and I were emailing recently, and she asked a question I’ve pondered myself: what’s up with the insta-fuck?
You know, when the hero and heroine fall into bed and start bangin’ the gong almost immediately? When does that work, and when does it not?
We discuss this a bit in The Book, and one book Candy and I mention is Midsummer Moon (subtitle: Salt! Yay!) wherein the hero and heroine end up double moonin’ almost immediately. And certainly I’ve read a few erotic romances and erotic stories wherein the lust is so powerful that it must be addressed first, and then comes the emotional attachment that follows.
With the increase in heat level in romances, and the number of publishers still cultivating hotter, steamier plotlines within their romance offerings, the Wham-Bam-Thank-You-Ma’am Wait-I-Can’t-Stop-Thinking-About-You story has appeared with increasing frequency.
So, being nosy, I ask: does it work for you? Or does it challenge your ability to believe the story and the characters if they fall to humping with so little between them other than hot fiery attraction and a rampant throbbing man ham? What books feature Insta-Sex and really make it work?
I have to say it used to work better in earlier books where it was startling. Now, it reads more like women pretending to like what men want.
security word: similar45 – yes, it’s been used in the last 45 books I’ve read. Single title contemporaries haven’t gone too far in this direction, so I’m turning my attention to those . . . can’t say the same for Blaze – my favorite category books.
Normally, that sort of thing puts me off a book. I hate when they fall into bed within the first 20 pages or so. There are very few books that I’ve read that manage to do this and still succeed as a story. For the most part, these are the plots where the two characters have no expectation of ever seeing each other again. One example of this would be Mary Balogh’s Slightly Wicked, wherein the heroine presents herself to the hero as an
when in fact she is *gasp* a gently bred young woman who is being sent to live with a wealthy aunt. The two characters end up snowed in and doing the horizontal mambo in no time, both with the expectation that their lives shall never intertwine again (much to the hero’s disappointment). Despite the fact that they are doing the nasty by chapter 3, I think the characters are complex enough that this only becomes a stone in the foundation of their relationship. Because of that little interlude, neither can really deny the attraction, which makes resisting an attachment later on that much more difficult and, I guess, adds to the tension in what becomes a sort of “Whodonit?” storyline.
It doesn’t work for me at all, but I read historical more than anything else. Midsummer Moon is a great example, because although it was a great book (and had two great leads + hedgehog) I spent most of the book thinking, “Wait, why did he… Salt? When are we going to find out what was in the salt? Why would he just… Blergh.” I’ll read it again someday, and I’ll probably have a slightly different reaction. I know these things happen in life, but it really throws me off if that happens within the first twenty pages. ESPECIALLY in an historical, because then you just have to think that the guy is kind of a douche. See also: Potent Pleasures by Eloisa James, among others. Even if it sets the couple off on a fun journey to matrimony. Because it still is kind of douchey. I’m sure people will disagree with me, but I don’t like that men sometimes get away with taking advantage of women like that—not that women can’t/don’t want it, too, but I’m thinking of the virginal heroines who don’t know any better because their mothers never gave them THE TALK. Or something like that.
I haven’t read enough contemporary to judge how it works in that genre.
I personally have a something of a problem with the Insta-Sex, especially because my romance of choice is located firmly in the Regency to Victorian eras. I tend to read primarily in that time period and nothing irritates me more than a heroine who initially appears to be very nicely characterized, with thoughts and feelings and all the rest, but suddenly tosses out all of the cultural mores that she must have grown up with and hops straight into the satin sheets of her burly suitor. And even worse, the heroine not only hops straight into bed, but other than a few superficial protests, it doesn’t effect her world view at all. When I feel that, in reality, pre-marital sex was a huge darn deal (and it still is for many people today) and deserves a wee bit of emotional… not confliction, or even remorse, but I guess… acknowledgment.
More than my problem with Insta-Sex, however, is my deep and abiding loathing of the Insta-Love (in any time period). Generally preceded by teh hot sexxors, the Insta-Love is an understandable and acceptable aspect of the romance novel until I start thinking and realise that the hero and heroine have only known each other for a week. And I think that actually bothers me more than the all-of-a-sudden-sex, largely because I fail to see how in most cases the author is portraying anything other than lust, disguised as love. I’m all for lust, but not when it’s rigged out like love, loudly proclaiming its total sincerity, saying Oh hai plz don’t examine our shallow connection too closely, and I’m just expected to go along with it because it’s accompanied by steamy sex scenes and an attractive haunted hero.
