Hmm. Now that's got your attention let me talk about line editing, which is less interesting than sex even though it also has two participants (mostly, anyway) and the insertion and removal of things, with conclusions that are not always mutually pleasing. Your words, dear writer, are NOT actually holy writ sent by divine providence and unalterable and inflexible. In fact, no matter how beautifully they read, it IS possible that, if they were lost, you could write them again, and possibly better (I did not believe this. I found it out, however by losing a file. Being forced to rewrite what I considered some of the most brilliant prose I'd ever put together. Not selling it... and some years later, clearing out the manuscript cupboard and finding the original _and_ the second version on paper. Firstly, I failed to work out which was which, and eventually decided that better one must be the original... (and both of them stank mildly) and then realising that um, (as was almost inevitable) I'd got it wrong and it was the second that I preferred. Trust me on this, every writer that ever breathed has written a difficult piece that he or she marvelled at, and thought a direct and personal intervention of the muse speaking through their fingers. I went and had a chat with the Muse of Prose, where she was having a smoko behind the Parthenon. She's a little past her sell-by date now and becoming rather confused. She's spent the last 20 centuries inspiring ladies of the night in an entirely different direction, and letting writers muddle through on their own. Sorry and all that, but you really all do all right without her.
So: it's not Holy Writ (which judging by the versions of the Bible may be more flexible than you think too) and yes, Editors (particularly callow young ones wishing to stamp their authority on you - I had one of those a few years back) can be ignorant and mess up. But trust me on this too, they're not even in my league when it comes to failing to spot typos and grammos in my own work. My own attitude is ‘line edits do not need my approval before you do them. - send me the final product. I'll line-edit your edited version. (And there is a 99% I won't even notice the corrections).
Now onto the subject of sex. Ah yes, it does have a fascination for most humans, even for those of us for whom it is a spectator sport (which is why I used it in my intro-hook. Show-don't-tell, in action). Apparently, heterosexual males (which I believe is my subclass in categorisation of human or similar simian) think about this subject more than most other sub-classes, so that in a way says if anyone is going to be obsessed with it, I should have an idea what I am talking about. And this is my opinion, and you're entirely free to disagree with it. (In fact I'd love to hear your opinion on it).
It's LESS important than it appears. Sex, sex, sex, sex. It's great for getting our attention, can be good in a book, and sometimes the point of the book... but far from always. We're writing about relationships (and sexual relationships are merely a small subset of that). Interactions between people - which fascinates us because we're a social species, and being ostracised was as much of a death sentence as not breeding. And though I don't know how to break this to some authors... relationships, love even, are not primarily because of sexual attraction. Well, not all the time. It is a part of it, sometimes, but if that's all that it is, have you considered the blow-up version? Much less likely to give you a STD or argue with you.
What brings this to mind was checking on Heinlein's DOOR INTO SUMMER in Wikipedia last night for the Flinders Family Freer blog - I wanted to know how many doors (I remember 12?) Now this a great favorite of mine, a feelgood book I have re-read repeatedly. But the Alexei Panashin quote:
"The romantic situation in this story is a very interesting, very odd one: it is nothing less than a mutual sexual interest between an engineer of thirty and a girl of twelve ('adorable' is Heinlein's word for her), that culminates in marriage after some hop-scotching around in time to adjust their ages a bit."
Gah. And again, with feeling GAH! "Mutual sexual interest" my blue butt. There is about as much "Mutual sexual interest" between Goth and Captain Pausert in Schmitz Witches of Karres. Both sets of characters have planned to marry. This is not Nabokov. This was a perfectly respectable ambition, rather like wanting to be nurse or an entomologist, or a fireman for that matter, when these books were written. Perhaps wanting to have a lifetime relationship with someone who you like, admire or even love is not fashionable any more. But there is more to love than sex. I love my sons. I loved my mum. I cannot think of anything sexually appealing about them however - and that I believe is the norm, not the other way around.
So is Dave being un-PC yet again and is all explained about the non-best-seller status now? ;-)