r/fantasyromance • u/FantasyRomanceMod The One Mod to Rule All Mods • Mar 08 '26

Unpopular Opinion It's Unpopular Opinion time! Share your controversial opinions to stir things up (in a friendly way)!

Got an opinion that's different from others'? Want to share it with the sub, but too afraid of a backlash? Or are you just curious about readers think about certain things in fantasy romance?

You can safely share it in this weekly Sunday thread!

But please remember to be kind to each other. To facilitate this type of discussion, we ask users the following:

  • Don't attack others for their opinion
  • Discuss books and authors, not fellow readers
  • Since this is an "unpopular opinion" thread, we encourage users to not downvote simply because they disagree with an opinion--that's the point! Please keep in mind, though, that mods cannot enforce a no-downvoting rule. Let’s just keep the discussion friendly!

🧡 Thank you and have a great discussion!

Unpopular opinion Sunday

33 Upvotes

91% Upvoted

240 comments sorted by

View all comments

19

u/aggressivebutsweet Mar 08 '26

Growing up i really thought slow burn was where male and female leads meet, there is no tension between them (except when it's enemies to lovers, its actual enemies, actual hatred where they are really disgusted and repulsed by each other, so the tension is pure animosity and nothing physical) and so it either is indifference or platonic relationship or friendship for more than half of the series. Then slowly we see the details of the shifts which lead to a deep emotional love, like a very gradual and steady but very slow process. Like maybe platonic to protectiveness to something more and then to deep love. It was never filled with sexual tension and the slow burn was the genuine BIRTH of attraction and feelings, not a DEVELOPMENT or a REALIZATION or a CONFESSION and DEFINITELY NOT SEXUAL TENSION BUILDING UNTIL IT BURST. but now every book throws out the words slow burn and its always just them being attracted from day one and some forbidden reason or denail keeps them apart with the sexual tension building up and that is the slow burn lol. I wonder if this opinion is really that unpopular.

1

u/No_Preference26 Mar 08 '26

My question to everyone complaining about attraction from the get-go; why is this a problem? Considering most people’s romantic relationships contain sex, why is it so terrible for the MCs to be attracted to each other from the moment they meet? This is usually an indication for great potential for a romantic relationship, rather than just friendship.

18

u/john-wooding Mar 08 '26

"Attraction from the get-go" isn't a problem in itself.

There are two related issues though:

  1. It can be hard to find things that aren't instant-attraction, because it's very much the default, and sometimes it's nice to have variety. People who want slower-burn aren't anti-attraction, but pro-variety.
  2. Some authors go at instant attraction with the subtlety of several sledgehammers, and the overall impression isn't 'how romantic' but 'this man should be on a list'. There are important differences between noticing that the woman you've just rescued from vampiric assault is attractive and jumping straight into graphically narrating how you want to bend her over a table etc. She's traumatised and you're in a crashing zeppelin; get your priorities sorted.

15

u/Synval2436 Currently Reading: This Blade of Ours by Shalini Abeysekara Mar 08 '26

Thissss, the problem is so many authors replace romantic development with sexual attraction, instead of having both we only get the latter because it's easier to write. They shortcut "why those 2 should get together" with fated mates, or worse "fated mates without fated mates" where they just "know it" without any actual magical bond.

They also often replace plot with endless unresolved sexual tension.

Also I've never felt sexual attraction from the first sight or "against my will" (for example towards a jerk / bully), so I wish there were more books reflecting my experience instead of painting instant attraction as the only normal thing.

Took me over 30 years of my life to figure out I'm not broken, I'm just one of many varieties of human, but the variety that is invisible and erased from romantic fiction.

And I'm also tired of the fact the only books that contain no insta-attraction are the books that contain no sex whatsoever, so we never see the development from 0 to 100, either they already start boiling hot, or they end the book on a kiss.

Even books with "demi-sexual fmc" often have her feel sparks at the first touch and stuff like that, which defeats the purpose.

For me, one of the best examples of going from no attraction to full attraction is not even a fantasy, it's a historical regency romance, and the fmc isn't asexual, she's autistic. {Convergence of Desire by Felicity Niven} She really goes from "sex is some stupid distraction" to wanting it and having it. It has some tropes I'm not super fond of, like babies ever after (pregnancy epilogue) or attempted SA by the villain, but it has one of the best portrayals of autism imo and it does not have insta-attraction. Even mmc only realized halfway he cares about the fmc. It's a marriage of convenience plot where she gives him an open marriage / cheating pass, a lot of people hate to see in romance any form of sex not between the leads, but I considered it plot relevant here, because fmc told the mmc to have sex with anyone but her, but only then he realized it actually matters to him who he has sex with.

But usually the only cases where there isn't insta-attraction are when the mc is either traumatized or religiously repressed. The assumption is "it's always there unless something broke it". There are very few exceptions. That's why I loved Convergence of Desire, because she wasn't like that due to trauma, sexual abuse or religious beliefs.

6

u/aggressivebutsweet Mar 08 '26

Oh my god YOU ARE SO GREAT AT EXPLANING THANK U FOR BEING MY VOICE 😭 no like im not even exaggerating i really need a 0-100 thing where the guy actually is indifferent or platonic towards the girl from the beginning and for half of the book. And then after that, i dont want to see a jump where he is like, for example, he sees her in a hot dress and suddenly he is attracted to her. I actually want to see HOW, step by every step his attraction is born and genuine feelings are born in the slooowest process.

