Read on Twitter
Anyone outside of Romancelandia trying to do a hot take about our genre _really_ needs to understand that, broadly speaking, we have both a liberation wing (protagonists bend the world to find their joy) and a compliance wing (protagonists bend themselves to find their joy).
Yes, there's all sorts of toxic slut shamey stuff that can show up in romance - just like any other genre. The argument that HEAs fundamentally slut shame, are fundamentally monogamous, and are somehow bad for people with mental health concerns is, at best, confusing.
Lot's of writers in this genre - at every sales level and publishing strategy - are writing books with different relationship styles, different types of HEA, and about characters with mental health diagnoses who don't have to be cured to be happy.
We are not a blameless, perfect genre - how could we be when we're the biggest selling genre out there and, well, look at the world? And every book isn't the right book for the right reader at the right time. But these hot takes that aren't reality-based are exhausting.
I've personally got a hero with PTSD, a heroine with anxiety, multiple polyamorous HEAs, friendly ex's, nightmare ex's, and an entire book that revolves around the Prince of Wales's fiancé dealing with a creepy prophecy while shutting down slut shaming in the British media!
And pretty much every romance author I know (because I hang in the liberation wing) can say similar.
There's plenty of valid stuff to examine and critique the romance genre for (there's huge issues with white supremacy, for example).
There's plenty of valid stuff to examine and critique the romance genre for (there's huge issues with white supremacy, for example).
But characters finding happiness? And readers knowing that romances contain relationships that succeed (much like a murder mystery includes a murder that is mysterious and is solved) is not the problem here.