Um. I’m really demanding with my romances.
I think it can work really well in second chance/reunion stories, but—esp in historicals—I do wonder about how reasonable/realistic it is with people who’ve just met. In contemps it doesn’t really bother me at all (but maybe that’s cause the only contemps I read are more on the erotic romance side of the line where sexually adventurous women are pretty much the norm).
But it really does all come down to character motivation. Balogh totally pulls it off in Slightly Wicked, and I know I’ve read other books that had similar heroine motivations (this might be her one and only chance kinda thing).
I think it can be made to work, if the author shows us why these people come to love each other outside of the haze of lust. I once read an historical (can’t remember the title or author, dammit) in which a woman was rescued from poverty, shame, and being booted out of the village by being hired by the hero as his housekeeper/mistress. It was very clear that this was the deal, and she understood that sex was part of the job description, and accepted it as a better option than street-side prostitution or imprisonment. They start off with the sex, and end up HEA together.
On the other hand, Susan Johnson does this sex-then-love thing all the time, but it doesn’t work for me because she doesn’t give the characters any reason to fall in love. Two sexually active (or even promiscuous) people have sex, and all of a sudden they’re in LURRRVE. They don’t know why, and I don’t know why, and it’s irksome.
lay55! And I can’t even think of anything pithy to say!
Oh man, I am so with sororitysheep. I hate the Insta-Love crap. Ruins it for me every time.
word verification: likely16…Its highly unlikely that you fall in love with someone within the first 16 seconds of meeting!
I don’t particularly like that plot device mostly because it screams ‘gratuitous sex scenoe here’ and rarely seems to fit in with the rest of the book.
The one book, off the top of my head, in which that device did work, (and worked extremely well) was the Lori Borrill Harlequin Blaze novel, ‘Unleashed’. It was reviewed here and that was the only reason I picked it up. I was giggling through the whole book and enjoyed it immensely.
member26 if I were a member of 26 groups I’d have no time for school!
Semi-cop-out:
Depends on the author. If I trust the author to give me a good story concerning the insta-screw then I’ll stick with it. But it seldom works for me. I liked Midsummer Moon because of everything else in the book and despite the fact that the H/h were intimate too soon.
Semi-evasion:
Is it a series? Have I met these people before?
If it’s an In Death book and Roarke & Eve are having at it… it will instantly be one of my favorite books in the series. Same with so many other couples that are already couples. That certainly works for me.
If they are new characters in a stand alone book then I’m pretty much thinking “how stupid are they?”… but again it depends on how quickly and cleanly the author can make me understand WTF just happened.
Taking all time periods into consideration I don’t dig the “we met, we lusted, we banged” style of writing. I think most of the time it’s insulting that the characters have no self control and can’t help themselves. please. I dislike it almost as much as when you’ve got a book with a 1 month or less storyline and marriage proposals.
that said, I do think that once in a while it does indeed work for the author/story. Or a story is great enough that I forgive the author. It’s the exception, that’s for sure… but it can work for me in the right book. I don’t really include the reuion/known each other a long time (early book sex) because they aren’t strangers and have emotional connection and history already.
(other romance novel pet peeves: trusting the “i’m on the pill and I trust you’re healthy” and skipping condom, sex with no protection, and being unable to stop when it’s clearly WRONG)
I agree that most of the time it can be a little off-putting, especially in historicals, but aside from the categories that have been mentioned above, there’s another one that I think works:
The hero & heroine have known each other—and been attracted to each other—for some time, and the story starts when they jump into bed with each other. For instance, Jennifer Haymore’s debut A HINT OF WICKED (and I’ve just read the first chapter, but it REALLY made me want to read this when it comes out—so I can’t say for sure that it “works” in the context of the full story but it sure as heck was the opposite of off-putting) starts with a h/h who are married to each other—it is her second marriage, after her husband died seven years ago in the Napoleonic wars. The book starts with a love scene in the first chapter that is interrupted . . . by said not actually dead husband.
