Quote:
Originally Posted by Blossom
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 think there are just as many that read it for the sexy as well as the romance. I know I do, and there is nothing wrong with that. I read strictly for entertainment and to have a romance without sex is just plain unrealistic and boring.
Nor do I understand why you are so disheartend about it? what anyone else reads had zero impact on you or your life.
One of the benefits of marriage is supposedly having sex, but so many women choose to have a disconnect of that fact with their reading material, then make a point of proclaiming I read them just for the romance. All that tells me is that they have bought into the negative stereo type of other peoples opinion of the genre and feel that they have to justify what they are reading.
Me, I DON'T CARE WHAT YOU THINK! What I read, is for my pleasure not yours, you have nothing to do with it, and even less to say about it if you're smart. What's more is I don't care what you read either, I'm too busy enjoy my own sexy books to be thinking about whatever it is that you're reading.
People need to learn to live and let live. Life would be so much more pleasant.