Is a Rake’s Sacrifice Truly a Noble Thing?

I finished reading a truly wonderful a historical romance a few weeks ago that showcases the typical hero rake, or rather, the one that decides to abstain from sex out of respect for the heroine, since she is the love of his life.

Part of me thinks this is so romantic. That’s quite a sacrifice on the hero’s part to give up on such an exercise that has brought him incredible pleasure and joy, so he essentially can be pure again when he is finally intimate with his true love. Another part of me wants to gag, because honestly, why is it such a hardship for the hero to give up sex? The heroine has no qualms about not giving into her lusts. And in this book, she was actually married to a man she loved and enjoyed having sex with.

Why is it so important for some authors who write historical romances, to keep going with the stereotype that the hero must be a lover to hundreds of women, and finds nothing wrong with it? Personally, I rather not know about the hero’s bed hopping. But for some reason, it is assumed, that we, the reader think it more romantic when the Wilt Chamberlain type hero suddenly cuts off all sexual interaction with other women just because the heroine seems so different from all the rest.

This has begun to annoy me more often in the historicals I have been reading. Is it just me? Should there be a change when it comes to these rakish heroes? Does the term “rake”, mean the amount of women the hero beds or just the appearance and lifestyle he must uphold?

Katiebabs (KB)