[ferrywoman]

MacLean focused the discussion on sex because that's specifically what people in the cases she cited think romance novels come down to. The phrases "sex books" and "smut novels" are used, and a not-so-veiled remark how romance novels are not real books. Even if you tell them that romance is about the relationship, the disdain is there, evident because, well…women and sex.

It's essentially sexist microaggression, hence the headline. I don't read any part of that article as MacLean saying women are reading romance for the sexy. Instead of defending against the misconceptions, she's turning it all around. "If all one has against the romance genre is the sex, then that's just another form of slut-shaming."

As for the rest of it, I'm with cfrizz. I say, though, that I read romance for the romance. For me, it involves how an author explores that romance; and it includes intimacy, whether physical or emotional. I read for the feels. I read for the sexy. I read for many reasons. If my romance has characters who sex each other up all the way to their HEA, then I'm OK with that too. (Well, actually, maybe.)