Why is this? Is it because fantasy is aimed at the male teen’s and they can’t stomach romance? Or is it that publishers think it won’t sell. No I’m not saying I’m writing an erotic fantasy but I am tired of childish ideals of love in fantasy. What I am writing would be rater R if it was a movie. And if I add the steamy sex scene my wife wants me to add it could get a NC-17 rating or worse.

I feel that sexual tension between two protagonist as a subplot is great. Its fun to write and a great way to explore you own relationship.

I’ll use the Wheel of time books as an example. Not one person in those books knows what to expect from the other sex. By the end of the last book they are 24ish (Rand Mat Perrin) to 30ish (Nanave) and they act like they are playing cooties. A rated PG book. Are Authors afraid of losing some credit if they use adult themes in their books?

Am I just missing Fantasy with adult themes and content? The closest I’ve seen would be the sword of truth and when Richard was tortured by Deena, but that was one book and he never explored it again.

Basically, I like to see it stay PG-13.

If there is a compelling reason for the meaning of the story, some sexual content might be warranted. But explicit description certainly isn't going to be needed to convey any kind of meaning that is worthwhile.

Eroticism is simply a euphemism for *pornography*.

I have not read any of her other books, but Sherrilyn Kenyon wrote a "futuristic romance" PARADICE CITY. This was her first book. She has written many others. There was some stumbling in her writing, The science fiction wasn't the best I've read, and the romance wasn't as good as it could have been, but It was a fun read.
Basically, for Eroticism, one needs to go to ROMANCE first, and then try and find the genera one wants to read within romance.
Keep in mind that most science fiction or fantasy is ACTION ADVENTURE first. Romance is ROMANCE first, and then the action or adventure keeps the romance going.

You can find eroticism to different degrees in fantasy writing if you look hard enough. It has never been a cornerstone of the genre; maybe the audience is not looking for it?

A drawn out sex scene can mess up the flow of a story, because it is release of tension, and relies on voyeurism to some extent to maintain reader interest. There is probably an argument to be made that if enough of the stories focus is on the romantic relationship between characters this type of halt to the stories dramatic buildup is justified. For a subplot, it is a tougher argument. Keeping the consumation of a relationship off-camera (alluded to, or treated with a brief narrative summary) is a way to signify the relationship progressing to that stage without stopping the story.

More often than not, I'll skim through such a scene, not because I find the content objectionable, but because I want to get on with the story.

"The Queen fixed her gaze upon a plump young maiden. Her victim tried to turn away, hiding her face in her hands and kneeling behind a woman... .

"Slowly the reptiles head commenced to move to and fro, but the eyes never ceased to bore toward the frightened girl... ."

By that famous erotic author, Edger Rice Burroughs. My paperback of At the Earth's Core falls open at that page.

quote:

---

I don't agree that eroticism objectifies and devalues human beings across the board. Some does, no doubt.

---

AND

quote:

---

There is a difference between erotic and pornographic.

---

There may be some elements that are part of erotica that are not pornographic. But, as I understand erotica, the genre implies an explicitness that is definitely pornographic. If you stripped away the pornographic elements from erotica, it would probably no longer be erotica. It would be romance.

The *use* of sexual explicitness in literature has no foundation in love. Voyerism upon certain characters says nothing about the fictional love. Eroticism uses sexuality to in a situation that does not share in love. It is an exchange between author and reader to get off on it. Pure objectification.

Also, Melissa Scott's 'Dreaming Metal' has one or two erotic (lesbian) scenes which develop our understanding of the characters and their relationships.

So, yes, I think adult relationships have a place in SF and publishers will publish such stories.

mfreivald has bought into a view of the erotic/pornographic that is totally false to human nature, which means that what mfreivald writes will be false to human nature. In science fiction, that may not be a problem, but it certainly limits your writing to think that sex is a taboo subject.

Just to clear up a few points -- sex is an important part of the life of every human being, and to write about characters who have no sex life is as false as to write about characters who do not eat or sleep. Many authors, however, choose to write about sex in a way that is not erotic or pornographic. Take this example from His Majesty's Dragon, "...then she reached out, took the glass from his hand, and kissed him. He had indeed been wholly mistaken; on this matter, she proved not at all tentative." And that's the end of the chapter. But we are not left with a character who has no sex life -- it just isn't what Naomi Novik wants to write about. Maybe she has a teen age daughter -- though I have a strong feeling that to be a really good writer is to risk offending both parents and offspring.

Of course, there used to be laws against writing about sex. In Anna Karenina, when Tolstoy comes to the sex scene between Anna and Vronsky, he is forced to use asterisks. But he uses three lines of asterisks!

On the other hand, it is possible to write in such a way as to produce a pleasurable sexual frisson without ever mentioning sex, as in the ERB example I gave. Nothing sexual is going on between the Mahar and the girl. In fact, the girl is lunch. But the erotic content is unmistakable, and is probably part of the reason ERB is still read today. A few such moments at the right time in a young man's life can leave a lasting impression.

I am still deciding how to do the love scene in my book. The one I wrote I wrote for my wife. We're married we can do that, but it is naughty She really wants me to put it in but I think it would devalue it in the long run. I may take the scene and tone it down a few levels, or I may just scrap it and write a new one.

Now Porn scenes. Ehhh, that’s not erotic (not to me) in the least, that is lust with no forward movement of plot. If a couple leads to a sex scene great. I fell their connection to each other all the much more. If they have a Pizza delivery and girl in Victoria secrets non-clothing moment, there is nothing.

~Destiny

quote:

---

What does this mean to us as writers?

mfreivald has bought into a view of the erotic/pornographic that is totally false to human nature, which means that what mfreivald writes will be false to human nature.

---

Well, it's entirely possible that I am completely false to human nature. You see, I'm actually a robot that is incapable of sexual relations, so really everything I wrote so far was just the result of my envy of you humans. Please feel free to ignore everything I say, since my perception is obviously useless, and my writing…er…mechanical.

Of course, we should explore the fact that you completely mischaracterized what I said. I, in fact, bring a proper understanding of erotica and pornography--my cold robotic analysis of it is far superior to your mushy brain. Plus, I was once used as a camera crane in the porn studio. (It was a long year.) But, really, none of us have a complete and full understanding of anything, so we will all fall short. You, Rick Norwood, are hardly qualified to judge my insight into human nature at this point. You haven't even taken the time to investigate further what I mean and what the implications are, which means you are simply saying things so that you can pretend you are smarter than me.

I don't mind you having a dissenting opinion. But judging my perception of human nature without even actually having a conversation with me is a very good indication that you are someone who lacks any significant perception of human nature. It makes me wonder if you are even worth talking to. (Judgment still pending...)

quote:

---

In science fiction, that may not be a problem, but it certainly limits your writing to think that sex is a taboo subject.

---

If you had actually read what I said, you would see that I am commenting on the writing of **explicit sex**. No where did I say that sex is a taboo subject. Having a perception problem here?

quote:

---

Just to clear up a few points -- sex is an important part of the life of every human being, and to write about characters who have no sex life is as false as to write about characters who do not eat or sleep.

---

Again--if you would get off your hobby horse and actually pay attention to what people actually *say*, you would notice that I never mentioned anywhere that characters should have no sex life.

quote:

---

Nothing sexual is going on between the Mahar and the girl. In fact, the girl is lunch. But the erotic content is unmistakable, …

---

Again--if you actually took the time to consider what I said, you would realize that hinting at erotic things is not my complaint. In my previous posts, I specifically discuss the *genre* of erotic fiction, which is what the originator, Ayle, seemed to be promoting. (But actually wasn't promoting.) A defining attribute of erotic fiction is the frequent detailed and explicit descriptions of sex scenes. The genre is, in fact, pornographic.

quote:

---

Porn, on the other hand, is explicit, naming body parts and saying exactly who did what to whom.