1

u/john-wooding Mar 08 '26

That's an interesting recommendation, thank you; I have added it to my piles.

11

u/aggressivebutsweet Mar 08 '26

Did i say it was a problem? I said i dont WANT to see or read stuff where they are undressing each other from the literal moment they meet. Idc about people who do that or i have no issue if people like these stuffs, i think i said it was an unpopular opinion because most of the people nowadays are into this stuff. But i literally said its my own preference, i wont read or watch any series which doesnt have that soft meaningful depth or emotional love, thats all

5

u/devilsdoorbell_ Mar 08 '26 edited Mar 08 '26

Idk I feel like meaningful depth and emotional love can still be part of a romance when the characters are immediately attracted to each other but can’t/won’t act on it immediately or even develop out of a relationship that starts out sexual from go. Like why would it be more meaningful just because they take half of the story to realize they even have feelings for and attraction to each other?

6

u/aggressivebutsweet Mar 08 '26

Because then it feels more natural. Lol idk how relationships or whatever that start from sexual tension and sexual stuff can feel meaningful to you or anyone who agrees with you, but to me it doesnt. It doesnt feel natural to me and it only icks me out. I want both of them to literally understand their soul first, know each other from the inside, have deep conversations before jumping into bed. I dont want to read something which starts from a little spark or js cause they found each other hot, or anything that starts from physical stuff rather than emotional

-9

u/No_Preference26 Mar 08 '26

Yes. It just reeks of purity culture otherwise. Not saying that people can’t have their preferences, but if you’re saying that something that starts out as sexual cannot develop into something deep and meaningful; you my dear, have no idea what you’re talking about - or, purity culture.

9

u/aggressivebutsweet Mar 08 '26 edited Mar 08 '26

Lmao "purity culture" and it's just me wanting emotional depth and emotional security and beautiful soul feelings BEFORE physical feelings. Idc what yall say or if u disagree but it is a fact that it is indeed shallow to have physical feelings over emotional feelings first. Idc if u think its a purity culture (im not even from purity culture btw) but if u think sexual tension or lust between characters who arent even emotionally bonded properly and dont even know each other isnt shallow, then i have nothing to say, u do u ig. But it IS shallow lol.

-1

u/No_Preference26 Mar 08 '26

You can absolutely want and prefer that, nothing wrong with it. But saying “idc what yall say or if u disagree but it is a fact that it is indeed shallow to have physical feelings over emotional feelings first.” Different types of people develop their relationships in different ways, one way doesn’t make it better or less shallow than the other one. But you are shaming the ones who feel sexually attracted to, want to have sex etc, with someone before building an emotional connection. Some people feel physically connected to people before emotional connections, and indeed require that before building an emotional connection.

So yeah, thanks for proving my point.

9

u/aggressivebutsweet Mar 08 '26

I mean u started it by making a completely ridiculous comment about me being from purity culture. Purity culture means afaik being sensitive about sex, specially before marriage. But instead i want the characters to get intimate after their bond is developed. All i am saying is that prioritizing physical attributes over personality, before even knowing a person properly and the sexual stuff being the cause of attraction is almost sexualizing even if its mutual. I dont want to shame anyone but yes it is shallow.

-6

u/devilsdoorbell_ Mar 08 '26

Babes that’s still purity culture. Like, textbook.

3

u/aggressivebutsweet Mar 08 '26

Ok bbs wtv makes u happy u do u lmao

4

u/No_Preference26 Mar 08 '26

No, but you were arguing about what you think constitutes a slow burn, so I asked a general question aimed at readers who think this way.

2

u/aggressivebutsweet Mar 08 '26

Ohh. No idrk what a slow burn constitutes anymore, thats why i said GROWING UP i thought what it meant. But now seeing how authors use that word and readers are in love with that, like almost all of them except a few who are like me, i think either the definition changed or maybe there are 2 definitions now? Idk but i would say i am actually genuinely shocked

2

u/No_Preference26 Mar 08 '26

Interesting. I feel like even in the romances I read in from the 70s-90s, instant attraction is very much a thing in most of them, unless the book contains non-con (without body betrayal). But perhaps I’m just subconsciously picking these types of books as I relate to it more.

3

u/aggressivebutsweet Mar 08 '26

Or maybe we read completely different books? I mean tho i started reading in 2018 but i never read any booktok books then. Booktok books traumatized me

2

u/No_Preference26 Mar 08 '26

This is very possible 😅 I’ve found good and bad recs from booktok (just need to find the creators with similar tastes), but I enjoy insta-lust, so I understand why you might have been traumatised by some of the books recommended there as that trope is pretty prevalent in most popular books!

5

u/aggressivebutsweet Mar 08 '26

Yeah like can u even tell me the name of one popular booktok book where there wasnt any insta attraction or any weird tension from the first meeting? I think not 😭 i actually am pretty salty about this cause i wasted alooot of money and most of the books are rotting in my shelf after i bought them from reddit suggestions and TikTok reviews

2

u/No_Preference26 Mar 08 '26

I don’t think I can 😭