chess-cropped“Men define romance as the prelude to sex, and women define romance as one of the expressions of love.”

This quote from the book by Neil Rosenthal titled, “Love, Sex, and Staying Warm” sums up one definition of the term “romance.” A rather recent definition: this sentence appeared in a blog by the author published in May of 2013. The book has a current publication date of 2015.

As romance authors, how does this affect the stories we write? Can we assume—since according to the Romance Writers of America—a majority of our readers are women, so our plots and characters should place more emphasis on the “expressions of love”? Or, as do a seemingly increasing percentage of romance authors, should we place more, and earlier emphasis on the sexual part of a relationship?

(I’m not referring to genres labeled as erotic or erotica here. I’m referring to mainstream, contemporary romance novels.)

I not only write, but also read romance—A LOT. In the past two years, I have listened (on audiobook) to over 200 of them. That doesn’t include the other fifty or so on my Kindle app, or the teetering stack of paperbacks on my bedside table. I tend to read what I write, so, the contemporary genre. But I also enjoy crossover authors who infuse paranormal, time travel, suspense, or “chick lit” slants to their

One trait, as I rapidly approach the 300-books-read-recently mark, has jumped out at me. It clearly divides the books into two distinct categories.

There are stories where the hero and heroine have sex before any sort of relationship develops, soon after meeting and “sparks flying.” These tend to be the shorter, 40-60,000 word novels, such as a few of the Harlequin lines.

Then there are the ones where, after getting at least halfway through the book, I am convinced there won’t be any sex scenes at all. The emotional journey bringing the two characters together is rich and deeply explored. Developed slowly, realistically. When sex happens, it’s just as intense, oftentimes just as graphic. But as a reader, I tend to become more emotionally involved in these love scenes, because they really are more love than sex scenes. I come away convinced that the expected, required happy-ever-after ending defining a book as a romance really will stick.

My debut novel from SMP followed this slower route. I believe my H/H don’t have sex until at least halfway through the book. It is a longer title, as most of my books tend to be. This has defined my writing style from the start. I am, after all, old-fashioned—and just plain older. For me, as a teenager in the early 70s, that’s the way it was “supposed to be.”

First comes love, then comes marriage, then (and ONLY then) comes Claire with a baby carriage.

But times have definitely changed, and in trying to stay abreast of the modern way of thinking, the new emancipation of women’s views on sex, I have altered my approach. I realize that many women now, like men, totally separate the concepts of lust and love. One is not necessarily a prerequisite for the other.feminism-1367370_1280

Think Sex and the City.

I received a “critical” review recently on one of my titles where the reader labeled my story as “insta-love.” Her reasoning was because, written along the lines of my modernized approach, the H/H had sex very soon after meeting. A more emotional relationship didn’t evolve until much later in the book, as the characters got to know each other better. After they’d spent enough time together, and been through enough tribulations, to discover that they did, indeed, have feelings for each other that went beyond lust.

So why the label “insta-love”? It wasn’t love my characters experienced throughout the first quarter of the novel, but pure physical attraction. The love didn’t develop until later in the book, which, unfortunately, this reader never got to experience—because she stated she did not finish the book.

I’d like to ask my fellow Soulies their opinions on this subject. Are you afraid the modern reader will be offended by our H/Hs giving in to their lust before any kind of emotional relationship develops? Or merely a sub-set? I tend to believe the latter, because shorter romances, like those in the majority of the Harlequin lines, simply don’t have time to develop any kind of deep, emotional relationship before the H/H jump into the sack. And HQ novels have been selling like hotcakes since I was in my teens . . .a very, very long time ago. Even when many of us believed love should come before sex.

As I pull together all the straggling plot lines of my current WIP, I am now wondering if I allowed my H/H to have sex too early. It is before any real emotional relationship develops—that comes later. My heroine starts out an old-fashioned kind of gal, timid, and not especially sexually confident. But at a point early in the novel, she decides to change all that. She is, as my tagline describes, a “strong woman, starting over ~ redefining romance” –taking charge of her life in a more modern way—at work, with her friends, in her life. Bolder. More brazen. Adopting a modern mindset where it’s okay to separate the concepts of lust and love.

Men have, as author Rosenthal above states, been doing that all along. Is it really so bad now, in the spirit of embracing our modern feminist views, for us to portray women who think the same way?

How do you, my fellow authors, define romance? Does it offend you if heroines give in to their sexual desires before they fall in love? Or does it come off as “insta-love”? (And can someone explain that term for me?)

Feedback welcomed!


Claire Gem writes contemporary, paranormal, and romantic suspense. Find out more about her at, or at her Amazon Author Page.



About Claire Gem

Claire is a multi-published, award winning author of both fiction and nonfiction. A native of New York, USA, she now resides in Massachusetts, USA with her husband of 39 years.
This entry was posted in Contemporary Romance, Soul Mate Publishing and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink.

4 Responses to Insta-Love???

  1. Beth Carter says:

    It didn’t offend me but I’d rather see the relationship and heat build first. My books don’t contain much, if any, sex but there’s always plenty of steamy chemistry. I’m assuming the reviewer thought the characters fell in love too fast.

  2. Well, Claire. I feel the same way you do, and I’m having the same thoughts about my WIP. There was a romantic period in history and in art. I write that kind of romance. It’s probably the view of an optimist who believes in Happily Ever Afters. In my SMP published series, LEGENDS OF THE GOLDENS, starting with FORBIDDEN PLAYGROUND, my psychic hero and heroine have virtual sex first before they brave the real thing (which happens when they finally learn to appreciate one another). Making real love with all the right emotions in place has to do with trust. And that doesn’t happen for anyone until substantially later in a new relationship.

  3. I prefer a connection before sex. Those are the kind of stories I relate to.

  4. Dear Claire, my views have changed radically over the years. The twenty-five year old me, wouldn’t believe what the (cough) older me has come to accept and enjoy. In a book, it all depends on the character development and the plot. I can go either way early sex without love is fine with me. Lots of getting to know you and later sex is fine with me also. I guess what might become apparent from the above is that I like sex in a novel. Where it comes doesn’t matter, so long as it comes (pardon my double entendre). However, I do require that it be relevant to the story.

    I quote John Updike: Sex is like money; only too much is enough.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s