In other words, I think the insta-fuck can work if it’s the result of long attraction that may have taken place before the start of the book, and if the screwing heightens the romantic conflict instead of dialing it down. In other words, it’s only an insta-fuck to the reader—but not for the characters.
It hardly ever works for me, as casual hookups seldom evolve into anything more meaningful in real life. To me, it reads more as “Gratuitous sex scene thrown in to (a) prove these characters are modern and cutting edge or (b) sell more books” than the beginning of True Love. It was one of the few things that felt false to me about Agnes and the Hitman, and I loved that book.
If it’s a plot device along the lines of “he’s using her to give himself an alibi for his wife’s murder, which is at that moment being comitted by his brother-in-law, whom he’s paying in beer” than I’m OK with it, providing he gets what’s coming to him in the end.
I think, like so many other plot devices, it works if it is well-written. I’m going to jump on the Midsummer Moon bandwagon here as my example. In fact, I read this just last year and LOVED it, but I didn’t recall the early sexify-ing until it was brought up here. And why? Because the book was so d@mn good, and the sex just seemed to fit the story. Now, that’s hard for me to say since I’m also a big fan of the historicals and also agree that jumping in the sack posthaste really doesn’t seem right in that genre. Still, skillful writing makes it all okay.
I will second (or third?) sororitysheep’s opinion that the Insta-Love thing is even more bothersome. If a love story doesn’t take AT LEAST a few months, I’m generally not too crazy about it.
I’m in the don’t like it side of the debate.
In regular fiction it is off putting because you KNOW they’re going to regret it and for all their thrusting they will be thrust apart and there will be 230 pages of whining and angst till maybe another love scene at THE END.
In erotica it’s off putting because the insta-fuck usually involves every orifice they have and you wonder what’s left to read about LOL.
Insta-sex has got to be done well, but then all examples of teh sexx0rring have, right? It tends to work better with reunion stories, or where the characters have some other history.
Strangers bumping uglies? Hmm. Quite often, no. It has shades of desperation and, dare I say, sluttiness.
I like to give my characters a reason to get down to it if they don’t know each other well. The near-death, adrenaline-pumping situation is a good lead-up, and the never-expected-to-see-him-again circumstance can work, but it’s still best under-used.
It’s also dependent on the characters themselves: have you set them up to be highly sexual people, or are they shy and retiring? Werewolves at the full moon or sociopathic vampires? Louche rakes or proper Victorian misses?
Or are they just horny drunks?
Ah, the eternal dilemma of the erotic romance writer!
Hate the wham bams. I don’t find them realistic, and I do like a touch of realism in my books.
The only story I’ve liked with that storyline is Erin McCarthy’s Flat Out Sexy. It had great chemistry, and there was romance in it, not just sex. Stories like that are getting harder for me to find.
But in many cases, we’re supposed to suspend our bullshit factor and believe that the characters having wild (and in some cases unprotected) sex leads to HEA, when in real life that’s why VD and pregnancy spread like wildfire.
And I want to slap some of these people (authors, editors, publishers) for skewing romance completely. Romance novels aren’t erotica. There’s a buildup…a tension. And lately it seems like its gone missing for the almighty buck, or to fit in with the latest fad.
Oops….I was too long on my soap box. Off now.
Sandra Brown’s EXCLUSIVE has the best insta-sex ever! The heroine is a reporter who breaks in to the recluse/hero’s house, looking for a story. He tells her to get out, she follows him to the bedroom, and five seconds later, hot sexxxxoring ensues.
Normally, I like sexual tension and a slower build up, but I thought Brown did instant lust very well. And with a clever twist on reader expectations, as the following love scene is a steamy make out that goes no further.
Not my favorite Brown book, or my favorite trope, just my favorite example. : )
Beth Kery did the insta-fuck recently with Wicked Burn about 10 pages in. I am usually not for that because I like a little courting with my hero and heroine before they go at it, but for this book it fits. I want some wining and dining, some emotional connection and then all the sex they can take and more.
I’ve read books in which Insta-Sex worked and I’ve read books where it didn’t. It’s all in the author’s ability to write enough character detail to make me go along for the ride. It’s also a bit dependent on what sub-genre I’m reading. I may be a bit more forgiving in an erotica romance than a regular contemporary, but maybe not. 🙂 Overall, I’m pretty skeptical if they have Insta-Sex ALL the time.
