Writing a Love Scene (Help Wanted)

[Naomasa298]

In, out, shake it all about.

I reckon the writer has to ask themselves, other than erotica, what does the sex part itself serve? Personally, if I were doing it, I would focus on what happens post-coitus, but I don't know what your scene involves. It might be completely legitimate if something happens in the middle, or the sex itself triggers a thought, a memory or a realisation.

Since it's been six months since Luxuria asked this question, the pregnancy might be well under way by now...

 

[Trish]

I reckon the writer has to ask themselves, other than erotica, what does the sex part itself serve?

I shouldn't respond to this, I know this is how so many people think about sex in literature, but honestly, erotica just isn't the only place where sex changes a relationship or speaks to characterization and growth. In fact, erotica is the main place it usually doesn't. Explicit does not equal erotica.

 

[Trish]

No reason ever? Thanks for the lesson...

Ha. Not what I said. I said the reason given wasn't a reason not to.

 

[Also]

I reckon the writer has to ask themselves, other than erotica, what does the sex part itself serve?

To the same extent one would ask that (but usually doesn't) about anything else that happens in a story.

The characters go somewhere in a car? A boat? Visit a zoo? Go to a concert? An expensive restaurant? Walk on a street?

What does any of it serve? Stuff happens in life and in stories. Some meals are memorable, others forgettable. Some open your eyes or raise your standards. Others make you ill.

How or why is sex different from any of this? Deliberately excluding it often reduces verisimilitude. Characters can come across to the reader as "disconnected" if the writer tiptoes around sex or if the character appears asexual.

We're told the only thing that real people notice more in relation to each other than sex / attractiveness / desirability is dominance or power.

 

[Naomasa298]

To the same extent one would ask that (but usually doesn't) about anything else that happens in a story.

The characters go somewhere in a car? A boat? Visit a zoo? Go to a concert? An expensive restaurant? Walk on a street?

What does any of it serve? Stuff happens in life and in stories. Some meals are memorable, others forgettable. Some open your eyes or raise your standards. Others make you ill.

I agree. The things you mention, usually don't serve anything at all, so aren't really worth writing about UNLESS they serve a purpose. And by a purpose, I do not mean "something happens". A purpose can be a narrative purpose that includes character building, scene grounding, breaking expectation (or setting them) or any number of other things.

That was exactly what I was getting it. If you're just including it so your reader can masturbate, then, unless you're writing erotica, I'm afraid I don't agree that has a purpose.

 

[Trish]

I agree. The things you mention, usually don't serve anything at all, so aren't really worth writing about UNLESS they serve a purpose. And by a purpose, I do not mean "something happens". A purpose can be a narrative purpose that includes character building, scene grounding, breaking expectation (or setting them) or any number of other things.

That was exactly what I was getting it. If you're just including it so your reader can masturbate, then, unless you're writing erotica, I'm afraid I don't agree that has a purpose.

But did Luxuria not list a bunch of reasons why she thought it needed to be there? Pretty sure she did. Who said it was so the reader could get off? Where did they say that?

 

[Naomasa298]

But did Luxuria not list a bunch of reasons why she thought it needed to be there? Pretty sure she did. Who said it was so the reader could get off? Where did they say that?

Luxuria didn't say it was for that. I was talking in general.

 

[Homer Potvin]

But did Luxuria not list a bunch of reasons why she thought it needed to be there? Pretty sure she did. Who said it was so the reader could get off? Where did they say that?

@Trish do you realize you sound like you're shrieking when you respond to people sometimes? Take it down a few notches, please. An opinion that differs from your own is not an indictment of your character.

 

[Trish]

@Trish do you realize you sound like you're shrieking when you respond to people sometimes? Take it down a few notches, please. An opinion that differs from your own is not an indictment of your character.

I didn't think it was an indictment of my character, but I appreciate the reassurance. I believe my questions were legitimate, but I have no need to have them answered. Have a great day folks.

 

[Also]

That was exactly what I was getting it. If you're just including it so your reader can masturbate, then, unless you're writing erotica, I'm afraid I don't agree that has a purpose.

But I can't think of when I've read something like that, even in the 1970s or tail end of the 1960s.

I suppose some people may have been turned on by scenes in the Godfather, but I have a hunch it might be more the killing scenes than the sex scenes, depending on the readers.