---

I'm glad you agree. And that is exactly what you should expect if you pick up a book in the erotica section at Borders.

quote:

---

As I meant it NOT pornographic, in fact most of that kind of thing it irritating.

---

Ah! I am, in fact, relieved for you.

I would suggest not using the terminology the way you did, then. When you imply the genre of erotica, it would almost certainly mean something pornographic in most contexts.

quote:

---

I crave the romance, and part of a true romance is a sexual attraction that is erotic, a pushing and pulling of that excitement for a first love.

---

I'm not sure "erotic" is a good word to use here. Sexual attraction is not necessarily erotic. "Erotic" generally implies that it is intended to sexually arouse via sexual detail. Sure, there can be a hint of the erotic here and there without becoming pornographic, but emphasizing that fact confuses the conversation. Plus--it only *hints* at being erotic. It isn't *actually* erotic.

quote:

---

I think it would devalue it in the long run.

---

It is extremely rare that a sexual encounter would need to be described even in vague terms. You can reveal the human nature in much more effective ways, and sexual scenes generally slow the story down and simply turns the reader into a voyeur. It almost always cheapens your work. When in doubt--throw it out. Of course, being a robot, I will be false to human nature in any event, so I might as well not even try.

quote:

---

Now Porn scenes. Ehhh, that’s not erotic (not to me) in the least, …

---

But that is what *erotica* is. It is an excuse to explicitly display sex for sex's sake. You cannot spit shine a turd, but that is what erotica tries to do. It tries to pretty up porn and pretend like it is good art.

quote:

---

I apologize if the idea of Pornographic content and erotic in my post were confused.

---

You're writing something into the story that lots of people are going to find discomforting or immoral. If needs to be part of the story, it needs to be part of the story, and people generally won't blame you or the story for containing it. George R.R. Martin, mentioned above, is a good example. He has some pretty graphic portions, but they are so naturally necessary to the plot, and so consistent with the themes, that people don't consider his books seedy, even though they would turn away from a different story with similar scenes in disgust.

If a graphic erotic (or violent or just gross) interlude doesn't need to be part of your story, if it's gratuitous or purely prurient in nature, people will pick up on it instantly and will blame the author and the story. The whole story is cheapened, partly because of the content, but mostly because it's so apparent to the reader that the offensive content has no principled reason to be there.

quote:

---

(a problem when reading on the bus).

---

Since I'm the only one, I think, who has admitted to writing erotica - here's my take.

You are talking around definitions. Let's agree on some terms as used in market:

"erotic romance" - follows the same patterns as a regular romance but with more explicit sex scenes.

"erotica" - explicit sexual scenes that are used to fuel the character's growth or are otherwise critical to the story. Eroticism is not "gratuitious sex." The intimacy has to be an integral part of the story.

"Porn" - a story that is generally no more than a set of loosely strung together explicit sex scenes.

Fantasy until recently did shy away from any sexual references. Lord of the Rings is a bunch of guys on a quest. Sure there is a love interest but she's kept off stage. In the last ten years or so there has been a change in the market. There are more woman writers and we care about the relationship between the characters. Most of the contemporary fantasy - Linda Hamilton, Christine Feenhan, Sherrilyn Kenyon and others - interweave the relationship elements into the story.

Jacqueline Carey's Kushiel series is a good example of when sex, even explicit sex, is necesary to the plot and character development.

The sex has to fill a role in the story, whether it is a fanasty or murder mystery. I don't have a sex scene unless it falls into place naturally. If I "show" the scene, there is a darned good reason. In my novel, King's Falcon , Falcon is in two relationships. The first one with King Jurriaan - sex is not shown because the only thing that is important is that they have sex. In the other relationship, the one she shouldn't be in, Mordent is seducing her. How far she is willing to let him go is important to showing how he's breaking down her resistance and bending her to his will. Those scenes are more detailed but not graphic.

The issue is whether the scene fits and of it is descibed with the level of detail that is appropriate for the POV character. Scarlett O'Hara isn't going to take you into the bedroom with her and Rhett. But the heroine in the Kushiel series is because sex, and extreme sex, is part of who she is. But even there, Carey choses not to show the intimate relationship between the MC and her protector because the MC would keep that private.

In my story up in Frags and Feedback, the MC's exploration into broader sexual adventures causes her to question the way she's lived her life and drives the changes she makes in it. IMHO, the reader needs to experience those events with her. Will the explicit nature of some events turn readers off? Sure. But I'm willing to pay that price.

I realize I am not the standard reader and I don't object to people writing erotica, etc. However, I, personally, think that a lot of writers fool themselves into thinking that a graphic sex scene is necessary to show when it's not. Maybe some authors just get a kick out of writing something 'naughty.' I don't know. But graphic sex scenes are about letting the readers get a voyeur's view of that character's private life. If you don't give a detailed scene of them going potty (i.e. you leave that door closed) then why is the door to the (figurative) bedroom so open? If there are laws against sneaking over to your neighbors house and looking through the blinds to watch them have sex, then why do we make so free with allowing...even forcing...people to watch graphic sex in our stories? This is something that I just don't understand.

If wild and crazy sex WITH THE CONSEQUENCES OF IT INCLUDED drive the story, then I'm okay with it. (I, personally, still don't want to know the details. My imagination works just fine, thank you.) However, using sex as a author short-hand for "love" or as a way to get some voyeur kicks as the MCs jump from partner to partner (with little or no consequences) just turns me off.

Please also keep in mind I'm the person who gets ticked when a character is given great strength yet never once has a problem tightening things too tight or has a fancy sword than never draws a thief after them and so forth. I have little patience for any story that skips on the consequences of actions, and, IMHO, sex seems to be the major area in books and movies that consequences are deliberately overlooked.

Just my 2 cents.

Because he ultimately chooses to give in to the temptation, and because the temptation and resulting choice are a necessary part of the character development, I was faced with my own choice on how graphic to be.

I decided to be as graphic as the plot required, but no more. So there are some somewhat racy details regarding bare skin and the MC's internal lustful feelings, but the center of the scene is still the moral dilemna rather than the anticipated physical act. Once the MC decided what he is going to do, the scene ends. There's no reason to show any more, even though what is about to happen is in some ways a lot more stirring than what just happened, because the actual act of sex was in this case surplusage to the plot and not useful to establish theme.

quote:

---

"erotica" - explicit sexual scenes that are used to fuel the character's growth or are otherwise critical to the story. Eroticism is not "gratuitious sex." The intimacy has to be an integral part of the story.

"Porn" - a story that is generally no more than a set of loosely strung together explicit sex scenes.

---

Okay. Let's make sure I understand you before I respond. Are you telling me that I could splice the sex scenes from "Debbie does Dallas" into a story that was written to fuel the character's growth or make those scenes "critical to the story" that it would no longer be pornography? (Or, if you would rather, I worked in the sex scenes from the Penthouse Letters into a story in the same way, it would not be pornography?)

Thanks,
Mark

If you don't accept his definition, and you want to assert (for example) that pornography means "all explicit sex scenes," you could.

I don't think it would be helpful if you did that, though, because then you would end up discussing the uninteresting and useless (from the perspective of a writing discussion) topic of what should falls within the rubric of the emotionally loaded term "pornography," rather than discussing the interesting and useful (from a writer's perspective) topic of whether, when, and how to handle explicit sexual moments in fiction writing.

[This message has been edited by J (edited July 03, 2007).]

Alot of this comes down to what you consider "art", one mans porn is another's beautiful expression of physical love.

I know where I draw my line but would be hard pressed to explain to another how I came about defining that line or exactly where it falls.

Though erotic and sex are somewhat synonymous in perception that is thanks to the "modern" erotic film industry and the association of anything "adult" being pornagraphic in nature.

Webster's:

e·rot·ic (-rtk)
adj.

Of or concerning sexual love and desire.
Tending to arouse sexual desire.
Dominated by sexual love or desire.

The intent of erotic literature is tittilation and arousal, which is honestly the intent of most literature to arouse the intellect or tittilate the mind, erotic simpley focuses a bit lower.

I know there are several sex scenes in Neil Stephenson's Baroque Cycle novels and each is very effective in illustrating aspects of the time or the individual. They are done very matter of factly and are generally explicit in content, but they do carry the story forward and do not stand out as unnecessary or gratuitous.

quote:

---

Okay. Let's make sure I understand you before I respond. Are you telling me that I could splice the sex scenes from "Debbie does Dallas" into a story that was written to fuel the character's growth or make those scenes "critical to the story" that it would no longer be pornography? (Or, if you would rather, I worked in the sex scenes from the Penthouse Letters into a story in the same way, it would not be pornography?)

---

To some people as soon as you use anatomically correct words, it's porn.

The writing industry defines the genres. My definitions are pretty close to what the industry is currently using. Right now Erotic Romance is a HUGE (pun somewhat intended) seller.

So what makes a story an erotic romance? First and foremost it is a romance. It follows the romance genre dictates.

There is a difference in the market between Erotic and Porn. Whether you believe that or not it your personal call.

I think J has it right. If you have a sex scene in your writing the level of detail and the terms used have to be consistent with the POV and serve the story. If the story is an Erotic Romance, the scene whether PG-13 or somewhat more must be consistent with the rest of the story.

In the Kushiel series, the fact that the MC needs to be submissive and experience what many people consider deviate (BDSSM) sex is important to the story. Carey takes you through the scenes when necessary but she'd probably still be rated R and not X. The relationship that matters to the MC is never described in detail. Thier intimacy is a look or a touch. But because the MC is what she is, she is in the position to save her world and survive brutality that would physically, mentally and spiritually maim others. But to understand that, I need to understand what she is.

I hate books or movies that "throw in a sex scene" just because. That I consider pornography even if the scene isn't any worse than PG-13.

If the sex in "Debbie Does Dallas," which I've never seen, was part of a story where Debbie realizes the hollowness of her existance and chooses to escape from that lifek, than by market definition just because the scenes may be graphic wouldn't make it porn.

Is Anne Rice's Beauty series porn? I'm sure for some people it is. Are the movies "The Secretary" and "The Story of O" porn? Maybe, depends on your POV.

I completely disagree with this postmodern idea that you can "decide" what is porn, and what is not. It is not just "in the eye of the beholder." Porn has a nature to it. It exploits human beings in a way that reduces them to objects. If you have such a thing going on in your sexual scenes, it is probably pornographic.

The term "erotica" also refers to a type of literature that has a certain nature to it. Any kind of literature which has the sole purpose of objectifying sexuality in a way to titillate the reader is certainly an evil thing. I might concede that there exist some works of erotica that do not quite reach pornography, but my understanding is that the vast majority of it is very graphic. If an erotica aficionado were to pick up a book in the erotica section, and it did not have explicit sex in it, I have no doubt they would be disappointed. Therefore, I have little doubt that the nature of erotica is largely a pornographic nature.

I can understand that real characters can profane themselves, and that it might be inherent to a story. However, it is not at all necessary for a reader to be a voyeur of explicit sex in order to understand how they degrade themselves. We need not resort to pornography for the purposes of character or story. If you feel you do need to resort to it, you are probably not a very good writer, or you are trying to inject something evil into your art.

Now we can go around in circles for an eternity trying to understand the nature of pornography, and I would agree that some people are way oversensitive to things that do not actually consist of pornography. But when it is pornography, it is pornography, regardless of how we decorate it or make excuses for it.

For what it's worth, I expect a great deal of objection to this in this postmodern world. But words--in this case the word "pornography"--point to real things with a real nature to them. Denying that nature does not change the fact that it is what it is.

My second point is that porn cannot be dressed up and become something else. If, as one of the commenters above suggests, you inject pornography into a story and pretend it isn't porn--something is not right. As I said. Pornography has a nature to it, and Debbie Does Dallas will always be porn no matter how you splice it. (Unless, of course, you actually spliced out the pornographic parts.)

If you take the actual murder happening in a snuff film and splice it into a new film with a good story--That section of it is still a snuff film. Telling yourself something is not snuff or not pornography is an exercise in denial. It is a way to dupe yourself into engaging in very unhealthy and damaging activity.

My third point is this idea that discussing the right or wrong of it isn't interesting or valuable to our writing. It seems to me that anything that is destructive to our writing is both interesting and worthwhile to discuss. If you write a scene that is actually pornographic, you profane your work, you profane yourself, and you profane your reader. Trying to figure out how to handle those scenes in writing is not a worthy pursuit, and following them distracts you from more worthy pursuits. It also distracts from better and more effective methods for getting the point across.

I doubt I will get much agreement, and I doubt we will resolve much on this forum, but this is how I see it, and I would advise anyone reading to avoid pornography and erotica at all costs. It will damage you and your readers.

Pornography is one category of media with which you disagree morally, in the larger category of pruriency. Unlike the morality of the underlying issue, the definition of the catgegory "pornography" is very much a matter of perspective. While you, operating from an absolutist perspective, are entitled to condemn all sexually related content as immoral, that same perspective does not enable you also to insist that all such content must also be defined as pornography.

quote:

---

Actually, I have no objection to your moral condemnation of prurient media in general. But you're missing the boat by insisting that all images or descriptions describing anatomy or reproductive function must be called pornography.

---

That isn't quite accurate. There might be reason for describing the anatomy in question. There may be medical reasons or some CSI type of reason. I also don't think, for example, that saying a guy has a big organ is pornography. The fact that he is well endowed (or that he suffers at the other extreme) may affect his character, and it could be used to psychological and humorous effect.

But describing it with the intention to arouse would be pornography.

Saying that someone engages in lascivious activities is also not porn. I read a story not too long ago that described a character who was watching a pornographic scene that showed someone getting a b***-job. But it was clearly not intended to titillate the reader, and there was no explicit description of it. I don't think that that was porn.

These are a few judgments I've made, but I am open to being educated in the matter. Pornography is a harmful thing, so I would certainly be open to correction on that side. I don't want to do damage. I would also be open to arguments that exclude the description for titillation from pornography--but I think a prudent person should be very leery of that. It would be better to err on the side of not doing harm, rather than doing harm. (Whether the harm is to the art, myself, the reader, or all three.)

I cannot conceive of a situation where the explicit description of the reproductive function would not be pornography. I sincerely doubt that is possible, but, again, I am not the god who knows all about porn. (I don’t think anyone can be--but that isn't a reason to forget prudent behavior in the matter.)

quote:

---

Pornography is one category of media with which you disagree morally, in the larger category of pruriency. Unlike the morality of the underlying issue, the definition of the catgegory "pornography" is very much a matter of perspective.

---

I disagree with the idea that it is a matter of perspective. We may have differing perspectives, but somewhere in that difference lies *error*. Whether it is my error, your error, or both of us is another question, but porn is porn.

quote:

---

While you, operating from an absolutist perspective, are entitled to condemn all sexually related content as immoral, that same perspective does not enable you also to insist that all such content must also be defined as pornography.

---

You have way overstated what I said. I never stated anywhere that I "condemn all sexually related content as immoral." Having done some study in the theology of sexuality, I think I have a pretty good understanding of what porn is. So, even if I lack infallible authority on the matter, I certainly am in a position to give people fair warning about it, and I am probably morally obligated to do so. (If I didn't, it would be like someone knowing the damage of heroine, but not warning about it when others talked about trying it.) I especially see a problem when I see people trying to "define" away the fact that something is pornography, and when they make excuses for what is almost certainly pornography.

To be honest, I haven't done a survey of erotica, but the explanations I have received for what characterizes erotica give me a very high level of confidence that it is indeed pornography, and that those who claim it is not are being fooled by the way it is dressed up. You can put a whore in Sunday clothes, but if she doesn't renounce her whoring, she's still a whore. (And charity, as well as moral obligation, would demand that I be truthful about it in the most loving way possible.)

quote:

---

In other words, you may claim that your assertions embody absolute moral truth, but you may not claim that to hold absolute linguistic truth.

---

I like the definition of porn as reducing human beings to objects. But that doesn't make it wrong.

For me, it's wrong if one or more people are, in real life, unwilling or coerced.

If porn movie actors are happy and willing, I see no harm - for the writer, the actor, or the movie goer. (Unless it becomes an addiction; that, along with drugs and gambling, is a different debate.)

If we're depicting real life in a book, it's porn if it's gratuitous, and never wrong because it's not real. (Tasteless, perhaps; but not wrong.)

So for me, porn is still indeed in the eye of the beholder, and only wrong if real-life participants are unwilling. If the beholder has a moral stance, for those of us who do not share that moral stance, it's still in the eye of the (moral) beholder because the rest of us do not agree there is an absolute right and wrong handed down by a supreme being. Both parties have a right to their views, but not to impose them on others, in my view.

But why is sexual porn necessarily wrong? I've never understood why watching or reading about sex is regarded as wrong. It's a common human activity, we all know what happens and how. Why the veneer of secrecy? Why is seeing the lovers regarded as worse than just hearing them, or fading away to a seascape? I understand intimacy and wanting to be alone together, but not why that has to be an imposed moral rule. (In some of Heinlein's worlds sex is very open, kids are cared for by loving extended families, and it all seems rather attractive to me.)

Back to "people as objects": the other reason I like this definition is that it's not restricted to sexual porn. With this definition we can include all the Rambo, Terminator and Die Hard and most other R rated movies which, in my view, are pornographic because they regard people as objects that can be killed off in pursuit of riches or revenge - and the more sadistic, the better. I personally find gratuitous violence far more objectionable than sex and cannot understand why we accept gratuitous violence in books and movies, yet not gratuitous sex - I think the latter is far more fun. I would not argue that gratuitous violence is wrong, or should be banned, just that it's tasteless and our moral and rating codes for movies and books are unbalanced.

Finally, whatever one's moral view, I do not agree that a particular view stops one from writing about the human condition. We write about the human condition as we perceive it, and as we wish to depict it dramatically.

We rarely if ever write truly about the human condition. If we did, murder mysteries would be full of bereaved people talking endlessly of their lost loved ones, instead of seeking revenge/justice/a new life. And people would visit the bathroom a lot more, and just at the wrong moment.

You bring up some interesting points.

The objectification of a human being is evil in any context, whether it is pornography, or torture, or whatever. A human being is not a means to an end. A human being is a precious soul that should be loved.

That being said, if you buy into the fact that objectification is evil, then pornography is clearly evil and wrong. You sound like you are still grappling with it, so I encourage you to keep at it.

Now the fact is that some characters will do evil things that objectify human beings. If you are using these evil acts to use them as objects to get off, as you do in porn, it is evil. Gratuitous violence that encourages the objectification of people is also bad, but I'm not sure that violence is always bad. I don't think it is in the same league as pornography, anyway. But--as said before--I'm open to be educated.

Regarding pornography specifically, you say that it is "in the eye of the beholder," but I don't think that is what you actually mean. What I think you mean is that whether or not it is wrong is in the eye of the beholder. It is still porn, whether you think it is wrong, or okay.

That being said, I still don't believe that the morality of pornography is "in the eye of the beholder." It is either wrong and evil, or it isn't. It is very clear to me that it is evil. I hope you give the objectification idea some thought and come to realize just how evil it really is.

And it's the semantic issue (i.e., what constitutes good writing vs. mere verbal pornography) that's relevant to this thread, and that I hope we can all get back to: when, if ever, is sexual content appropriate in fantasy/sci-fi writing, and how is it best handled?

There seems to be a strong contingent that says "no more and no less, and no more or less excplicitly, than the story requires."

Other posts seem to say "whenever and however, so long as it's somewhat tasteful and not totally irrelevant."

Still others appear to say "never."

Any other perspectives?

I have no doubt that I am both waxy and verbose. You might add awkward, silly, and not especially bright. But my inadequacies do not absolve me from standing by while evil has its way.

Telling me I should accept the benefits brought on by this variety of opinion about pornography is like telling me that I should accept the medical benefits of drugs brought on by the varieties of opinion about heroine abuse. Standing by while others advocate heroine abuse would be irresponsible.

As far as you warning against literary bulls#!@, if you thought it was harmful, I would say you are morally obligated to do so. But it really doesn't make sense to make the argument this way. Back to the drug analogy, "I could just as easily warn that aspirin can be abused, and warn against using drugs for anything." Aspirin obviously doesn't have the same terrible qualities that heroine does, and if you heard some people talking about an aspirin a day, it would not constitute any great concern. Heroine abuse is bad, bad stuff.

With pornography, it is either bad, damaging stuff, or it isn't. I know it's bad--like I know heroine abuse is bad--so I'm not going to stand by and pretend it is no worse than detective fiction.

Pornography is damaging. It damages soul and mind. There aren't going to be any worthwhile genre coming out of it. I can't stop you from shooting up if you are set on doing it, but at least I didn't advocate it, and the warning has been made.

quote:

---

mfrie, you're still missing it. The moral issue and the semantic issue are very different; you insist on discussing them as the same.
And it's the semantic issue (i.e., what constitutes good writing vs. mere verbal pornography) that's relevant to this thread, and that I hope we can all get back to: when, if ever, is sexual content appropriate in fantasy/sci-fi writing, and how is it best handled?

---

Well. I may be missing it, but I don't think so. What I think you are missing is that the moral issue directly affects what you call the "semantic issue." (Did you get that as a technical term somewhere, because I don't think it is a good descriptor for what you are saying.) If, by sexual content, you mean content other than pornography, then it is good to think about what isolates pornography from sexual content. It is completely relevant to what is appropriate, and it is best handled by avoiding it.

On that note, J said:

quote:

---

...when, if ever, is sexual content appropriate in fantasy/sci-fi writing, and how is it best handled?

There seems to be a strong contingent that says "no more and no less, and no more or less excplicitly, than the story requires."

Other posts seem to say "whenever and however, so long as it's somewhat tasteful and not totally irrelevant."

Still others appear to say "never."

Any other perspectives?

---

I have a question about what your saying. You say that depicting sexuality (at least with some degree of accuracy/explicitness) "objectifies" humans. I don't quite understand that. Why just sex? Why wouldn't peeking into any private aspect of a character objectify them? What if a writer explores a complex relationship relationship between a mother and a daughter, including the private inner workings of one or both, or exposes a characters secret fears and hatreds, secret passions and dreams, secret pains and joys. Is that objectification too? In fiction, it's all about showing things for the readers enjoyment, and the best things are often the private things.

Should Cassanova have disappeared before it was ever known? Were there no valuable lessons to be learned of the Marquis de Sade?

How you can call this evil is beyond me. It smacks of condoning censorship to further your personal objectives -- there was a famous Austrian who burned books in the early part of the 1940s, because it rubbed his morale the wrong way; now we consider HIM evil. If you can't write about a character having "a romp" in a book because it's evil, how are you going to illustrate the antagonist at all?

You apparently do not recognize damage that can be done to the soul. Damage that can be done to both writer and reader. Damage to the soul can be *eternal*, and it can be far worse than the physical damage that heroine does to a person. There is also great damage you can do to people psychologically and emotionally. There is nothing ludicrous about this unless you are a materialist. And if you are a materialist and remain a materialist, you will not realize the horror of the damage you reap. Until you meet your Maker, that is.