posted
I'm curious, do any of you write sex scenes in your stories? How to you handle such a sensitive subject? Do you leave it to a "wink wink, nudge nudge, it was good" or do you become graphic? I'm probably in the first camp right now, but I'm curious how other authors handle the subject.
Posts: 657 | Registered: Jan 2007
| IP: Logged |
posted
This is where it was really good for me to write fanfics under a pseudonym, because I had the same concern. I pushed the envelope as far as I was comfortable and a wee bit beyond, all under a gender-free pen name. I managed to keep my identity a secret for a long time, just relaxing about maintaining my privacy when I finally accepted the fact that what I'd written wasn't anything to be ashamed of or embarrassed by.
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).]
posted
I'm not quite sure what you mean by wink wink nudge nudge. My characters are likely to make it pretty plain whether it was good or not. If you mean a "face to black" type love scene, I've done those. I have written more explicit ones including ones that included pretty explicit language and acts. When it came down to it, I felt that those didn't match the rest of the tone of my novel so I cut them. I think an explicit scene in the middle of a novel that is very well, not non-sexual but not at all about sex or romance and only has a very few love scenes, I think that is a bit startling to the reader. I would want to set reader expectations from the start.
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).]
posted
I've written very few attempts at explicit sex, though for the most, based on what I've read, that there are two general approaches. A) erotica sex, where the reader is interested in the machinations of sex, and wants to have those machinations described to them. B) emotional or romantic sex, where the actual point of the endeavor is to further emotional intimacy between the two characters. And I think that this is the key point. Are your characters actually at a point in the story where they have made choices, or their condition or situation, has brought them to a point of such emotional intimacy? If not, then you are heading down the gratuitous route.
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).
posted
I've never been a fan of reading love scenes. Most books I read I pass on to my mother, or my nephew and I don't have the heart to pass on anything explicit or even slightly naughty.
posted
I've only tried to write one sex scene. Even in the first draft I kept it in the POV character's head and only hinted at the actions going on, but when I came around for the 2nd draft, I removed even that. In the end, I think it's only a very specific type of sex scene that NEEDs to be explicitly shown in your novel.
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.
posted
Of course, having said the above, I think there are five sex scenes of varying levels of explicitness in my first novel. They do all meet my character revelation/plot important rule though.
[This message has been edited by JFLewis (edited December 03, 2007).]
posted
One thing that's important to me about the love scenes I write is that the couple is committed to each other. They're already married in their hearts, if they aren't in reality, and will be married as soon as they can manage it (the wedding isn't the important thing - the lifelong committment is). I don't have people jumping around from bed to bed - I don't like to read that, nor do I want to write it. But it isn't the act of love that appeals to readers so much as the "falling in love" part of it, or observing the couple's slow realization (for instance) that they're in love. Showing those emotions and the relationship evolving can be a wonderful way to show characters maturing, growing, changing.
posted
I don't write explicit sex scenes, and I don't particularly enjoy reading them. It feels creepy to me. Like I'm there watching or something. I don't like it. But apparently a lot of people do. That's why there's a whole section of the library devoted to the genre of explicit sex...err, I mean "Romance."
Posts: 2195 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
I tend to be in the "they had sex...now, moving on" camp. Not because I want to avoid the subject--sex is an important part of most people's lives, so I think it would only damage my stories to try to avoid it. I have never found it necessary or helpful to a story to go into detail about exactly what physical acts were performed. Not to say it's never important, but in every story I've ever written, it was not. What is impoortant is why they are having sex, what this particular sexual encounter means to them, what emotions are they experiencing, and what effects this sex has on the characters and the story.
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.
posted
I don't generally describe sex scenes, but I feel compelled to if a. it's important to the plot, or b. there's important character development.
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.
posted
Yes, that should have been fade to black. One of my more amusing typos.
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.
posted
It depends on how critical it is to show v. tell that action and the genre I'm writing.
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.
posted
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.
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.
posted
I generally avoid writing them---they come out all clinical and disgusting and I wind up cutting them for something more brief. Not my knack, I guess. (Had one in my last completed story like that---only a page or so from beginning to end---much like the act, actually.)
Posts: 8809 | Registered: Aug 2005
| IP: Logged |
posted
I prefer to avoid being too explicit. I rely on the old "write what is necessary" rule, which may or may not be too helpful. If the story needs the detail, then go for it.
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.)
posted
I think more explicit sex can work if the emotions of the characters are well illustrated, be it their lust or love for another. I also like when there is a smell (like perfume) or taste described in the sex that triggers a memory in one of the characters later on.
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.
posted
My way of looking at it is this: Would the character I created have sex in the situation I put them in? So far it's no, but if the question was ever yes, then I would write what would need to be written to fully flesh out what's happening in this world I created.
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.
posted
On a side note, Archer, the Victorian's weren't actually as universally prudish as we often think. They had some stuff going on that would probably make most people in modern society blush.
Posts: 1528 | Registered: Dec 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Oh when it came to supposedly "decent" women, the Victorians were fully as prudish as reputed. Even female genital mutilation was practiced on occasion.
Posts: 1588 | Registered: Jul 2007
| IP: Logged |
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?
posted
And if you don't buy that, it's still a very useful "point of view" or "perspective" to look at that culture/era, allowing someone to write about it more objectively, because they've now encountered this additional viewpoint.
Posts: 2195 | Registered: Aug 2006
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah. If that's the case, all my posts that were written for the sake of historical accuracy should never have been deleted?
(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).]
posted
The impact it has on this subject was that they're the ones that made a taboo out of sex. Think of it like prohibition. It starts out as a normal thing, society overreacts, and after the overreaction is taken back, the damage is done and the taboo still remains.
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.
posted
Yes, it was intentionally amusing, JeanneT. After all, you were the other person in the exchange that got deleted. Of course, this should apply to others, as well, but you are also the one who frequently uses this forum to make pot shots about those you disapprove of--including (and especially) the religious. So your comment seemed like the most salient example to bring to attention in this case. (You usually try to couch your pot-shots in transparent references to writing, but you failed to do so this time.)
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.
posted
As far as the horrible history of genital mutilation, I had to do a little looking for a good article that covered the subject but this one isn't bad. Many of the academic articles are only available for a fee or to members.
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).]
posted
Oh, simple minded? You are fond of personal insults, aren't you? LOL
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).]
posted
Ach! But here I am engaging the discussion about Victorian England when I had no intention of doing so.
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.
posted
Why thank you for adding your insult to his, wetwilly. It's appreciated. My last post here.
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).]
posted
wetwilly, I appreciate you helping me laugh at myself. I certainly don't take myself all that seriously.
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).]
posted
Why I BEG your pardon. I misunderstood the insults you were flinging at me. They were: stereotypical, prejudiced, grossly unfair, and incomplete.
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.
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.
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?
Topic Closed
Printer-friendly view of this topic