I have to admit I have started to wonder if I’m somehow sexually or emotionally defective because I really question this ‘gotta touch, have sex, can’t help myself, sex is overwhelming my brain and any cultural and societal training I’ve had, every time I see him, even though I hate the guy’s guts’ stuff. And the heat shoots up their arms when they touch stuff. And the electricity that sparks off their touch stuff.
I recently read a book in which the hero and heroine realize they are in LURRRVE in 4 days. Ehm, yeah, right, maybe, but you gotta show me a bit more than sheet action to make me believe that they’ll have a happily ever after and love each other after the pheromones are done with them.
So yeah, while Insta-Sex can be a turn-off, Insta-Love really makes me roll my eyes and throw the book across the room. The worst example of that I just read was a novella by Carla Kelly in which the hero decides to marry the woman in less than a week because he’s in LOOOOOVEEEE (and during the first encounter he wasn’t even interested in her, so no pheromones to make me think sexual attraction) and the woman was ‘in love’ with him through her uncles letters for years (except we don’t hear about that until the last page). Yeah, right!
I know people worship Kelly, but I’ve now read 1 book, started 2 others and read this novella and I think she is awful and/or boring as all can be.
Anyway, Insta-Sex can work if the author is skilled enough, Insta-Love almost never does, especially if the whole book takes place over only a handful days.
If I’m reading an erotic novel, then it’s expected. But if it’s more of a romance, it doesn’t usually work as well for me, just ‘cause I like that build-up of tension.
There are times, though, when it does work. I guess it depends on how well the writer handles it, like anything else.
It doesn’t bother me much if it’s written well. I actually like stories where the main characters’ emotional relationship grows out of a one night stand or something like that. It’s an interesting twist on the usual relationship equation. Of course, it doesn’t work in all circumstances; I can definitely see it as being out of place in a historical, for example. I mostly read paranormals, and they often have a fun cop-out for the Insta-Sex: pheromones! I also like that stories where the sex starts early on present female characters who don’t feel as bound by society’s (or romancelandia’s) expectations that they fall in love before they start knockin’ boots. IMO, it doesn’t necessarily make them sluts, just comfortable with their sexuality.
What irritates me more is Insta-Love, where the characters meet and 1.43 days later are madly in love. Uh… riiiiight. I just can’t buy that.
I don’t read a lot of erotica but I didn’t hate Insta-Sex in Passion. I feel that it advanced the plot and fed into the eventual character development.
What I’m not a fan of is upfront (i.e. first chapter, usually first sentence) Hero and Some Random Chick Who is Not the Heroine Sex. It rarely advances the plot or adds anything to our understanding of the hero. It is only there so the author can cast the hero as a Duke of Slut who out sexes every other man in town.
His penis is made of awesome. We get it!
Wow, this is so interesting! I am fascinated to hear what works and does not work for readers/writers as far as insta-sex and insta-love are concerned.
*gets out notepad and pencil*
I am just finishing the rewrites on my first historical romance, and the hero and the heroine have fallen in love fairly quickly—okay, make that very quickly. And the reason I think that works in a historical is that courtship and marriage was often pretty whirlwind then—people married each other pretty wily-nilly in those corset wearing days. So I don’t mind if there is insta-love in a historical context. We are much more cynical and sophisticated these days, so in a contemporary, I would never have written it that way.
I am not a fan of insta-sex. I need a build up. Since I write historicals, and I like to preserve at least some measure of historical accuracy, I like it when the h/h are obliged to get married fairly quickly—and then the sex ensues, and some conflict arises that might ruintheir relationship post-marriage. In a historical, hasty marriage works—and then you have to find a reason for the marriage to be successful. Marriage usually came before love in the good old days, and you were bloody lucky if love came at all. The reason I don’t enjoy premarital sex in a historical setting is that I know in real life a gentleman would never compromise a lady—and even if the hero is a bit of a rogue, at heart, he is a gentleman too. He would never dishonour his lady. And if a man did, he would be unlikely to marry her afterward. I suppose it is silly to worry about morality when writing a romance—but I want there to be some honour among fornicators, if that makes any sense at all. Not in a contemporary, of course—I am not some kind of chastity advocate. I just feel the need to protenct my heroine a little with marriage, because I simply cannot suspend reality in my writing to the degree that pre-marital sex wouldn’t ruin my heroine for life, and theat the hero wouldn’t just run for the hills after he got his kicks.
What do other people think? Am I being silly? Does anyone else have a problem accepting the premarital sex kitten of the Regency and Victorian era?
start29: as in, start the sex on page 29, suspension of reality be damned!
Loved Midsummer Moon. Yes, the scene worked for me. However, it is Laura Kinsale. I have read too many books in which the sex is boring…no matter where it occurs. There is no build up. Where the sex scene occurs doesn’t matter. How skillfully the scene is written and whether there is passion between the couple matters.
Actually, instasex occurs outside of romance novels. It is a rare thing, but people do get struck by an overwhelming attraction toward each other.
I don’t mind the insta-fuck in most paranormal romance or even most erotic romance. I do, however, find it annoying in a lot of contemporaries, and I find it utterly ridiculous in historicals.
The instant HEA bugs me more than instant sex though, as does the all-consuming need to fuck RIGHT HERE, RIGHT NOW that is so pervasive in romance these days. Sure, it makes sense in a paranormal about incubi and werewolves whose lives are dictated by animal instincts, but in a contemporary or a historical it’s just goofy and kind of pathetic.
Obiously there are exceptions and I’ve even enjoyed some of those exceptions, but they are few and far between.
Heh…“horse19”. Another topic for another day. 😉
Morgan is so right that historically the marriage and sex and babies (for heirs, of course) came first and then, if you were very lucky, you may fall in love with your spouse. But that, of course, was the fate of upper classes. The working class had a much more lenient view of sex. (I saw a great show on PBS recently about sex during the Civil War.) If more historical romances were to feature working class stiffs rather than the gentry, would that make early sexxxoring more acceptable, do you think? Of course, then we couldn’t have the teas and balls and gowns and waistcoats. I love me some finery.
Hmmm….I seem to be chasing rabbits here, so just ignore this ramble if it’s a little too off-topic.
The insta-fuck doesn’t necessarily bother me. What does bother me is insta-love. I never buy the ‘I fell in love merely by looking at him/her and I knew absolutely nothing about him/her’
Don’t like it. Just occasionally, a really good review will tempt me to read a story with this in (Sheila mentioned ‘Unleashed’ – I also bought that based on the reviews here and enjoyed it) but it usually pushes my ‘No Way am I Reading That’ button. I’m another one who really liked Agnes and the Hitman but felt that aspect was problematic.
Oh, yeah. Give me relationships: conversations, hang-ups, emotions, personalities. People, not just body parts. Attraction and sexual tension. Common sense. Engaging brains, not just hormones. That’s not too much to ask, surely?
And Morgan, I have MAJOR problems with ‘Regency premarital sex kittens’. It’s not as if it never happened; of course it did. Heck, check any family tree and there’ll be some babies coming three or five months after the wedding – and the occasional one without a wedding at all. But there were consequences – serious social consequences, not just physical ones – and transplanting today’s attitudes into 1815 or 1870 is just bad writing. If there’s premarital sex in a Regency, there needs to be both a reason for it – and hormones, curiosity and idle inclination are not generally, by themselves, a good enough reason – and consequences to it.
I don’t particularly care for the meet-then-sex theme, mostly cause of the yuck factor. I mean STDs, AIDS, do we ignore all that? In historicals it seems so very out of place when the consequences of unmarried sex for the woman were so dire that hopping into bed at first glance would make me seriously doubt the intelligence and/or sanity of the heroine.
Also I must admit that I’ve seen the consequences of quick bedding and it never seems to work out like the romance novels. It usually ends in tears and too much ice cream, not in ever-after happiness. I have too much trouble suspending my notions of reality to get in to the book. There might be an exception but I can’t think of one I’ve enjoyed recently.
Oh, and I agree with Katie. Different attitudes depending on social class. Regency novels almost always have aristocrats, therefore absolutely no sex before marriage for the girls. Further down the social scale, more relaxed attitudes. And widows – plenty of latitude there. You want the upper classes, you have to have the whole social context and attitudes.
