When I talk about romance, I usually refer to the romance shelved in the "romance" section of the bookstore (as opposed to LGBTQ, African American, etc). In this instance, the reason for this is because I think-- although I could be wrong-- that most romances shelved in the romance section are almost exclusively heterosexual, vanilla, etc. whereas "non-traditional romances" are shelved as erotica--or, as you say, in another category altogether, such as LGBTQ or African American. Thank you for this reminder. It's something to think on. It's very possible that a lot of the LGBTQ romances I would have expected to see in the romance aisle have been shelved in the LGBTQ aisle. (Which is problematic in its own right.)

I, too, think that kink/fetish is more likely to be found in erotica and its derivatives than anywhere. Which seems logical, but I think it also perpetuates the idea that people with kinks can't have relationships or lives that don't revolve around said kink.

Thank you for the link! I particularly appreciated how you phrased this: "Of course, the genre does not exist "in isolation" from society."