View Single Post
Old 09-30-2016, 09:12 PM   #1500
goldilocks
Addict
goldilocks ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.goldilocks ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.goldilocks ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.goldilocks ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.goldilocks ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.goldilocks ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.goldilocks ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.goldilocks ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.goldilocks ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.goldilocks ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.goldilocks ought to be getting tired of karma fortunes by now.
 
Posts: 344
Karma: 1222222
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Florida
Device: Sony PRS-505
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blossom View Post
I have a problem with the article. I'm one as you all know that reads romance for romance. I don't need the sexy to enjoy a romance. I understand why it's used and it's fine when it advances the story but it seem to me this article brought out how many non romance readers think. Instead of correcting them about romance isn't about the sexy it's about the couple. It seemed to me she is saying. So what! She is saying women read these books because of the sexy. Very disheartening. I do know some do read it for that but the majority don't. Am I misunderstanding it?

Sent from my Nexus 7
I agree with you Blossom. That's how I read it too. I checked my Library and I don't have any books by her. If a book sounds like it has a lot of sex(y), I skip right by. I want Romance not sex...
goldilocks is offline   Reply With Quote