Sexy...Politicians Redux

In light of the recent VIE (Very Important Election), I’m re-posting part of a post I did about politicians being sexy. What do you think? Whether you voted for Romney or Obama, who do you think is sexier? Could either have been the hero of a romance? They each carried millions of votes, but could either carry a novel?

Here’s the post:

Yes, there's romance in politics, and I'm not referring to sex scandals. George and Laura Bush, Barack and Michelle Obama, Jimmy and Rosalyn Carter, John and Abigail Adams, George and Martha Washington--all these couples have carried an aura of romance throughout their tenure as first couples.

However, we also have JFK and Jackie, Bill and Hillary, and other couples whose relationships have been tabloid fodder for years. Needless to say, having a relationship in politics looks anything but easy...or sexy. Throughout the ages, we've had politicians whom many considered attractive or blessed with sex appeal, including our last and current presidents, some governors, and even some senators. However, I think if we did a poll, most people would probably say they like to think of a politician, especially a president, as focused on leading the country and working for his/her constituents as opposed to being like the hero/heroine of a romance or erotic novel. Therein lies my problem.

As I bemoaned when I posted about the Super Bowl, there aren't too many heroes in romances who are athletes, and there are even fewer who are politicians, if any. Most of the time, politicians are the bad guys, or, even if they're the good guys, the hero is usually working to serve and protect the heroine (like a bodyguard or secret agent). While intellectual power is sexy and physical power is sexy, a man with both intellect and physical power is even sexier.

For some reason, romance and politics just don't mesh. That's not too say that politicians can't or don't have good marriages or love relationships; they just have realistic ones. Real relationships are tough gigs and take a lot of work, even when two people are desperately in love. While that can be subtext in a romance, I think many readers, like me, don't want it to be blatant.

As ever, writing this post got me to thinking. Besides politicians and athletes, who else should I probably not use as a hero in a novel?

1. Cannibals (whether fine and young or not)--Big no-no. While the potential for conflict here is exciting--should I propose or make her into a nice souffle?--I don't think this would be believable.
2. Zombies--While vampires sucking your blood during an encounter can be tre sexy, having a zombie chomping your fingertips off instead of kissing them would just kill the mood.
3. Writers--I just added this to see if anyone was reading, but now that I think about it...
4. Lemur shape-shifters--I do have a lemur shifter who appears in one book, which is about to be reprinted, but he's not the lead. The lead shifter was a tiger...grrrr!

So, a politician be a hero in a romance novel--have you seen it? Do you want to see it? I think there's a phrase, "Politics makes for strange bedfellows." Hmmmm...

I am Cameo Brown, and I approve of this blog post.

No comments: