Clean vs. Not-Clean

[Denise]

People in the publishing industry refer to romance novels without graphic sex as sweet or traditional rather than 'clean.' That's a term I have not seen used before I read about it on this list.

[Ed]

Old-Fashioned Romance sounds good, but people might think that it means it is set in the old days.

[Alyson]

Ed Wagemann wrote: "Old-Fashioned Romance sounds good, but people might think that it means it is set in the old days."

Having already experienced publishing, Ed, I have to agree that "old-fashioned" sounds as if it's historical — not what you want if the story is contemporary. If you feel it needs to be labeled, the term "sweet" might be your best option, since that's what most modern publishers call it. Actually, I think simply calling it a romance would be okay, too. When I submit a story to a publisher, I only refer to it as historical romance, contemporary romance, or simply romantic fiction, according to its sub-genre, because each publisher has their own way of categorizing the books they publish. Best of luck to you!

[Amy]

Reina wrote: "Ed Wagemann wrote: "@ Reina I think I prefer Sweet Romance sounds much better than Clean Romance. "Clean" kinda conjures up some judgmental old church lady who is pointing her finger and warning a..."

This is the trouble I have with classifying my stories. I don't want readers to expect explicit sex (since urban fantasy/paranormal romance has kind of become synonymous with that recently) but I think my stories are pretty dark. I'm worried that by calling them sweet, some people will be misled.

And yet, like Ed, calling it a "clean romance" might make people think it's more religious than it actually is, or that it's an "inspirational" romance when it certainly isn't.

@Ed, I'm not sure I like the term Sexless Romance. It makes it sound prim and proper. Though some might be that way (Jane Austen comes to mind), not all are. Some, in fact, can be rather hot, and some have sex...just not shown.

I agree regarding the term "old-fashioned romance". Sounds vintage. And yet, I really like the dialogue of those "vintage" books and films.

[Reina]

Amy wrote: "Reina wrote: "Ed Wagemann wrote: "@ Reina I think I prefer Sweet Romance sounds much better than Clean Romance. "Clean" kinda conjures up some judgmental old church lady who is pointing her finger..."

For my book descriptions, I've decided to just spell it out, like: "mild adult content" or "heat level: sweet" or "no adult content" because readers all associate different terms with their own standards--most are not familiar with publisher's terms. Amy, for yours, you could say "adult themes" and/or "no explicit content" or something. Of course, all this labelling can become excessive. I for one don't associate "sweet" or "clean" with religious content--that's what the "inspirational" label is for.
And I can see where it would be odd to have a paranormal/urban fantasy be called "sweet." I tend to associate that with historicals or family/home type contemporaries.

[Amy]

Reina wrote: "Amy wrote: "Reina wrote: "Ed Wagemann wrote: "@ Reina I think I prefer Sweet Romance sounds much better than Clean Romance. "Clean" kinda conjures up some judgmental old church lady who is pointin..."

Good points. This definitely helps. Thanks!

[Reina]

Amy wrote: "Reina wrote: "Amy wrote: "Reina wrote: "Ed Wagemann wrote: "@ Reina I think I prefer Sweet Romance sounds much better than Clean Romance. "Clean" kinda conjures up some judgmental old church lady ..."

This discussion has helped me. :) Glad it has for you too.

[Suzan]

I have a new book to add to the 'clean, sweet, non-vulgar, no graphic sex' list! lol

I just finished reading Amanda Forester's "True Highland Spirit". PHENOMENAL! Funny, exciting, romantic, intriguing and no graphic sex. There are a couple of love scenes, but they were not 'detail oriented'. lol Great historical romance novel.

Suzan T.

[Zee]

At my publisher, the Sweetheart Line is for books with no sex to closed-door sex in the scope of a romance - some of my novels fall into that category.

I always believed 'no sex before marriage' was mostly Inspirational; until I came on here, I didn't know 'clean' referred to that as well.

But old-fashioned... Strange because my editor pitched my book to be acquired by stating it was an 'old-fashioned romance lacking none of modern grittiness and conflict'. So I guess old-fashioned still applies to this type of stories.

[Joyce, Group Creator]

Because an editor thinks "no sex before marriage" is old fashioned, doesn't mean that readers do. I don't know that they make those kinds of classifications when they read a romance. If they love it, they love it, if they don't, they don't. At least, I don't break down books that way in my head, unless the language-style feels "old fashioned." I apply that more to writing style, than I do to a plot line. How about everyone else?

[Ginger]

I think my book, El Rey, is old-fashioned for both of those reasons. It is also the type of book I prefer to read both for the style in which it's written and the lack of graphic details. Two of my favorite authors are Jean Plaidy/Victoria Holt and Anya Seton. Both of them did most of their writing when sex scenes by authors like Harold Robbins were still scandalous, so I suppose that's considered old-fashioned these days (probably most people would say antiquated. Am I dating myself here?)

[Jewelled]

This has been an eye opener for me. I had no idea all of the different classifications of romance there were.

[Becca]

I have a sweet book to recommend, but I couldn't find the right discussion board, so I'm doing it here :) Author Melanie Dickerson takes fairy tales and rewrites them so elegantly and historically accurate that they take your breath away. She's only written two: The Healer's Apprentice (retelling of Sleeping Beauty) which takes place in medieval Germany, and The Merchant's Daughter (retelling of Beauty and the Beast) which I think takes place in 18th century France. Of course there's romance. There's also conflict, which is good. Awesome.
Also, her books are very much Christian. God is brought up quite a lot (which I actually liked). In fact (spoiler here), at the end of Merchant's Daughter, the "beast", Lord Ranulf, declares, "God is good."
I just felt obligated to share. Books as beautiful as these need to be known. :)

[Lovey]

My preference in clean romance is to show the relationship leading up to the point before the couple becomes intimate. While I have no problem reading romances that include sex, I feel they lose some of the excitement and tension of the unknown. The high point of a romance, to me, is the feeling of the first kiss between two people who aren't yet sure they are destined to be together.

[Patsy]

I enjoy romantic stories that are all about the feelings, characters getting to know each other, the hope and anticipation at the start of a relationship. Generally such stories don't contain sex scenes. I don't think that automatically makes the stories unrealistic.

btw, I read stories that contain sex as well, but such stories are usually different in more ways than just the issue of whether or not sex happens on the page.

[Amy]

Lovey wrote: "My preference in clean romance is to show the relationship leading up to the point before the couple becomes intimate. While I have no problem reading romances that include sex, I feel they lose s..."

Yeah, that first kiss is a highlight for me, too. :) *sighs*

[[deleted user]]

I agree with either of these terms, because then, you know what type of story you're going to be reading. And a "clean" romance might not necessarily be "clean" all the way around -- it might not have sexual content, but it might have language, or violence, or whatever. I think it's good for authors to list what is in their books, so that reader's know beforehand. I can't tell you how many books I've read where I thought the novel would be "clean", and then it ends up having one of the above. With publishing changing so quickly, and with so many different readers, and tastes, I think that listing content would be good for everyone, so a reader doesn't end up being disappointed, in the end.

[Valerie]

This might sound 'old-fashioned' but my especial concern is whether or not the couple are married before they have sex. Even if the details aren't explicit, I just can't "hurrah!" for the characters getting into bed together before 'tying the knot'; it's not something I cheer for in real life.
Sex outside of marriage really bugs me when it's inserted into historical fiction, and the H/h (and perhaps their friends and family who cheer them on) behave as if they have a 21st century 'morality' even though it's 1834 or some period where this could actually damage one's reputation (à la Lydia and Wickham), and there seem to be no consequences for their actions. Seems a 'tad' unrealistic to me.

[Valerie]

Ginger wrote: "I've said before that once the deed is done, the romance is over. And of course I am referring to a novel. My husband and I have been together for nearly 20 years, and he still surprises me with th..."

Having read a good portion of El Rey I can say the subject matter is handled very tastefully. In fact, I think this story is in a good way to address the 'objection' some readers have to 'clean' romance. The concern seems to be that those looking for 'clean' romance are implying that sex is somehow dirty or shameful, which it is not. That's what I liked about El Rey: it's not as if sex doesn't exist, but without explicit details, marital relations are treated as a normal part of life, something beautiful and honorable, thus promoting a healthy viewpoint, IMHO.

[Ginger]

Aww...thanks, Valerie! You always rescue my morale when I need it the most. I can't wait for you to finish El Rey. Because of your sensibilities and your reading history, you opinion carries a lot of weight.

[Ginger]

That sounded a little pushy. I don't mean I want you to hurry up and finish it, I just mean that I look forward to your feedback when you DO finish it.

[Valerie]

Ginger wrote: "That sounded a little pushy. I don't mean I want you to hurry up and finish it, I just mean that I look forward to your feedback when you DO finish it."

No worries! Based on my currently reading list, I seem to always be in the middle of books. I've read so much of El Rey, just not straight through, that the story has already become familiar to me. I'm almost done with "Book 3" but I keep jumping ahead to Books 4 and 5 where some of my favorite parts are! I'll definitely give you feedback and look forward to recommending it as a good 'clean' read!

...

Somehow this thread has me putting 'clean' in quotes...just in case it's not PC enough. Who knew that just the terminology for reviewing books, especially for content, could spark so much discussion??

[[deleted user]]

Valerie wrote: "This might sound 'old-fashioned' but my especial concern is whether or not the couple are married before they have sex. Even if the details aren't explicit, I just can't "hurrah!" for the character..."

I'm glad you brought this up, Valerie! I have to agree that I'm not a fan of sex before marriage in books (or real life), either, especially if they are historical, as you said. To me, it just doesn't seem that the characters are close enough without tying the knot first, and I think it makes the relationship less fierce, and less heartfelt, if they aren't married previous. To me, knowing that the characters are that committed to one another beforehand makes their relationship seem all the more romantic.

Hope you're enjoying your reading! Don't worry, I'm always in the middle of books, too! :)

[Nanci]

Valerie wrote: "Ginger wrote: "I've said before that once the deed is done, the romance is over. And of course I am referring to a novel. My husband and I have been together for nearly 20 years, and he still surpr..."

I like the way you put that and I agree.

[Leona]

"The high point of a romance, to me, is the feeling of the first kiss between two people who aren't yet sure they are destined to be together."

"I've said before that once the deed is done, the romance is over. And of course I am referring to a novel."

I wholeheartedly agree. I like stories to be at least somewhat realistic, and characters in historical books doing the deed seems highly unrealistic and disappointing to me.

[[deleted user]]

Flowerfull wrote: ""The high point of a romance, to me, is the feeling of the first kiss between two people who aren't yet sure they are destined to be together."

"I've said before that once the deed is done, the ro..."

Well said!

[Michelle]

Valerie wrote: "This might sound 'old-fashioned' but my especial concern is whether or not the couple are married before they have sex. Even if the details aren't explicit, I just can't "hurrah!" for the character..."

I totally agree with you. I have read a number of romance novels that include sex outside of marriage for novels set in the 1800's and even when the novel is really well written, I have difficulty with it because it does not read as realistic. Not that many people would be foolish enough to put them at risk of the censure of society.
I just finished a novel set in the same time period that I found by reading reviews on Goodreads, I did not care for it because the couple were getting divorced and she planned to marry someone else within the year! Which was completely unheard of in the era that the novel was written in. UGH a divorce would take years and the divorced woman would be a social pariah unable to remarry. I finished the book but it bugged me so much, so unrealistic I could not possibly believe in the HEA when I did not believe in ANY of the people in the book. The same with me with all of the sex in period historicals just does not ring true most of the time for me.

[Valerie]

Michelle wrote: "I totally agree with you. I have read a number of romance novels that include sex outside of marriage for novels set in the 1800's and even when the novel is..."

That's a good point about divorce in the old days. Read a historical where the author played it straight, the couple found getting the heroine a divorce wouldn't be that easy in 18th century England, of course the husband gets killed off conveniently so there's your HEA!

I read a good portion of Badlands Bride - it started off as a pretty good 19th century western. The couple actually stayed out of bed together for most of the book, but at the end they slept together in her house and her parents come in afterward(!); (view spoiler)[the hero hands her father a shotgun and basically says 'yes I slept with your daughter, guess you'll have to make me marry her'. (hide spoiler)] And again happily ever after! Now I can only guess how that would have turned out in real life...I'm guessing the sex was thrown in for the publisher.

I've been reading a lot of Carla Kelly lately, her historicals are generally realistic. Reforming Lord Ragsdale and Summer Campaign have no sex scenes, and Daughter of Fortune refers to the couple's wedding night but it's not explicit.

[Ginger]

Well, Valerie, I'm hoping that you view the relationships in El Rey as realistic. The character and relationship development are the parts that I really worked to make accurate. And although I did not describe the act, I really tried to convey a sense of passion and commitment and maintain the sexual tension and chemistry throughout. It makes me feel like I've done a good job when you say that you keep going back to your favorite parts to re-read them. This is the reaction that a writer dreams of, and it makes all the kicks to my ego worthwhile. Again, I feel blessed that you really GET it!

[Valerie]

Ginger wrote: "Well, Valerie, I'm hoping that you view the relationships in El Rey as realistic. The character and relationship development are the parts that I really worked to make accurate. And although I did ..."

Yes! Particularly with the married characters in the book. I think the marriages are depicted realistically, not all roses for everyone, and with a variety of circumstances. There are different kinds or degrees of love, so much like real life! Now with Estevao and Inez on Terceira, that's where the tension really seemed to pick up! Very interesting! I sort of agree with the comment earlier that said clean romance doesn't need to be sexless. Personally I'm okay with some sensuality - how many real life romances proceed without it? - but I'm concerned with whether or not sex is treated with dignity and what morals are being promoted, if any. That was what I liked about the way it is done in El Rey; the passion (or lack of it) is conveyed but with dignity. It doesn't come across as trashy or gratuitous. Too often it seems like a writer will throw in a sex scene 'just because' and it's as if the romance loses value somehow.

[Ginger]

Again, thank you. You have no idea how deeply your comments have touched me, and I am humbled. This is EVERYTHING I hope to accomplish with my writing.

[D.D. Chant]

To me romance is about the little things, the things that are mundane and only mean so much because they are between you and that particular person. Like sitting on the same small bench with the person that you're attracted to, you might sit next to someone on a bus or on the tube and not really notice the proximity. But because this is them it suddenly becomes a big deal, you're aware of every inch that separates you and feel every breath he takes. That is what I love reading about: the emotions that are inspired by this person just being there!

I like to read about the hero’s kindness, not just to the heroine (let’s face it, as he’s trying to impress her he ought to be able to be nice to her!!!) but also to the other characters in the book. I like to read about a heroine who has a little more sense than the average gnat and can like the hero for something a little more substantial that his gorgeous face or buff physique!

That having been said we are talking about fiction and having a pretty cast is not a bad thing! ;-P

I want to read a story where the characters show they care for each other by doing all the little things, because it’s the little things that are really important. Hero just whisked the heroine off on his private jet for a surprise holiday? That’s all well and good but if he’s been ignoring her for the last 100 pages, embarrassed her in front of his friends and not been there for her when she needed him I know what I’d tell him he could do with that private jet!!! One grand gesture does NOT make up for habitual bad behaviour!!!

Most importantly I want to read about a NICE man! What is it with the world’s fascination with bad boys??? They treat the heroines like trash, are only interested in them when it suits them and/or they want something and we’re supposed to like them??? To secretly wish that they were real and we could be their girlfriend??? No way!!! These are immature wastes of spaces that need to be dumped, because we all know that the whole ‘they’re just deeply damaged and if you put up with their idiocy for long enough they’ll change’ is the biggest load of hogs wash in history!!!

And I think it’s a little dangerous too because it could give young girls the wrong idea when it comes to how their boyfriends treat them.
I also wonder why marriage is always the peak, the culmination of everything: It’s like saying romance ends with marriage when the truth is that marriage is the beginning!

Sorry about that I think I may have strayed from the point a little!

I guess what I’m saying is that for me it is the everyday actions of the characters that makes a romance and that I’d prefer it if their private lives remained private!!!

[Shanda]

D.D. wrote: "To me romance is about the little things, the things that are mundane and only mean so much because they are between you and that particular person. Like sitting on the same small bench with the pe..."

All I will say to this is AMEN!

[D.D. Chant]

Thanks Shanda! Just had to give up on a book that was the exact opposite of the above! Had me tearing my hair out in frustration, now I need some brain bleach...yuck!!!

[B.J.]

My novels are clean reads. One person said I shied away from the hard topics, but I don't write books that give details inside the bedroom door, so they need to pick another author for those. I have Last Resort, Southern Superatitions, and Whispering Cypress just released yesterday. If you check my books, you'll see SS and LR and the covers. https://www.facebook.com/alchaput#!/A...

[Nanci]

D.D. wrote: "To me romance is about the little things, the things that are mundane and only mean so much because they are between you and that particular person. Like sitting on the same small bench with the pe..."

I think you make a good point about marriage being the beginning. I think that is why I love the "Marriage of Convenience" plot. The couple learns to love and work things out while living together and getting to know each others needs. I love seeing that happen in a book.

[Shereen]

Thought this blog might interest some and fits this discussion topic:
No Sex Please, Jane Austen's In The Room by Gail Whitiker.

[Valerie]

Shereen wrote: "Thought this blog might interest some and fits this discussion topic:
No Sex Please, Jane Austen's In The Room by Gail Whitiker."

Loved that post, especially: "We may never rival the success of books like FIFTY SHADES OF GREY, but we will give you a witty and entertaining read to savour with your tea and crumpets!"

[[deleted user]]

I discovered this group when searching online for a definition of clean romance. I write historical fiction with an element of romance involved and I would like to think the romance aspect is clean. In my travels online I found the following explanation which I think clarifies the issue. Well it does for me anyway. According to this list, I write clean romance. I thank Cindy A. Christiansen for posting this in another forum.

"As a sweet romance author, I would like to share the differences:

Clean Romance can contain sex scenes between married couples only. It can also contain offensive language.

Inspirational Romance contains a triad relationship between the hero, heroine and God. It does not contain offensive language.

Sweet Romance consists of the progressive, anticipation-building, emotional relationship between the hero and heroine as the story progresses and stops at the bedroom door. It may contain kissing or not. It does not contain offensive language.

Christian Romance is much the same as sweet romance but must contain an element of faith in Jesus Christ woven throughout the plot.

I hope you find this helpful."

I should add that my novels don't contain offensive language and intimacy is only ever between married couples, sensitively written at that. :)

Kind regards,
Kate

[Lori]

THANK YOU! I wish there was a more comprehensive genre list for all books. I'm saving this list!

[[deleted user]]

Lori wrote: "THANK YOU! I wish there was a more comprehensive genre list for all books. I'm saving this list!"

You're welcome! :)

Kate

[AlegnaB †]

Kate wrote: "...Clean Romance can contain sex scenes between married couples only...

I don't agree with that. If it contains sex scenes, then it's porn. I doubt I'm alone here in that opinion since the description for this group says, "This group is dedicated to building a up a list of clean romance books...good old fashioned love stories, without the sex scenes." If members here are putting on the bookshelf novels that have sex scenes, then the bookshelf is useless to me and to others who share my opinion.

[Louise Sparrow]

Personally I think whether or not it is porn depends on the way it is written, it is possible to include scenes of making love without graphic detail.

Having said that I tend to agree that if it includes those scenes its not actually clean either.

[C.]

Natalie wrote: "I don't necessarily consider "clean" romance "sexless" romance. To be honest my romance with my husband is not sexless at all. The sex is private. I think a clean romance is a romance that keeps th..."

Wonderful explanation Natalie, and I agree totally! I do not think sex should be a "spectator sport", and to me, making it public destroys the specialness of the intimacy shared between a couple in love. Something that is only supposed to be between the two of you. When I did read some romance back in my 20's ,with explicit sex scenes, I either rolled eyes and laughed my butt off at how ridiculous they were, or I was totally disgusted by the purple prose describing body parts and the act itself, and it just came off as totally vulgar, so I avoided reading romance for decades, considering it porn, or dirty-books!

Then my daughter got me into some Christian historical romance, and as I had become a Christian, I loved those and read Christian fiction for years. I am no longer a Christian, so tend to avoid books with heavy religious proselytizing, however I still want my reads in ALL genres to be "clean"! No pervasive profanity and absolutely closed bedroom door. However, I do like some steam in my romances. I want there to be passionate kissing, and lust, as long as that is NOT all that the lead characters think about the whole book, but without sparking chemistry, what the heck is the attraction to make you want to marry each other? IMO, romances without some knee-weakening kisses are totally unbelievable. The queen of kissing~ Marcia Lynn McClure knows how to write clean-steam! I love her The Highwayman Of Tanglewood ,and A Crimson Frost




And BTW, scattered/occasional "mild" curses do not offend me, but any "F" bombs always do, and so does religious swears, even though no longer Christian, and so does pervasive cursing. I have never associated with people with filthy mouths, and I am 66 years old, so I can say that it is pure hog-wash that "everyone talks that way, these days", only a certain type of people do!

Something interesting...I have noticed that a lot of the ones I enjoy are written by LDS authors. Christian authors could learn from them, how to write great clean stories without all that 'off-putting' religious proselytizing/preaching!

[AlegnaB †]

C. wrote: "...Something interesting...I have noticed that a lot of the ones I enjoy are written by LDS authors. Christian authors could learn from them, how to write great clean stories without all that 'off-putting' religious proselytizing/preaching! "

There are Christian authors who write stories without proselytizing/preaching and without Christian elements. I've read many books published by Christian Publishing houses that don't have any Christian references other than an occasional remark about God or about praying. And oodles of them don't have a word about Jesus, even in coming-to-God/salvation scenes. Many Christians want to read books like that. However, there are also Christians who want strong Christian elements like salvation scenes (specifically mentioning faith in Jesus), characters who are thinking about how God wants them to act, characters who use scripture while giving advice to other characters, repentance of sin, etc. It's not "off-putting" to us; it's encouraging and enjoyable. Shouldn't there be books written for us, too? Or do you think that Christian authors and publishers should only produce books that would please non-Christians?

[Kelly]

C. wrote: "Natalie wrote: "I don't necessarily consider "clean" romance "sexless" romance. To be honest my romance with my husband is not sexless at all. The sex is private. I think a clean romance is a roman..."

I agree with you. I think there's an entire continuum between clean and then falling off a cliff of porn.

Closed door sex doesn't bother me or the use of an occasional cuss word. What I find bothersome is F-bombs and graphic sex, particularly since I think some authors use sex as a device, sometimes the only device, to demonstrate a relationship between characters.

[Kelly]

I believe there's a continuum of tastes and tolerances.

Here's a link to the Clean Indie Reads website. There, the person who runs the website defines clean as free of sex, gore, and a ton of profanity. http://cleanindiereads.com/about/

I tend to subscribe to this definition, and am okay reading closed door sex, etc. if and when it suits the characters and situation.

However, I think its important for the author to let any potential reader know what they're getting into. For example, I'm in favor of language along the lines of...

If you find closed door sex offensive, please consider a different book.

[C.]

AlegnaB wrote: "C. wrote: "...Something interesting...I have noticed that a lot of the ones I enjoy are written by LDS authors. Christian authors could learn from them, how to write great clean stories without all..."

You got me there, because when I was a Christian, I didn't think any book could be 'too preachy', lol! Now that I am a Naturalist, believing nothing exists outside the natural world, I just can't take it anymore.

[AlegnaB †]

When I wrote, "If it contains sex scenes, then it's porn," I wasn't talking about just referring to sex. I originally had written "descriptive sex scenes," but I removed "descriptive" since I figured it was redundant. I guess I was wrong. :-> I was "talking about" when the details are written instead of leaving it up to the imagination. I'm fine with the author writing something about the couple "sleeping" together (well, as a Christian, I want the characters to be married first, or if the couple is unmarried, I want the sexual relationship to be portrayed as wrong and with negative consequences). I just don't want to read the details about anything sexual.

[Kelly]

AlegnaB wrote: "When I wrote, "If it contains sex scenes, then it's porn," I wasn't talking about just referring to sex. I originally had written "descriptive sex scenes," but I removed "descriptive" since I figur..."

Got ya. That make sense. Again, I'd disagree that all sexual relationships have to have negative consequences, but we are closer than I thought. I do want the details left to the imagination.

What I personally find most off-putting is when authors use sex and physical attraction as a replacement for intimacy. When a story starts off and the first indication that the hero and heroine are going to get together is a very physical reaction, that disturbs me.

A real relationship, to me, should be so much more than being turned on, which is why I love to read sweet romance. The authors don't rely on physical responses but have to show the couple connect on many, many levels.