I think it depends…if a writer uses the initial ‘insta-bonk’ to show how it messed up the character’s lives, changed their choices, had consequences that have to be addressed at some point further down the line, then I’m okay with it. I actually think books about the repercussions of such sexual encounters can be fascinating. I write erotic Regencies and I’m always aware of the repercussions, particularly for a woman if she has sex both physically and emotionally-for me that’s the story I’m going to tell you. There are consequences for actions and my characters will have to work through those emotions to find happiness together.
Apologies if this makes no sense-I have jet lag 🙂
Well, I do believe in insta-love as that happened with me and my spouse (married almost 13 years). We both knew after 1 date there was something special there. 2 weeks, we were talking about marriage. So I have no problems with insta-love.
What I not like a lack of sexual tension before full-on sex. I like some build-up. It can even been *almost* sex.
If the insta-sex is well-motivated, it can work. But for it to work, the set-up has to be solid. Tension has to scream off the page. Immediately.
But I’m sorry to say that in most cases, the sex scenes are cheap and gratuitous. What I hear screaming off the page the loudest is “ka-CHING.”
Oh I love this topic! This is one of my biggest pet peeves in romances (especially contemporary).
Disclaimer: I am not a prude. I don’t mind erotica. I don’t mind graphic love scenes.
My problme isn’t the sex or anything, but when the sex is the only thing between the characters and there is that instant “I must get in her panties!” and “I gotta have that cock!” thing going in the story by page 4, I have a problem. T
here are authors who carry it off well but there are a lot of stories out there that do this *all* the time and the story suffers because of it. Lust is not love. Sex is not a relationship. Having 2 characters want to screw like bunnies does not mean they’re going to live happily ever after.
I think the really first serious case of this I ran into was Wilde Thing by Janelle Denison (followed by Lori Foster *sniffle* Her book Jamie is the perfect example). Please don’t get me wrong. Denison writes really, really well (as does Foster. I do like Denison’s style enough to read several of her books, but in Wilde Thing the hero and heroine are pretty much doing it by page 29 after *just* speaking to each other for the first time ever. After that it just seemed like it was all hot sex (and it was hot sex! Like I said, the woman can write) but when I closed the book, I didn’t close it with “Ahhhhhh, they’ve found their perfect match! They’re going to be happy forever!” I closed it with that little voice in my head whispering, “Well that’ll last 6 months then helllllo divorce court!”
I don’t want that in my romance. I want my romance to be a romance. I want to have that dopey awwwww moment as I close the book and get that warm feeling of knowing these two have found their ideal partner. Yes, sex is a part of that but (oh dear, here comes the old fashioned part and I’m only 35. Eek!) for me the sex and love making should be more than “woohoo, you get my hormones churning, let’s bang!”
Personally I think that’s kind of what’s sinking the contemporary romance. It’s more sex than romance and love (again, not a prude, not scoulding writers, heck my characters are in bed by the end of chapter 2 in my book), and by doing that, a lot less ‘couple’ development and really it bugs me.
I also think that’s why so many books in the paranormal genre are using that whole “he instantly recognizes his soul mate in her” thing to get around having to explain *why* they’re right for each other and get around having to really develop characterization. You don’t need to tell me/show me the why of this couple’s love through the story…. you’re telling me fate and universe has delivered him his soul mate so therefore, voila! I don’t need to know anything more. Of course they’re perfect for each other. Take Karma’s word for it. She rocks the love boat.
So now the hero and heroine can be virtual strangers having hot sex and we (as readers) are supposed to be confident that its because they ONLY reason they are attracted to each other is because they are soul mates, because it’ll totally work out for them, because that love will last forever and ever, so this insa-lust, insta-sex, insta-orgasm is a-o.k.
*sigh*
I’m over it.
JT
I am going to go on record and say I like it, and here’s why:
It reminds me of that episode of Sex and the City where Miranda and Steve first start dating. Though I grew to like him as the show went on, I actually thought he was a little crazy to keep trying to date his one-night-stand, but I liked that at the end, SJP said something along the lines of, “It was a real-life fairy tale ending, of the girl who had a one night stand and ended up with a boyfriend” (note: I am totally misquoting, but that’s the idea). I think the insta-sex touches on that same idea, that a one-night-stand can turn into love, and I like that idea.
