Sexy Vs. Erotica -- What's the Difference?

We interviewed a guy on our First Word radio show yesterday who discussed his various books, one of them was called Monogamy Sucks! which I thought the title was pretty funny. (P.S., that doesn't mean I agree with it I just found it entertaining). Turns out the book is about swinging. He started talking about erotica, and I suddenly realized that maybe California Girl Chronicles isn't quite as (a-hem) as "erotic" as I thought. I think I actually construed sexy with erotica, because the more he talked the more I realized I was completely tame in my book. It wasn't anything he said in particular, it was just the "liberal-glazed" tone of the discussion. In fact, I'm willing to bet my book is luke warm compared to the blazing hotness that his books may or may not be. Now my self-image has gone from, "Oh, look at me all open and sexy," to "Oh, how boring am I?" Actually not true. I was told by one reader, "Brea is better than Viagra," and another reader told me her husband is now reading chapters as a method of seduction. I guess the better comparison might be between soft core vs. hard core. What distinguishes erotica from contemporary romance is the better question? I think California Girl is contemporary romance that sizzles! Look! I made up a new genre. Aren't I endlessly clever?! (I'm so grinning right now.) I am going to make some assumptions here. I suspect pure erotica is hard-core ... kind of like espresso without milk! I think California Girl could be more compared to a sexy HBO show like True Blood where you don't have to use your imagination and it's romantic but doesn't stray into forbidden censored material. I have to say that season 4 of True Blood really had some soft-core moments between Sookie and Eric. For women, though, if you keep it in context of a great romance, we love it. I can't speak for men. Women do like their espresso hot and with some milk to cool it just a bit. You can purchase your own copy of California Girl Chronicles on the 3L website.