I think any term where the opposite of it is unpleasant or a tad judgemental (unwholesome?) is used in communities that have the corresponding belief.
I agree, though, the opposite term for the word "spicy romance" would actually be "bland romance," not "sweet romance." Definitely not how people who are fans of that demographic see things. I'll admit to much preferring genre romances like Courtney Milan's that are on the more explicit side, where sex happens and is shown "on screen," but I think it's cool that there are sub-genres (or whatever they're called) of romance that encompass a range of tastes and interests.
I can't think of anything correspondingly similar in SF and F. They have hard and soft (for SF, anyway), and urban and secondary world and high fantasy, but no one can exactly agree what those terms even mean (and as far as I know, none of the SFF imprints have "hard and soft" lines they bring out, or even urban versus secondary world for fantasy). And while some SFF readers also have preferences re the presence of sex scenes and swearing, there's no easy way to tell whether a novel will include them or not.
Though I don't really know when I go to buy a historical romance novel on Amazon (aside from its being recommended for people who also like an author I know tends towards the "spicy" end of things) whether or not it will have sex in it, unless it's one of those with (shudder) a naked male torso or ripped bodice on the cover or something. I'm not enough of a romance insider (since I only read it sometimes and haven't attempted to write or sell it) to know all the "lines" the different publishers bring out.
Romance does seem to be better organized (or more compartmentalized) in some ways than other genres I read.