Besides, I think that it cuts through some of the bullshit- I can’t believe that people who aren’t sexually compatible should be together forever (right? That would be too depressing). Besides, I would rather see the uglies bumped too soon than the “l” word uttered too quickly. Yikes.
That said, I do agree that it rarely works for me outside of contemporaries (note to Harlequin: I loooove the Blazes like a couple that just sexed loves each other barely a week later). It also rarely works with virgins (if you are going to wait, I need a good reason you are going to stop waiting). And she_reads is right, use some damn contraceptives. I don’t like applying TSTL to condomless heros and heroines, but I totally will. And I hate the term “clean” to describe people without stds. People with stds are not “dirty”. Its all patriarchial bullshit, and it makes my romance novel stupid.
Like sororitysheep and other posters, Insta-Love bothers me way more than Insta-Sex does, as a general rule. Insta-sex…can work, depending on how the author uses it. K.A. Mitchell did a good job with showing how the feelings followed the hot sexx0ring in Collision Course.
And Insta-sex in a historical will more often than not cause the book to hit the wall with a thump. Authors, please to be making the Insta-sex at least cultural/era appropriate.
For the most part: Hate it, hate it, hate it! One of the best things about lust/romance is the tension and the fantasising. Insta-love or insta-sex just kills it for me a lot of the time. I’m having trouble liking modern books because of this, so I have to resort to ye olde classics, maybe?
When it’s done well, and placed in the appropriate context (Slightly Wicked, etc…), it works for me as a reader. Following that statement with a big, fat HOWEVER, it has to fit within the cultural context. If the novel is Regency, Victorian, Georgian, what have you, then there better be some emotional analysis on the part of both characters.
I think that Liz Carlyle does a great job with setting up some hot, steamy sex that can occur earlier in a novel than expected. The early-sex acts as both catalyst for the characters, as well as big moment of character definition since it usually occurs out of genuine motivation and not a need to sex-up the book.
Great conversation. Thanks for bringing this up, SB Sarah!
I used to have a big problem with Insta-Love myself, but then I heard of two different real-life stories of Insta-Love—and these couples are both still happily married more than a decade later. So, that gave me a different, kinder, gentler perspective in regards to Insta-Love.
Insta-Fuck rarely works for me for a variety of reasons, many of which are listed above. Of course there are authors/stories that have worked for me, but they tend to be the exception not the rule for me.
Wow, this is such a great thread!
Katie said:
Yeah, I am with you there, Katie. I would personally love to see a bit more romance dealing with the lower classes—but then we would have even more wrangling of historical accuracy. There was a lot of misery in store for a lower class lady. Even if she could be morepromiscuous, the ramifications were even more dire. She might not have to worry as much about losing her place in society—but what about unwanted pregnancies, raising 14 children in dire poverty, all the sicknesses and poor food and lack of clean water? Yeah, that’s romantic. So I too love me some finery, as Katie said. I like to know that my heroine will at least have a square meal in her stomach while she is fighting for love, and that she won’t have to worry about feeding her unborn secret love child or die in childbirth with no doctor and unsanitary conditions. We have to remember that romance is about fantasy—both sexual and romantic, and that the fantasy includes the setting.
I am gratified to know that so many readers out there have qualms about suspending historical reality. That’s a good thing.
People criticize romance, calling it “girl porn”, implying that we read it not for the story but for the sex. What I am getting from everyone here is that we love the sex, but only in the context of a greater theme of love and respect and devotion. And that’s great. Because although I want my novels to be sexually exciting and steamy and all of that tingly stuff, at the end of the day I want to tell my readers a story that resonates with them, that makes them get that dreamy look of satisfaction on their faces. Not just sexual gratification—but the gratification of a really god love story.
NOT that I am saying there is anything wrong with reading erotica where the sex is the main attraction. Not at all! I just mean that a romance novel that is not purely gratifying should have more to reccomend it than raunchy, irrelevant sex.
Okay, I’m rambling. I’ll go shut up now.
You ladies are the best.
Oh, and Caty M said:
.
That is what I am saying in a nutshell! Thank you!