HomeReviewsInterviewsStoreABlogsOn Writing
Just Wondering'

Just Wondering’

Sunday, February 3, 2013
Posted in: willaful
Tags:

I’m reading a book by Elle Kennedy, which brought up this question: Which is more statistically improbable, the number of Dukes in Regency romance, or the number of straight dudes who love having threesomes with their straight best buds?

And to make the question more fun, which group would win in a fight?

8 Comments »


  • ME2
    February 3
    9:45 pm

    L M A O ! I am going to say that both are highly improbable.

    ReplyReply

  • LOL! I’ll go with Dukes (but only with a slight margin, and only because we know in real life there only ever X number of Dukes –60? 70? –and no more)

    On the other hand I saw a post on FB where someone reposted a newspaper article–man on the street type thing–where one guy said his fantasy was a 3-some but he’d only do it with 2 girls (one of them wearing a strap on because if another guys testicles touched his, he’d have to kill him. lol. <–this is probably more realistic that the hyper-Alphas running around romanceland sharing their heroines with their best buds. :P

    ReplyReply

  • @vanessa jaye: I think I saw recently that it was 40. You could probably find one romance series with more than 40 dukes in it. ;-)

    ReplyReply

  • Dukes – but only because historical romance has been popular longer than erotic romance, and there’s just been flat-out-more of it published. Ask me in another 10 years though. Those straight dudes may have overtaken them by then…..

    ReplyReply

  • The threesome, but only because I don’t really read regencies, the whole rakes who nail everything in skirts but never contract an STD is more absurd to me than the number of dukes.

    ReplyReply

  • *raising hand for dukes*

    Or, what Wendy said. Give it some time, and the fight between dukes and straight dudes will have more even odds.

    ReplyReply

  • The way romance is going, the number of billionaires is going to quickly outnumber the dukes.

    ReplyReply

  • @Sylvie: No doubt this explains the vanishing Middle Class. ;-)

    ReplyReply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment