My love scenes don't involve any "plumbing" - I don't think scenes like that are romantic at all. Leave some stuff to the reader's imagination - they'll enjoy it more. I know as a reader, I feel that if you tell me everything, I don't find it nearly as interesting as I do when I get to let my imagination play a bit. My personal guideline is to keep what I write above the waist or on the lower legs - seriously. And my readers love the love scenes in my stories and beg for more, which isn't a bad thing at all.
If you want to experiment or to see what your comfort zone is, write some fanfiction under a pseudonym and publish it online - the readers will be merciless if you mess up, and will beg for more if you do a good job. It's a tough training ground, but it's free and can be quite useful if you want to stretch your wings in different directions than usual.
Lynda
[This message has been edited by Lynda (edited December 02, 2007).]
I have considered writing some more explicit novels and may do so. They sell well and have markets that pay well. For me, it has doesn't have much to do with my own feelings about it. I'm a big girl and know what men and women (and various other combinations) do. Writing about that is easier than writing a battle scene, let me tell you.
But one way or the other, I think you need to let your reader know what to expect. And you have to be comfortable with it.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 02, 2007).]
quote:
I'm not quite sure what you mean by wink wink nudge nudge...If you mean a "face to black" type love scene, I've done those.
I believe that this can be a tough thing to do well, which is why you rarely have quality erotica in film (in my opinion). Because the point of view has to be such that you can experience the emotional attribution of the physical activity, and that's pretty hard to accomplish when you can't see inside an actor's head. Just no way to express it other than raw, physical-only sex. (Just can't see an emotion-laden voice-over sex scene be anything except weird).
"And then the icy hot tendrils of pain shivered up his arm like tiny ants dipped in something that is both icy and hot."
The Forgotten Realms books are all about shoving descriptions like that. Blah!
I've never read a sex scene that I could take seriously. I'll usually say the equivalent of "and we had sex, and I was awesome!"
Once characters become "real" in my mind, I think about them as real people. As such, there are some activities that they need privacy for. I don't want to explicitly write out a sex scene, just like I don't want to stand in the corner of the bedroom while people I've come to care about have sex with each other. It kinda feels awkward.
I tend to write the pre-sex scene up until the point where the decision for sexual intimacy has been made and the people begin removing clothing, then fade to black and let the reader fill in the rest.
In my more detailed sex scenes nothing pulses or throbs, but it's clear what happened. My rule of thumb is to only describe a sex scene if something takes place during the act that I want to reveal about my characters or the plot.
If the scene would be gratuitous, I tend to fade to black.
quote:
My rule of thumb is to only describe a sex scene if something takes place during the act that I want to reveal about my characters or the plot.
Ditto and amen.
[This message has been edited by JFLewis (edited December 03, 2007).]
quote:
face to black
Is that meant to be 'fade to black'? Otherwise, I don't think I have ever heard of that particular sex act.
Apologies for the immature response, but I just couldn't resist 
Lynda
If a graphic scene is there only for voyeuristic or pornographic purposes, then I think it has no business being in a story (unless you are writing erotica, obviously). If it is there because sex is an important part of life, and this sexual experience is important to this character's life, then it has no business being taken out of the story.
I hate fantasies that romanticize or idealize sex. How many times do characters have sex, without any emotional or physical consequences? I have to say, sex scenes are full of potential for emotional development that I seldom see used in fantasies. I don't mind the fade to black; I despise the physically explicit scenes, stripped of emotion and character, that those who are trying to be "realistic" resort to. Every act your character does has to be steeped in his or her character.
I don't mind sex--even casual sex--in novels. Since people do have casual sex, banning it from novels seems a bit arbitrary. In the novel I'm writing now, the MC has a fairly causal affair. He cares a lot for her. She only feels friendship for him, but she's really in need of affection having gone through a lot of losses. (Ever notice how much slaughter tends to go on around our poor MCs?) After he's killed, she feels rather guilty that he cared more for her than she did for him. I'm still kind of iffy on how explicit the scenes will be. Probably not very because I don't think the explicitness would add anything, which is my criteria. I still think I may try my hand at erotica though, and that may be interesting. I have no problems with specific sex scenes if they're well written. Like battle or pain, that isn't always easy though.
As an example:
In the story that I take my screen name from, the MC has two romances. The importance of first one with King Jurriaan is that she has it. Those love scenes "fade to black." The other romance is with Mordent. There I don't fade to black because how far she lets events proceed shows how she's weakening on all levels to what he wants from her.
But even the final surrender there isn't as graphic as the erotica novel I'm working on.
In that one - her character development is being driven in part by the things happening at work and the things happening in this kinky relationship she ends up with. The relationship is not romantic, but sex based. The relationship starts bleeding over into the day job and the pressures from both sets of event force her to make choices she otherwise would not have. So, because it is erotica, it is very graphic.
Sure, people who don't like graphic sex scenes aren't going to read it, but it wasn't written for that audience.
I somehow think this goes beyond our general puritanism in this country. Perhaps it's that so often in the past marriage and sex has been forced for women so that it is very hard to see it as something otherwise--as anything but weakness and a form of surrender.
This is something I have generally chosen not to deal with in my work since between Saudi Arabia, Ethiopia, Afganistan, etc. it's in the real world enough. But I think when I get to the point that I can write about the subject my writing will be better.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 03, 2007).]
quote:
My rule of thumb is to only describe a sex scene if something takes place during the act that I want to reveal about my characters or the plot.
I would generally agree with that, but an exception might be comic relief.
I mostly agree with Zero, though--I really don't want an author making me feel like a creepy voyeur.
And as soon as you start getting truly graphic (at least how I understand "graphic" in this context), you are writing pornography, which isn't going to do a bit of good for your story.
What I said was true but the point has already been made.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 03, 2007).]
An example is the movie Knocked Up. It went somewhat into the sex scene that resulted in the pregnancy, because the "how" she got pregnant (aside from the obvious) was important to the character interaction later. Thus, some of it was show (probably more than was needed.)
I like to imply sex. Not exactly like the fade to black. A bad example would be "Bob heard them moaning and groaning last night." I mostly use the implication with couples that are already established before the story began as opposed to new lovers.
1. Recently read a really good book, only to find I could not reread because of the explicit sex scenes. The reason: my mental pictures of the two involved were of them being quite unattractive therefore the scene made me feel a bit sick. Other books by the same author had explicit sex which I didn't mind because the characters were presented as being very attractive, and very sexual (they were werewolves.)
2. As a writer I don't write explicit sex in my books, even though one of my secondary characters is a womaniser (and his womanising is important to the plot) he is always seen with these women at family dinners, the fact he is sleeping around is talked about, but not seen. Most of the rest of the time I have a character walk into a room, then an end scene and the only proof that sex occured is a few chapters later the female finds out she is pregnant.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 03, 2007).]
You could ask the same question about death scenes. Do you need to just simply say, "he died" or do you have to show him dying? How explicit do you have to be to get this aspect across? Just because it's sex doesn't mean you should treat it any different from any other occurrence in your tale. Blame the misogynistic ways of Victorian men for locking up nudity and sexuality and making sex "dirty" and sinful in and of itself- it isn't.
The act of sex alone is not a bad thing. And either way, your own personal feelings about the subject shouldn't get in the way of you writing what your characters do. I'm fairly sure most of us here wouldn't kill someone in cold blood, but that act can make for interesting reading.
quote:
Oh when it came to supposedly "decent" women, the Victorians were fully as prudish as reputed. Even female genital mutilation was practiced on occasion.
And what, may I ask, does that generalization dripping with prejudice have to do with writing?
Kathleen?
(Besides, although I have no special love or hate for Victorian England, even if I hated them I would realize the representation given above was grossly unfair and incomplete. Historical accuracy. I scoff.)
And if your "viewpoint" theory holds--why was mine suppressed?
I suggest you do some of that research you supposedly like if you think that it didn't happen in Victorian England. It was considered a perfectly appropriate solution to a female with too much interst in sex. The accounts of it aren't even difficult to find.
It's amusing that you didn't object to Wetwilly's comment that Victorians weren't prudish, but did to my comment that they could indeed be extremely prudish. Yep, prejudice shows in there somewhere.
Was the comment a complete commentary on Victorian England? Give me a break. It didn't purport to be.
As for YOUR viewpoint being surpressed, that is only true if only YOUR comments were deleted. Funny. Mine were deleted as well. Or maybe you wanted my view surpressed. LOL
Well, I didn't think the point was surpressing anyone's viewpoint. Kathleen had every right to do so.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 04, 2007).]
In other words, we're more prudish about sex now than we were before those Victorian men felt the need to control their women better because of those Victorian men, even if we aren't nearly as strict as them now.
Just like our more strict alcohol regulations that exist now than before prohibition. Alcohol isn't outlawed but it is restricted (to a fault, imo) now more than it was.
But I'm mostly just cheerfully awaiting the results of this point of order. It will be interesting to see how it plays out.
Will pot-shots that don't pertain directly to writing be deleted?
Will all such pot-shots be allowed to stay without dispute, which means only those who are cheap enough to make pot-shots will get that play?
Will some level of discussion to address such potshots be allowed, and if so, how does that reflect upon the deleted discussion?
Will Mark get banned?
In all due respect, I do bring this up in the hopes that Hatrack River maintains good integrity. (And that doesn't translate into: Mark get's everything he wants.) But there is definitely some inconsistency here if things like this are not addressed.
Cheers,
Mark
http://www.studd.co.uk/sexuality.php
The history of Isaac Baker Brown, president of the London Medical Society, who "perfected" the practice of clitoridectomy isn't something I'd recommend for anyone who doesn't have a strong stomach though.
My only argument is with blaming the fear of female sexuality on the Victorians. Sad to say, it far predated Queen Victoria and could be found in even worse forms in Europe. It takes an even stronger stomach to read about Dr. Zambaco of France. It's not a pleasant subject but something that can be valuable to know in writing.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 04, 2007).]
In principle, I don't have any problem with discussing these things. But in a previous discussion irrational and inaccurate things like that were said of another group of people. I addressed those problems, and we were summarily deleted.
So--either these things should be allowed, or they shouldn't.
After all, JeanneT's (and others') statement above is very condemning of an entire nation of people of a certain era, and it is, in fact, very simple-minded and incomplete if you want to have a proper understanding of them. It does nothing to help us figure out how to get a few characters involved.
quote:
As far as the horrible history of genital mutilation,...
There isn't a civilization today or in history that would not reveal some terrible practices if you looked for them. That doesn't mean that these terrible practices are a fair characterization of the entire nation, time, people, culture, or whatever.
It is simple-minded to think so.
[This message has been edited by mfreivald (edited December 04, 2007).]
And please show me where I said everyone practiced this. Or said anything about everyone in Victorian England. Unfortunately, a very little bit of research shows that this horror was more widely practiced than one wants to think about, but nowhere did I say it was universal. I might suggest that trying to defend the Victorians from being prudish is a losing battle. The very word is a synonym for prudishness.
Since, as usual when you decide to attack anyone with an opposing view to yours, this is turning into another thread of nothing but personal attacks, the thread is now yours. You can try to twist my comments all you want, but since anyone can read what I actually posted, I don't find it necessary to defend myself from your attacks.
Edit:
quote:
But in a previous discussion irrational and inaccurate things like that...
Inaccurate--like what? Irrational? To point out the truth that these things existed?
Well, if you don't want people to know the truth for some reason, I suppose pointing out the truth might be characterized as "irrational and inaccurate." But it might be interesting if you tried to SHOW where it is inaccurate that this was practiced in Victorian England and practiced very widely including being recommended by the leading medical "experts" of the day.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 04, 2007).]
My only intention in this thread is to point out the fact that you are out of scope. You are making stereotypical judgments about whole cultures of people without regard to writing. Both of us have been reprimanded for getting off topic. I'm just asking for some consistency and requesting that these kinds of cheap-shots be discouraged.
Since you weren't in the conversation, mfreivald, and jumped in to insult me calling me let's see... irrational and simple-minded I believe along with other name-calling... I'd love to know how I can be accused of taking cheap shots. Someone certainly did. I do believe it was you.
I concede defeat. mfreivald is more able to continually attack me every time I post than I am able to put up with it. The forum is his.
Edit: And for the truth about the attitude toward female sexuality in Victorian England, for anyone interested, simply examine the link I posted. Irrational defenses of their practices aside, it is educational.
Thanks for the many excellent conversations. Good luck to all of the writers who post here. It's been--for the most part--a pleasure.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 04, 2007).]
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 04, 2007).]
quote:
Ah. If that's the case, all my posts that were written for the sake of historical accuracy should never have been deleted?
I'm strongly against censorship, deleting posts, locking topics, limiting free discussion. I understand why it is done, liability and what not.
But I'm still against it on principle. Which is why I don't react favorably to people calling for the moderator to censor somebody else.
quote:
But it might be interesting if you tried to SHOW where it is inaccurate that this was practiced in Victorian England and practiced very widely including being recommended by the leading medical "experts" of the day.
JeanneT, my terms "inaccurate and irrational" intended to refer to the previous discussion, and I stand by that assessment. The "like that" was careless and did not intend to reflect precisely on this recent issue. As far as I can tell, you have not said anything irrational regarding this thread. I have characterized this latest one as stereotypical, prejudiced, grossly unfair, and incomplete.
And, yes, by the way, your views in the earlier discussion were also mostly suppressed (though not as completely as mine--your origination pot-shot was not deleted). I would have been happy to let your views stand juxtaposed with my refutations.
Cheers,
Mark
[This message has been edited by mfreivald (edited December 04, 2007).]
Why how DARE I give a link to an academic discussion of the subject. OBVIOUSLY incomplete and prejudiced NOT to mention UNFAIR to actually tell the truth about the subject.
But I shouldn't have hung around after I said I wouldn't. I am thoroughly tired of EVERY discussion being dragged down into personalities. That's enough.
I'm out of here.
quote:
You're absolutely right, it shouldn't be suppressed.
I personally am happy to leave that up to the moderator. I know I'm making this difficult for Kathleen, but I will respect her every decision--this isn't *my* forum. Kathleen could ban me, delete all my posts, and refuse to give a reason, and I would not hold it against her--that's her prerogative. She shouldn't have to answer to me or anyone else for her decisions, and she absolutely needs to have that level of control to make this forum operate the way it should.
That being said--I am *appealing* to her for some consistency on this matter. I'm not going to join in the pot-shot game, so if I'm not allowed to respond to them and correct them, I would hope they would be discouraged.
Cheers,
Mark
quote:
I misunderstood the insults you were flinging at me. They were: stereotypical, prejudiced, grossly unfair, and incomplete.
Those aren't insults toward your person. Those were obviously observations about your first statement on the subject, and I stand by them.
quote:
Why how DARE I give a link to an academic discussion of the subject.
That is not what they referred to, and you know it. Just like the last conversation, you intentionally twist my words to serve your purposes. You are clearly an intentionally deceptive person.
quote:
But I shouldn't have hung around after I said I wouldn't. I am thoroughly tired of EVERY discussion being dragged down into personalities.
And, of course, you personally have nothing to do with that, right?
quote:
I'm out of here.
How many times is this?
Cheers,
Mark
What names have I called YOU? Ever? You've racked up quite a record of the names you've called me. Let's see you just added "intentionally deceptive" (or liar if you were to actually speak plainly) to the list of names you regularly call me. But yeah, sure I provoke the arguments.
Let me add this on my way out the door. I am high-strung. So are most of the posters on the forum. We're writers, and it goes with the territory. This means that our discussions often turn into arguments. There's nothing wrong with that and a few locked threads just mean we're being intense.
But I honestly can't deal with being attacked by this person every single time I post.
Unlike some, I'm not going to appeal for the moderator to handle it for me. It's easier to just leave. Will I ever come back? Maybe. But not any time soon. This has simply become too volatile to be healthy.
So for the third and last time. Good luck and good writing. Have fun and get published. See you around.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 04, 2007).]
quote:
His book produced criticism from the Lancet and the British Medical Journal and unrestrained hostility in the London Times. Within a year Baker Brown was expelled from the London Obstetric Society after a fierce debate led by his professional rivals. This meeting was notable for being fired by commercial jealousy as much as disapproval of his surgery.
The doctor who was known for the clitoridectomies during that time was completely ostracized and condemned by the professionals of the time. Not exaclty the picture JeanneT wanted us to see, was it?
Good lord. To think I just said I would allow you to drive me away from this forum. Forget it. You have to put up with me sticking around telling the truth.
Edit: What your axe to grind is on THIS particular subject is a fascinating question. Now exactly what is your interest in trying to say that the Victorians weren't by and large prudish? LOL
And how about if YOU come up with SOME link or authority supporting this interesting contention.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 04, 2007).]
quote:
And this pot-shot I took at you was exactly WHAT?
Jeanne, you're going off the deep-end again. I was talking about the pot-shot you took at Victorian England--not at me. Pour yourself some tea and read calmly and carefully.
quote:
Let's see you just added "intentionally deceptive" (or liar if you were to actually speak plainly) to the list of names you regularly call me.
You are routinely deceptive with the way you present my words. That is an unfortunate fact. I gave you the benefit of a doubt for a while, but that has long since past.
quote:
But I honestly can't deal with being attacked by this person every single time I post.
Every time? Three threads in more than a year is "every time?"
I think you just don't like the challenge as much as you pretend to. If you did--you would have been much more civil about it from the beginning.
quote:
Unlike some, I'm not going to appeal for the moderator to handle it for me.
I thought the mature thing to do would be to show deference to the moderator. (I've probably failed dramatically, but I sincerely am trying to be mature here.) I'm certainly not going to be embarrassed about showing deference where it belongs.
quote:
So for the third and last time. Good luck and good writing. Have fun and get published. See you around.
In spite of being at odds with you, I do wish you well.
Cheers,
Mark
quote:
Forget it. You have to put up with me sticking around telling the truth.
LOL! You get 'em, killer!
In my opinion (and it's not humble), JeanneT was giving an opinion on writing ABOUT a certain sexual topic as an example of understanding the vagarities of a certain historical timeframe, and you went off on her.
Thanks. Glad to see that the diversity of our little club here just got MORE open-minded.
And yes, the dripping irony is implied.
This was an interesting topic before it degenerated and I'm not handling it well.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 04, 2007).]
I feel for you. I sincerely do, and I probably deserve to be the target of your scorn.
But consider my position. Previously JeanneT has attacked Christianity and my Church specifically with gross inaccuracies. When I corrected those inaccuracies, she became very agitated and did her best to discredit me and my church. I was mostly defensive for that entire discussion. I was not trying to perpetuate any kind of attack on her atheism.
But then it was all deleted. Okay--I'm not allowed to defend my Church on this forum. But does that mean this forum should be a place for JeanneT to get her attacks in unchallenged? When she made such a prejudiced statement about the Victorians, I don't think it was unreasonable to ask for a point of order. Better to deal with it now than when she attacks my Church again.
My hope is to get past this with a good understanding of what is acceptable on this list so that this doesn't happen again.
But I still don't blame you if you burn me in effigy.
Cheers,
Mark
quote:
I personally am happy to leave that up to the moderator. I know I'm making this difficult for Kathleen, but I will respect her every decision--this isn't *my* forum. Kathleen could ban me, delete all my posts, and refuse to give a reason, and I would not hold it against her--that's her prerogative. She shouldn't have to answer to me or anyone else for her decisions, and she absolutely needs to have that level of control to make this forum operate the way it should.That being said--I am *appealing* to her for some consistency on this matter. I'm not going to join in the pot-shot game, so if I'm not allowed to respond to them and correct them, I would hope they would be discouraged.
Hmm... these comments remind me of a character in a story, Peter, who sucks up to win favor with authority.
In my humble opinion, if you're so put off by the comments the best strategy is to boycott them altogether.
Come on guys, again?
Btw, when I say "Victorian" I'm referring to the era, not just Victorian England. Americans were just as guilty. You only need to read "The Yellow Wallpaper" for evidence of that...
And I never understood people getting mad at fairly accurate generalizations simply because they think the person generalizing is accusing EVERYONE of being guilty of the generalization...
I'm not saying her comment wasn't biased, but she delivered a point of view worth considering, thinking about, and at the very least expressing. Practically anything anyone says is somewhat offensive to somebody somewhere.
We can all relax and "roll with it," as I like to say, and accept that we will be offended at times, but we preserve our freedom to speak and write without a ball and chain.
Or we can lash back unnecessarily at things that offend us, calling for other people to be controlled, and collectively we become less free altogether.
My opinion.
Thanks for ruining another discussion. In the future, can you start your own thread if you want to start a fight (since you simply can't avoid the fight in the first place), so the rest of us can ignore you and actually have a discussion about writing? I'd appreciate it.
Cheers,
Matt
Actually, I took the time to read all the insults, comebacks and criticism between our two antagonists, and kept asking myself the same thing: what the heck is this about?
I mean, I am a history buff and love all aspects of the field, grow my own opinions, and stand by them. But even I don't flare my hood and get ready to strike at the first sign of some opposing views. JeanT, Mark, are either of you from the Victorian era? If so, tell me where you live so I can shake your hand. If you're defending your church or your beliefs, there's something that can possibly become hostile. But an ERA?
As for the topic (I forgot what it was, had to go back up and look) I think that for the most part, vivid sexual sequences in a novel are very distracting unless, as JFLewis mentioned, it contributes to the developement of your main characters. It can de-rail the reader and distract them from the main object of the book -- if not used correctly.
-Jay
[This message has been edited by jaycloomis (edited December 04, 2007).]
Please quit with the self-righteous attitude and read again the rules Kathleen referred you to last time.
Jeanne, your spirit is much appreciated, don't let Mark--or anyone--drive you away from Hatrack. Milk and two sugars, wasn't it?
Now, can we please get back to the sex? Or do we all have a headache.
Pat
Heinlein did them well in "Time enough for Love" because they were integral to the story. They told us about the characters and the lives they could lead as a result of being able to control conception and genes.
I think sex scenes should be sexy, just as violent scenes should be violent. Sexy often means being mysterious, not revealing all, being funny or tender or thoughtful.
Horror is all the more horrific when it's not explicit and much is left to the reader's imagination.
Characters are somehow stronger when they're not described in too much physical detail. Our imaginations will make the hero handsome and the heroine beautiful, the more so because it's the reader's imagination.
I think it's the same with sex. Give enough detail so we get the idea, then leave it to our imagination--not least because one person's turn-on is another's "Eeew."
Just 2c,
Pat
Why don't we just have a post where people can just fight it out.
We could call it: Real and Imagined Insults: Don't worry--I'LL TAKE OFFENCE ANYWAY!
It is no good trying to adopt the moral high ground while at the same time flinging another round of barbed comments at your opponent. It won't make you feel better.
If you were world leaders we would be in some serious trouble by now!
Perhaps people should make a specific point of avoiding commenting on other peoples posts when their blood is up? If you can't say anything nice...
It's my only comment because the post appears to have been hijacked--and I am certainly not going to point any fingers and blame any individuals.
And I can't believe I missed this comment by lehollis,
quote:
Well, I hate to sound critical, but I don't really have a good feel for the character's motivations. I mean, Jeanne and Mark are believable enough, but I just don't see why they would get caught up in this conversation. Maybe the author should fill out more background or something before they reach this point. At any rate, I think the scene is dragging on longer than it needs to and readers will have lost interest by this point. I recommend some heavy editing.
That's brilliant. Although I don't agree that readers have lost interest. In fact you might say some of them are so involved in the story they're becoming characters in it.
But seriously, I don't want people leaving Hatrack permanently on account of this.
JeanneT, thanks for staying!
Everyone else: Mark's attack in this thread was totally uncalled for and meaningless. But it seems that Mark has backed off, which I think shows some dignity. And I don't see any further use in people attacking him by name at this point. It would be horrible for him to drive JeanneT from our writers' community, but it would be indecent to beat a dead horse as well. If he's no longer on the offense then let it be. Mark may have hijacked two threads and attacked JeanneT, which I don't excuse, but I've found his comments and insights useful and interesting in many more threads than that. So Mark, don't leave either.
[This message has been edited by Zero (edited December 04, 2007).]
I personally haven't found an occasion to write a sex scene. I wonder if I avoid them unconsciously? Certainly my characters have children so they must have done something at some point. This requires further thought.
Perhaps they're adopted ;-)
Pat
I'm terrible at picking up on sexual innuendo though, so sometimes I totally miss it. Although if it's important it comes out later on, and I have that feeling you get when someone has to explain a joke to you...
Apologies for all the fuss.
And, Zero, if showing deference where deference is due makes me a suckup, then I guess I'm a suck-up. But at least I'm a genuine suck-up.
Cheers,
Mark
By the way, if I think the Victorian English were bad, I think the French of the same era were worse. (If you want to know why you can read that link I provided--it's too horrible to discuss) So maybe I'm doubly prejudiced against them.
Thanks to some of you for wanting me to stick around. I can be passionate so--I get a bit heated at times. Speaking of which, we were talking about sex.
I have written some fairly graphic sex scenes but ended up cutting them because I felt they weren't right for the particular work. I really think that my next book is going to be if not out-right erotica then at least more sexually graphic and more about romance and that kind of thing. Why? Just because I've never done that. I've done a lot of war and fighting. Time for something different.
I know some people don't approve but hey... that makes it more interesting.
Edit: Yes, that's milk and two sugars, Talespinner. But be sure it's Assam.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 05, 2007).]
Cheers,
Mark
*hint hint, wink wink*
Besides---though this is less likely---I could be wrong, or inconsistent with each other. How would I know either without testing them against other ideas? Working through ideas with arguments like this helps strengthen them.
If this is what the Internet crowd calls "flame wars," I can live with that. Besides, if it gets too intense, I can always walk away and move on.
My making issue with the over-simplified stereo-type regarding Victorianism had nothing to do with Victorianism. It had to do with the fact that these little discussions about non-writing issues with corrections and disagreements are pretty much inevitable. To shut them down would be, in my opinion, too stringent on the open exchange here.
But in the case where I made some corrections about some egregiously wrong things that were said about my church (and Christianity in general), I was viciously attacked for doing so. After being the target of this attack, it was decided to delete the entire conversation--except for the originating false information that started the whole thing. So that now stands unanswered--I was successfully shut down and cut off.
So, basically, we all believe that we should be able to discuss these things--***except when it is something important and personal to Mark***.
Can you see why I am a little confused here?
So, when I saw that the antagonist of the previous discussion was going off topic--simply trying to correct things the way I was trying to earlier--I cried "foul." I see now that it was ill-conceived, and perhaps my ego was on too long of a leash at the time. Whatever the case, I apologize again for trying to make issue of it the way that I did.
If anyone is masochistic enough to want to see what I'm talking about regarding the previous discussion, I printed the posts into a PDF file just before they were all deleted. So I have an unedited record of that discussion.
Cheers,
Mark
I'm sorry, Jeanne. I should have just shut up.
quote:
The closest I've gotten is a female trying to gain extra control over a guy by having sex with him...
So how would that work, Vanderbleek? Sounds like there is something the men in my life have never told me about? Control, hm?
Edit: By the way what IS it with women being referred to as "females"? I'm not sure if it is as irritating to other women as it is to me--but it really does sound a bit demeaning although I'm sure it's not meant that way.
I'm not yelling at you that you're sexist, Vanderbleek. I am assuming you didn't mean it in any way to be demeaning but this is something I've noticed and been irritated by from several guys in this forum. Is there some language thing going on here that I'm missing?
Is there something wrong with the word woman? I even prefer girl (and I do dislike being called a girl since I earned these gray hairs) to "female."
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 05, 2007).]
But sex isn't bad, and it does feel good and should. There was an episode of Law and Order last night about female circumcision (I think Jeanne referenced the same thing in history). The concept is repulsive because it shows that women shouldn't enjoy sex and should feel bad for doing so. Sex should only be to have children.
But doesn't a sexual relation bring people together? In the right environment, doesn't it help remove the barrier from a husband and wife, helping them communicate?
I agree that sex should be private, but many things we write about involve situations between couples that should be private. Disagreements, for one. When we write, we're inviting others to peek in on our character's lives. Handled correctly, we can learn something about them and about ourselves.
I understand that done poorly, our writing can devolve into voyeurism, but done well, it can open insight about our characters.
OSC mentioned that you should leave a lot of your characters to the imagination. My own opinion is give enough for the reader to imagine them, then let them fill in the details. We'll be able to relate to the character a little better. The same can be handled for sex. You can show intimacies without showing body parts. You can show feelings and emotions and expand a character.
Personally, I'm against sex outside of marriage. But I realize more people do it than don't. If I'm honest with my readers, then I know some people will be sexually active. I don't have to agree with people who act differently than me, but I have to respect their differences.
quote:
When one believes in or is confident or feels passionately about something, one should be willing to defend one's stated position. One should avoid personal attacks, but keep true to one's arguments in favor of that position. I know I've taken some positions here, about writing and other things, that some people have disagreed about---but, having taken them, I have to support them.
I think while your position seems obvious, it is flawed. A persons beliefs should be something that evolves during a lifetime, and is tempered and changed by experience and NEW INFORMATION. You should be mentally agile enough to listen to and be open to changing your opinion, something that it is difficult to do if you batten down the hatches defending your position all the time, because you 'feel' you have to.
Life is not a debate.
I realize that's nit picky to bring up the term, but we're writers. Words are important.
All in all, pretty well put, Matthew.
Edit: Let me say I don't agree with Matthew 100% but it's a well thought out post. I would say there are other reasons for what goes on, especially for female mutilation. That we can agree to disagree about.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 05, 2007).]
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 05, 2007).]
In fact, the Bible says absolutely zilch about premarital sex being a sin (unless, of course, it's with someone other than your betrothed during the engagement period).
No, what this stems from is the desire for men to control their women. Yes, they mutilated female genitalia, but did they mutilate their own male genitalia? No. So what's all this about helping make sex only be about children and not pleasure? If that were true, they'd be pulling out the magazines and a turkey baster.
And that's my point. Prudishness has nothing to do with why we think we're prudish now...
And even if it did, it wouldn't be as big a loss because the female counterpart is far more sensitive. So the women are losing much more in that scenario...
quote:
And why is it bad? Because it feels good. Anything that feels good must be bad, right?
That may be true to some subcultures, but it isn't true of Orthodox Christianity, nor of most of Protestant Christianity. I also doubt it is true of most other religions, but I admittedly lack much of that insight.
It is first important to get rid of this idea that Christianity professes that feeling good is a bad thing. There is no such belief except in certain minority sects of Christianity. I would even go so far to say that the only *good* thing about illicit sex (cheating on a spouse, for example) is the pleasure. The destruction to souls and families far outweigh that fleating pleasure, of course.
Sex is also not bad within marriage according to any Christian sect that I am aware of.
The reasons extra-marital sex is bad relates to natural law as well as religious beliefs. One of those reasons is that sexuality is directly related to the health of the family, which is critical to a healthy civilization, and undermining the sacredness of it undermines the regard for the health of the family.
Another reason is that sexuality without openness to life becomes utilitarian. Instead of cooperating with the natural teleology of body and soul, it takes an approach that uses each other as objects for pleasure. Human beings should not be treated as objects. It leads to a far-reaching disregard for human life with horrible consequences.
Sexual intercourse outside of marriage is in fact destructive to the people engaging in it and to the community around them in many ways that I'm sure could be debated ad nauseum. My objective here isn't to "prove" the Christian point of view--it is to demonstrate that the Christian point of view is not anything close to this notion that "pleasure is bad."
It seems like a very common misunderstanding, which results in criticism where criticism is not due. (It can also be a handy straw man for those who deal in logical fallacies.)
Christians, generally, are not nearly as prudish as you think.
And, by the way, these surgical procedures as being discussed are condemned by the Catholic Church. I suspect there are very few Protestants who wouldn't condemn it, too.
Cheers,
Mark
quote:
In fact, the Bible says absolutely zilch about premarital sex being a sin (unless, of course, it's with someone other than your betrothed during the engagement period).
ArCHeR,
The problem with a statement like that is that without an understanding of the Traditional beliefs going into it, the Bible can be interpreted in infinite ways--and all of them would be perfectly reasonable. I think the vast majority of Christian interpretation would disagree with yours--they all have found reasonable ways to interpret it, too. But as an Orthodox Christian, I personally don't worry too much about all the competing interpretations.
From my understanding the Bible was in fact written in the context of a religious people who had a profound respect for sexual purity and did not allow intercourse outside of marriage.
There's plenty to discuss and explore there, but it really isn't all that relevant. The point is, it doesn't make much sense to me when someone says: "The Bible doesn't tell me not to do it, so it must be okay according to the Bible." If that were true, all we would have to do is list all the atrocities that weren't mentioned in the Bible and say: "Okay, man! Let's do it!"
Cheers,
Mark
It has to do with treating women as possession, not with religion. Some religions are more prone to encourage treating women as chattel or possession or have been during one period or another. That's rather a different discussion and belongs in another thread I would say.
As for your beliefs about sex being somehow evil if not blessed by a minister, obviously I don't agree.
Edit: Blech. I will not be drawn into ANY discussion of Catholicism. I'll take that out.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 05, 2007).]
quote:
And even if it did, it wouldn't be as big a loss because the female counterpart is far more sensitive. So the women are losing much more in that scenario...
From what I understand, the clitoris contains the same number of nerve endings as the penis (because in a foetus they grow from same point), it is just a penis is bigger and so the nerve endings are spread out more.
So the equivalent to removing a clitoris is to remove the penis.
You're right that a removing the clitoris is about the equivalent of removing the penis when it comes to sexual sensation, though. I haven't researched if there is any difference in sensitivity.
Edit: Back to the subject and I brought up the entire subject only because I felt it related. I suspect it is now derailing the thread so I'm dropping it.
How do we handle sex in our writing?
Obviously some people think that sex is only for procreation. I would suspect their writing will reflect that. Some people think sex outside marriage is evil. Their writing will probably reflect that. I happen to not believe either. I do sometimes write about my characters having sex just as I sometimes write about it when they fight or do other things. Why wouldn't I? Is it something nasty? I don't think it is.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 05, 2007).]
Here is the complete quote.
quote:
The origins probably came from the religious (and not just Christian) views that sex should be only between married couples and private. From that I think society decided that if sex shouldn't be had whenever you want, it must be bad. And why is it bad? Because it feels good. Anything that feels good must be bad, right?
So, obviously Christianity was in the mix.
The reason I speak of Catholicism more than the general Christian view is that I don't want to get too carried away thinking I'm speaking for all of Christianity when I'm discussing these things--I'm simply much more qualified to speak of Catholicism, which is a *relevant* and illustrative part of Christianity. Also, when I speak of Catholicism I can be a lot more specific.
And I repeat: The Catholic Church condemns the practices under discussion. Saying "Catholics did this" (When? How many? Under what circumstances? And, most importantly, by what Catholic authority?) does not demonstrate a Catholic approval any more than saying "Hatrack River members listened to rap music" demonstrates an Hatrack River approval of rap music.
And I'm perfectly okay with the disagreement, Jeanne. I was simply trying to rectify the misunderstanding about Christian views.
And, by the way, I think you were perfectly reasonable using the word evil. All sin is evil at some level, and the destruction is part of that evil.
Cheers,
Mark
Male circumcision was first practiced by the Jewish tribes, and was considered a masculine sacrifice to God, as well as a tribal identifier. If push came to shove, it could be proved that a gentile male looked different from a Jewish one. If there was any question about a person's affiliation or allegiance, just raise his tunic.
Currently, male circumcision is practiced widely in most western countries. And, recent research has show that circumcised males who engage in high-risk sex contract HIV at a lower rate than un-circumcised males who engage in similar sexual activities. So, there might be something value-added to the practice. In almost every case, male circumcision does not in any way effect the sexual experience of males who have been circumcised.
Female circumcision is also practiced in many cultures. In many of those cultures, it is used as a sexual control mechanism for women. Unlike male circumcision, female circumcision significantly effects the sexual experience of women, and can cause other more severe complications.
However, in Sierra Leone, West Africa, where I lived, female circumcision is used less as a sexual control mechanism and more as a social and cultural right of passage. The circumcisions I heard described (I never slept with a Sierra Leonean woman who was circumcised) usually (but not always) removed the clitoris, occasionally removed the labia majora (outer vaginal lips), and rarely but sometimes removed the labia minora (inner vaginal lips).
However. Here's the rub. In Sierra Leone, the individuals who actual conduct the circumcision .... are women. Specifically, women of high ranking of the Sande Women's Secrety Society.
This application of female circumcision (which I IN NO WAY CONDONE), is utilized differently in Sierra Leonean tribal culture than in many other countries (specifically Islamic-controlled cultures. Again, this is based on conversations I have had with Peace Corps volunteers who have served in Senegal, Mali, and Mauritania).
Please see this Wikipedia article about the Sierra Leonean Sande Society. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sande_society
Here is my ultimate point. As we have found throughout this conversation, many different practices and applications, be they religion, cultural, or sexual, exist in context. A sex scene out of context is gratuitous. A discussion about religion on a writing forum might be out of context. And, a cultural practice, something which I would never wish on anyone, and which I would go to great lengths to prevent in my own culture, is an accepted form of initiation into womanhood for some cultures.
In the long run, I am hard pressed to tell somebody who is in a different cultural, religious, or literary situation or environment, that they shouldn't be true to their own internalized context.
As hard as that may be....
[This message has been edited by Igwiz (edited December 05, 2007).]
Mark, people who were Catholics did that. It has nothing to do with the "official" position of the Catholic Church. I can site authoritative sources that shows that people who claimed to be members of that Church did the practice.
I never said or implied there was some kind of official approval. In fact, on the contrary I said I KNEW of no such thing. Please stop turning every comment into some kind of attack on your beloved church.
Damn it I keep trying to drop this subject.
Igwiz said:
quote:
The circumcisions I heard described (I never slept with a Sierra Leonean woman who was circumcised) usually (but not always) removed the clitoris, occasionally removed the labia majora (outer vaginal lips), and rarely but sometimes removed the labia minora (inner vaginal lips).
The problem with your argument is that the removal of what is in fact most (in some cased all) of the female genitalia would mean that a woman would have virtually NO sexual sensitivity and would have a very limited ability to enjoy sex, most likely totally incapable of enjoying sex.
Of COURSE this is done to control women. The argument that it is done by women is part of what makes it so horrendous.
Maiming (foot binding) of Chinese girls was also done by women. Frequently the enforcement of male control on women is done by the older women who have ben co-opted by the male control mechanism. They believe (wrongly of course) that they have a stake in the continuation of the system they consider themselves a part of.
A NORMAL rite of passage does NOT leave the person involved maimed for life and incapable of any sexual enjoyment. What you describe is in fact a fairly extreme example of female genital mutilation.
End of lecture and I am NOT discussing this further I don't care what ANYONE says.
Edit: I would say I was very sorry for having brought the subject up. I did NOT intend to totally derail the conversation. But I must admit that I also think this is a subject that people should know about--so I have mixed feelings.
Please, can we get back to the original subject. I really didn't mean to take us totally off the track. I meant it as a minor side point to the discussion.
message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 05, 2007).][This
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 05, 2007).]
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 05, 2007).]
Size matters!
Ridged ST:NG Klingons are better than Original series Klingons!
The journey is more important than the destination!
You are all just figments of my imagination!
You should never argue with a loaded gun!
Don't run with scissors!
Size matters not!
Money makes the world go round!
My Dad can beat up your Dad!
Non-ridged Orignal Series Klingons are totally better than those weird Ridged ST:NG Klingons!
The destination trumps the journey. Thejourney is crap. Who cares about the journey!
I am just a figment of your imagination and I wished you'd imagined me with a better beard!
Always bring a loaded gun to an arguement!
By all means run with scissors!
No, LOVE makes the world go round!
Oh, yeah well, my Dad can beat up your political party!
/pant
/pant
/gasp
What? You mean there is a difference in a reasonable debate and (I hesitate to characterize what was going on here at all, so I'll just say) what has been going on here?
I propose a "Let's-Argue-About-Religion" thread. I also propose that we move it to another board... say somewhere on the IGN forums... because unless we're discussing how to use religion in what we write, I'm really sick of the arguements.
My religious beliefs are probably as different from JeanneT's as they are from mfreivald's. They differ from ArCHeR's too, but what does that have to do with writing about Sex/Love Scenes?
Absolutely nothing.
So... as JeanneT attempted to do in her previous post:
Can we please talk about something safe... like sex?
To recap:
I think we all agree that different people have different comfort levels when discussing sex. I've already expressed my thoughts on the matter, but I'm curious. For those who have read George R. R. Martin's Song of Ice & Fire series, how did you feel about the graphic sex scenes involving Tyrion Lanister?
Did you feel they revealed something about him as a character (ie. demonstrating how much he really wants to love and be loved, to be treated normally instead of as a dwarf or a monter) or did they strike you as pornographic?
Jeremy
quote:
Mark, people who were Catholics did that. It has nothing to do with the "official" position of the Catholic Church. I can site authoritative sources that shows that people who claimed to be members of that Church did the practice.
Jeanne. If you aren't trying to tie it into Catholic practice, I don't know what your point is. You make it a point to mention Catholics and others as if it is significant, and now when I try to put that into some kind of reasonable context, you seem to be saying it isn't significant, and I should just shut up about it.
There is no end to the horrible things we can say about people in the way you are doing it. I could just as easily talk about the fact that there are known atheists who were coprophiliacs. Is it true? Undoubtedly. Is it reasonable to make a point about atheists that way? Not in the slightest. It would be unreasonable and uncharitable to keep saying that (especially knowing that there was an atheist on the forum) as if it were significant, when it wasn't. I am *much* to charitable to do that to you.
So--if there is something *significant* about the fact that some tiny set of misguided Catholics somewhere mutilated themselves in the way you are discussing--then make that significant point so that we can scrutinize it properly. If not--please show me the same kind of charity that I am showing you.
quote:
Please stop turning every comment into some kind of attack on your beloved church
Jeanne--why is it that things that are important to you are okay additions to the discussion--but things that are important to me are not? I did not say anyone attacked my church in this case--I simply took the opportunity to set the record straight about misconceptions of Christianity. I'm trying to be peaceful about this, but you are basically saying "Mark, your point of view and opinion doesn't count, just shut up about it."
Is this reasonable?
Cheers,
Mark
I thought that scene was well written. It's part of why Martin is a great writer. Yes, it was graphic, but I thought it was a perfectly legitamate part of the characterization.
Could he have shown the same thing another way? Sure. But sex is an important part of our lives. Why shouldn't we show it? Well, because some people aren't comfortable with it. But some people aren't comfortable with my graphic depictions of violence. So..
Can you PLEASE give it a rest.
I have NOT said you can't discuss religion. If something matters to you then you are quite free to discuss it. If you want to discuss religion please go make a thread on the subject.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 05, 2007).]
This topic has already become to incindiary. As a fellow Christian... I am begging you. Let this go or take it to another board. Pretty please?
Jeremy
*sighs*
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 05, 2007).]
quote:
But are you telling me that Catholics (as individuals) have never done bad things? Is THAT your position now?
Please. Is there anyone else who interpreted my words to mean anything close to that?
quote:
Can you PLEASE give it a rest.
Um. Who should give it a rest?
quote:
I have NOT said you can't discuss religion. If something matters to you then you are quite free to discuss it.
Then why are you brow-beating me just because I made a correction and wanted to put your mention of Catholics in perspective?
quote:
If you want to discuss religion please go make a thread on the subject.
I was discussing sexuality--and I was directly responding to someone who mentioned sexuality in the context of religion. Excuse me for participating. What an evil person I must be. And then I responded to something specific you said--in a peaceful way, I might add. But, then, it isn't wrong when *you* talk about religion--just when I do.
Cheers,
Mark
quote:
When I mentioned the practice in passing I had NO idea it would totally hijack the thread.
I have genuinely tried to stay on topic here. The hijacking started when you decided I should shut up.
quote:
Did you feel they revealed something about him as a character (ie. demonstrating how much he really wants to love and be loved, to be treated normally instead of as a dwarf or a monter) or did they strike you as pornographic?
I agree that Martin did a good job with that.
"Flame On!"
quote:and CAPS.
quotes
Honestly, it's a bit educational. I've learned a lot. Mark and Jeanne are like fencers. Jab and retreat. The retreat is that after they attack they pull back and feign innocence. You were offended? Must be something wrong with you then, because I sure didn't attack. What I said wasn't offensive. I just made an innocent comment about an inconsequential matter. I just want to be understood. What's wrong with that? I'm exaggerating, but....
Working in technical support for many years, I heard loads of funny things. One of my favorite was a technician who said, "No sir, I didn't say you were an idiot. I said only an idiot would do what you just did." This thread reminds me of that.
Can we start a thread where we can practice arguing on the internet?
quote:
If you're defending your church or your beliefs, there's something that can possibly become hostile.
Behold!
-Jay
Then I'll respond on topic and there ya go...
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 05, 2007).]
Frankly, I'm surprised that this discussion can't stay on the sex subject. That would seem to be pretty easy.
Can we also agree to take a breath and a few seconds after someone offends us? While we're taking that breath we can decide if what they said is on topic, and if what we're about to say is on topic. If neither are on topic, then can we just not say anything?
This post wasn't meant to be a discussion about religion or Catholicism, or even genital mutilation. But out of the three, I think I got the most out of the last subject because it does seem to have something to do with the woman's role in the world. But for the purposes of this discussion, it should probably be moved to its own topic.
So Jeanne, while your opinions are wonderful, if something goes off topic, can we just start a new discussion on that and keep them separate? Unless, of course, it's closely related to the question at hand.
And MFrievald, if you feel like you need to talk religion yet again (or anything off topic for that matter) can you just make a post saying "Some of the things discussed here I would like to address, but since they really have nothing to do with THIS thread, I would like to direct you to a new thread I'm starting" and just leave it at that. Anyone who cares about what you have to say can go there and have a friendly discussion, and the people in this discussion can keep going with want the original post had to do with.
I think the original question was a valid writing question, but very few of the responses actually addressed it. I do thank the ones who did reply to the question and I'd like to hear more. But when people start flaming each other I think anyone who would have wanted to take a part in the discussion becomes disenchanted and leaves.
Thank you for your consideration,
Matt
[This message has been edited by RMatthewWare (edited December 05, 2007).]
The fact is that "marriage" has little to do with sex in Christianity. It's a matter of if you're doing it out of love, or out of lust.
I have to say I agree that though close to the line for me in spots, I also found the sex scenes involving Tyrion to give an insight to the character. They also served to make scenes later in the book far more poignant when it became clear that his partner did not feel the same level of emotional attachment that he felt. I'm not sure the level of betrayal reached in those later scenes could have been achieved as effectively without the setup.
And as some have already pointed out, keeping the scene firmly in Tyrion's POV was instrumental.
mfreivald, if you have an issue with something that has gone on here you don't go and attack someone to prove a point. If you feel you have been wronged send a message to She Who Must Be Obeyed. (Otherwise known as Kathleen.)
Another thing I'd like to say, to everybody, is don't take anything on a message board too personally. I doubt it was meant that way, and even if it was it doesn't deserve your credence. We come here because there are people who will say things we never would have thought of on our own, sometimes those things will offend you and your perfectly allowed to give your side. But don't take it too personally.
Speaking of which, what other authors and what books do you think this kind of thing has been done well? To tell you the truth, I'm having trouble thinking of any, but I'm sure there must be others. I'm interested in looking at specifically how authors have handled writing about sex successfully.
Edit: Matthew, I agree that genital mutilation would have appropriately been its own topic. I just didn't expect it to be more than a one comment thing--I was kind of saying hey this relates and didn't expect more comment than that. Otherwise I would have started a new thread. I apologize for bringing up something that ended up as a threadjack.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 05, 2007).]
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 05, 2007).]
Things come up so that I can't get to Hatrack for over a day and what do I come back to?
<SIGH!>
Okay, let's do it this way.
First, if I come across any post in ANY topic in which mfreivald is responding to Jeanne T or any post in ANY topic in which Jeanne T is responding to mfreivald, I will delete those posts regardless of what they say or what else may be in the posts.
Second, I apologize for not being around to do this sooner. I am grateful that there are those who can help calm things down. I hope you all realize how valuable you are to me.
Third, I fully support Pyre Dynasty's suggestions that the two above-named parties not only ignore each other, but stop taking posts from ANYONE so personally. And as Pyre Dynasty said to EVERYONE:
quote:
don't take anything on a message board too personally
Don't take anything on a message board personally at all!
PLEASE!
I did wonder why you weren't hear yelling at us. But you shouldn't have to be so you shouldn't apologize for being gone. We should do better.
When I have two people with a sexual attraction to each other, I write where the scene leads me. If that happens to be a ruff and tumble sex scene I write it. That doesn’t mean it will stay. I may very well edit it out as not being necessary, or to excessive for what I’ve written. But, I feel I owe my characters the chance to express there love they way I feel to be natural to them.
Personally gratuitous sex scenes are usually story stoppers for me, some times they are not. If it fits your characters and it works with the story then put it in, but don’t just have a Hustler’s letters page in the middle of your story.
Probably I am being annoying and need to shut up being a smart arse.
Wasn't there a movie out recently (or five) which followed that exact plot line?
One of the more AMUSING ones I ran into recently was that a certain male was good for his age at chasing a snake through the grass. I choked on my coffee.
And I'm sure if I looked hard enough there is an insult in there somewhere. I'm just not sure if it is to Matt or me. I'm sure we would both be great for hot love scenes.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 08, 2007).]
And no insult was intended. Only an ironic laugh.
I'm sure that Kathleen's prohibition against responding to each other includes commenting on each other as well. So I'm not allowed to say... 
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 08, 2007).]
His particular example was use of an offensive epithet versus writing "he swore."
Of course plumbing doesn't change, but the way we talk about plumbing and the particular ways in which plumbing gets primed change over time. So I would argue that skirting explicit discussions of plumbing also gives you the benefit of extending your readability, as well as retaining a larger audience when your piece is originally published.
For instance, some people are put off by my female warriors. She is supposed to be home tatting or certainly too weak to swing a sword. I live with that to tell the story I want to tell. As I have mentioned a number of times, I refuse to read Donaldson's Covenant books. He offended me so seriously with that rape (and his explanation for why it took place) that I will never read another one of his books. He has plenty of readers without the ones who won't touch his work like me.
Two of the very important secondary characters in one of my novels are homosexual. This also will offend some people. I guess I don't think there is any way around this happening.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 08, 2007).]
The same argument could be made about descriptions of sex. Take Tyrion Lannister's case. We could just be told he had sex and risk offending a lot of people. But then we'd miss out on the poignancy of his relationship.
[This message has been edited by annepin (edited December 08, 2007).]
I think a lot could happen in a sexual encounter that could help the characters develop. But we don't need to be told where the plumbing is going, we can instead look at what the characters are thinking.
I do agree on one thing. Sexuality goes a bit beyond "plumbing" and silly metaphors for body parts. There are a lot of important emotions involved.
However, I think that there should be SOME discussion of what is going on. I mean it's like describing a fight and you can only say he's frightened but not what of.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 08, 2007).]
Not really, but it seemed funny at the moment.
Okay, this post edited due to earlier rambling.
I compare a lot to HP because a lot of people have read it, and everyone's at least heard of it.
I listen to the "I should be writing" podcast, and she sometimes uses movies as an example to writing because more people have probably seen them.
[This message has been edited by RMatthewWare (edited December 09, 2007).]
quote:
That wording really set me thinking, Kings falon. Her "final surrender..." I always wonder why sex when it comes to women is so often seen as such a negative and in so many cases even in erotica is written about in negative terms.
The "surrender" I was talking about wasn't the physical one. The MC has been trying to ignore her attraction to the antagonist throughout the story for lots of reasons. It's her willingness to admit that she does love him, and the implications of that on her life (giving up the life she wants for duty) that I was referring to. Without that surrender or submission to fate, the physical never happens.
Also, "surrender" doesn't have to be negative. All sorts of religious beliefs are based on a surrender to a higher authority.
[This message has been edited by ArCHeR (edited December 11, 2007).]
[This message has been edited by JFLewis (edited December 11, 2007).]
This being evolutionary is debatable, Archer, but this isn't the place for that discussion.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 11, 2007).]
THERE ARE MUCH BETTER AND INTERISTING THINGS OUT THERE THAN ARUGERING OVER THE SEX LIFE OF SOME DARN CHARICTER IN SOME STORY.
WRIGHT THE DAMN THING AS YOU SEE FIT AND DONT WORRY ABOUT IT.
NO WONDER THE HUMAN RACE IS FALLING APPART.
ROMMEL FENRIR WOLF II
PS: i just got fed up with seeing all the posts on this S#!@ sex is sex. love is love and sex dose not have to be appart of it.
Sex is such an important factor in humanity and human history that it is a valuable discussion. If there was no sex or sexuality, how different would our world be?
Stick to things you care about like being a werewolf and going after dragons in the winter. (By the way, I think that was a cool suggestion of yours, pointing out that if dragons are cold-blooded, winter is a good time to try to kill one. I don't think I've heard of anyone suggesting that before, but it makes a lot of sense.)
quote:
Well, I am not of the opinion that men are a "higher authority"
That's not what I said.
I think the concept of the woman being pursued in romance novels comes from the fact that those novels are aimed at us - the women. After all, I'm less interested in a group of woman chasing one guy than the other way around.
Think about Gone with the Wind . The "most romantic movie moment of all times" when Rhett carries Scarlet up the staircase (Donning flame retardant suit) is prelude to a rape. Scarlet was clearly not happy about being taken to bed. In fact, she's kicking and screaming. Yet that scene is a cultural icon. The effect of that scene is watered down by the next when she's sighing contendedly in bed, but there is is.
Anime on the other hand is aimed at teenage males who would like to be pursued by scads of women, even if they don't know what to do with them all.
When deciding your scene and how much to show or when to fade to black, look to your audience. If you are writing a Victorian Romance, Chick Lit, Erotica or Amime/Manga, you need to show sensititity to the genre norms. You can exceed or flaunt them as your story dictates by what is the standard in the genre, IMHO, has to be your starting point.
quote:
That's not what I said.I think the concept of the woman being pursued in romance novels comes from the fact that those novels are aimed at us - the women. After all, I'm less interested in a group of woman chasing one guy than the other way around.
Actually, yes, you did say that sacrifice to a higher authority was considered good.
As far as romances and being aimed at us--please don't include me in that. I am totally uninterested in novels where a group of anyone is chasing anyone. I can't imagine anything more boring which is why I don't read or write romances.
Gone with the Wind? It was written 75 years ago when thinking was very different on the subject of rape. The assumption was pretty widely made that women enjoyed it. And legally a husband could not rape his wife as she didn't have the right to deny him sexual congress.
I hardly think that is a standard for the modern fantasy novel though. Even when it isn't rape, I don't find BDSM particularly appealing. Considering the popularity of Kushiel's Dart, I suppose some people do. Even there, I don't think outright rape is considered an acceptable mode of "romance." Even most erotica publishers generally put it in the realm of something they won't consider.
Since I don't write romance or have any interest in it, I possibly write from a different starting point than you do.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 12, 2007).]
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 12, 2007).]
What a wonderful typo ... assuming it is indeed a typo ;-)
Pat
Oh, and by my evolution comment, I merely meant that it's better for the genetic health of a species for (at least in most mammals) the males to compete over females, and for females to be defensive when it comes to these things so that it is the strongest male that gets to pass on his genetic material.
Funny with the strong male passing on genetic material, since females don't compete does that mean that the female genetic material doesn't count? *raises eyebrows*
Yes, I know that's the traditional male inspired take on competition. I'm just skeptical about a lot of male dominated work that humors male belief in their own superiority. I suspect in a century we'll laugh at a lot of this stuff--just like we do now about many of the reputable ideas from a century ago.
In fact, in those romances that were brought up I believe that a woman does often pursue the man although I suppose she may try to keep him from knowing he's being pursued. Boring, though which is why I don't write them. I thought about it once, but I suspect you shouldn't write a genre that you literally cannot stand to read.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 12, 2007).]
We seem to be talking a lot about the actual copulatory act here, and less about the emotional motivation and character development that can be a tangent to the sex act.
There seems to be a disconnect in this discussion about the emotional meaning of physical touch, whether sexual or not.
Take this rapidly thrown-together scene (apologies to all): "As she was standing at the kitchen counter pouring her second cup of coffee, I snuggled up close behind her. I reached up and ran my right hand from her shoulder, down past her ribs and nestled it in the curve of her hip. I tucked my chin on her left shoulder and leaned into her, whispering, 'Hey, babe.'"
In my opinion, this is more telling of their relationship, or provides a template to expand upon their relationship than any type of sexual act. However, this could easily be sexual if she was just stepping out of the shower. Change a couple of words, and she's naked with his "Hey Babe" more playful and suggestive and you have again painted the picture without the need to discuss the... um... plumbing fixtures.
I think this is the key challenge of these types of scenes. If you just have two people meet and they start going at it, then I'm going to have credibility issues. But if you show me some form of emotional intimacy (a character building effort) that is expressed through physical contact, then I will be more likely to believe it if there's something to key on beside just the sex act.
quote:
Anime on the other hand is aimed at teenage males who would like to be pursued by scads of women, even if they don't know what to do with them all.
I've only read one romance novel in my life but i come across a lot of sample queries posted by romance authors. My conclusion is that romance is as varied as any genre, from the feisty, pursuing heroine to the heroine being pursued. So the woman is both attainer and surrenderer.
The word "surrender" is troublesome to me, too, though I'm probably taking it far more literally and seriously than kings_falcon intended (sorry). It implies a giving up, a compromise without receiving like in turn. As if love were something a woman would resist, and only when she has no options will she give up.
[This message has been edited by annepin (edited December 12, 2007).]
Yr 2006
* Romance: $1.37 billion
* Religion/inspirational: $1.68 billion
* Science fiction/fantasy: $495 million
* Classic literary fiction: $448 million
* Mystery: $422 million
* Graphic novels: $128 million
(Reprinted at above link from Rom. Writers of America)
Annepin is right that there is a lot of variety in the types of characters in romances. It's no longer the weepy little woman is pursued by the dark brooding hero who slaps her around until she falls swooning into his arms.
I read some when I thought about writing it. What puts me off is that the central plot line HAS to be the romance. I have no problem with romance as a subplot. Humans after all do fall in love. But when it's the end all and be all of the plot, I can't help but yawn.
Yeah, that was my reaction to the surrender thing, annepin--I can't see it as a positive but I don't want to get hung up on it either.
[This message has been edited by JeanneT (edited December 12, 2007).]
Stories are about characters; we get to know characters through their thoughts and through their relationships with other characters. Tell us their motivations, and flesh out the relationship between sexual partners as thoroughly as possible.
I'm reminded of the song "Angel of the Morning," by Merrilee Rush. We don't get a graphic depiction of any sex acts in her lyrics, but we get a poignant and detailed account of the speaker's emotional response to implied acts. This is not to imply that one ought to go about writing sex scenes this way, but this method is very effective.
[This message has been edited by 'Graff (edited December 12, 2007).]
love is something that spains all races (humand, werewolves, vampires, dragons,etc.) but just having sex is realy unique to humans but recently spred to other races.
us immortals are usely under some law or pact that prevents breeding outside marege punishable by death. (hard to beleve)
another reason my pack was so unique each member was aloued to marry and breed. the main reason i have been banished by the councle.
i however have not found a love yet. i keep my standers high.
in a way i think humans need to learn where to draw the line.
playboy, and other such advertisments and porn studios should be more awhere of the mind set of how this affects others.
the saying make love not war is father from the truth than that crippled physisest guy (his name excapes me) clames what the meaning of the univers is. if anything the statment will upset people in contries (such as where i am now) whos religon strictly prohibits things like that.
for this statement to realy work the human race has to grow up more. (10,000 years is nothing compaired to other races.)
my favoret saying within the immortals is HIV/AIDS IS THE CURE FOR THE HUMAN PLAG
i dont know maybe i am wrong or just another crazy werewolf.
RFW2nd
Hmm. It really makes me wonder why some people just get away with it.
quote:
us immortals are usely under some law or pact that prevents breeding outside marege punishable by death. (hard to beleve)
another reason my pack was so unique each member was aloued to marry and breed. the main reason i have been banished by the councle.i however have not found a love yet. i keep my standers high
My ass. Stop trolling.