And Fear of Flying was notoriously, well, hmm, what was it, exactly? It mentioned sex a lot, but for all its hot-button words, it's hard for me to call it otherwise explicit or graphic. I've heard people deride the higher inclusion of sex in novels of the 60s, 70s, and early 80s — the pre-neopuritan era of post-McCarthy American politics and culture, basically — but I can't remember notable books that felt erotic. So The Godfather mentioned post-coital semen running down Lucy Mancini's thigh at Connie and Sonny's wedding, or "something hot passing between her thighs" in some other scene.... I dunno. Does that turn readers on? Is it gratuitous? And at the moment, I can't remember anything else comparable from the era. Well, I guess Noel Barber's long-forgotten Tanamera had a gang-rape scene near the end that alluded to the smell of an unwashed penis, but that didn't seem to bother or arouse readers of the time.

I notice repeatedly this Concern in North American writing groups about not being smutty or erotic, but it appears to be a concern in search of an actual problem to remedy or danger to avert. I don't see such a concern in at least north European or Nordic writing, which treats sex and sex scenes like any other dimension of life and narrative, neither avoiding nor wallowing. Maybe in the majority-Catholic EU countries. I don't know.

Write from your heart and gut, Luxuria. Where you draw on experience, follow your own impressions and reactions. Where you write from fear, longing, or imagination, just live yourself into the situation and draw from that. It's only if you can't imagine your way into something that you possibly shouldn't write it.

 

[Naomasa298]

But I can't think of when I've read something like that, even in the 1970s or tail end of the 1960s.

I suppose some people may have been turned on by scenes in the Godfather, but I have a hunch it might be more the killing scenes than the sex scenes, depending on the readers.

And Fear of Flying was notoriously, well, hmm, what was it, exactly? It mentioned sex a lot, but for all its hot-button words, it's hard for me to call it otherwise explicit or graphic. I've heard people deride the higher inclusion of sex in novels of the 60s, 70s, and early 80s — the pre-neopuritan era of post-McCarthy American politics and culture, basically — but I can't remember notable books that felt erotic. So The Godfather mentioned post-coital semen running down Lucy Mancini's thigh at Connie and Sonny's wedding, or "something hot passing between her thighs" in some other scene.... I dunno. Does that turn readers on? Is it gratuitous? And at the moment, I can't remember anything else comparable from the era. Well, I guess Noel Barber's long-forgotten Tanamera had a gang-rape scene near the end that alluded to the smell of an unwashed penis, but that didn't seem to bother or arouse readers of the time.

I notice repeatedly this Concern in North American writing groups about not being smutty or erotic, but it appears to be a concern in search of an actual problem to remedy or danger to avert. I don't see such a concern in at least north European or Nordic writing, which treats sex and sex scenes like any other dimension of life and narrative, neither avoiding nor wallowing. Maybe in the majority-Catholic EU countries. I don't know.

Keep in mind, my reference point is mostly genre fiction, so we may be talking about different things.

 

[Stuart Dren]

To the same extent one would ask that (but usually doesn't) about anything else that happens in a story.

The characters go somewhere in a car? A boat? Visit a zoo? Go to a concert? An expensive restaurant? Walk on a street?

What does any of it serve? Stuff happens in life and in stories. Some meals are memorable, others forgettable. Some open your eyes or raise your standards. Others make you ill.

How or why is sex different from any of this? Deliberately excluding it often reduces verisimilitude. Characters can come across to the reader as "disconnected" if the writer tiptoes around sex or if the character appears asexual.

I had to think about that for a moment, because it felt like a piece was missing there: pooping or picking one's nose comes to mind as parallels. You could argue that excluding those reduces verisimilitude as well. The feeling of suddenly needing to defecate, and subsequent relief, is arguably more severe than acute arousal, so it at least can hold its ground in terms of immediate intensity. We don't really want to read about that in serious contexts, though. Some authors still include it, but there are probably more sex scenes than pooping scenes out there. Which is good. I don't want it to be the other way around.

Ambling back around to your point, though, I think that some people think any depicted sex is gratuitous in the same way pooping is, hence what you've pointed out there is an either acknowledged or unspoken demand that it have clear narrative value greater than sum of its private parts, absolutely more so than a meal or trip to the zoo.

I think, in the face of that, some creatives just lean into being gratuitous, meta-lamp shading that shit, then get to work while riding a wave of notoriety.

 

[Homer Potvin]

I had to think about that for a moment, because it felt like a piece was missing there: pooping or picking one's nose comes to mind as parallels. You could argue that excluding those reduces verisimilitude as well. The feeling of suddenly needing to defecate, and subsequent relief, is arguably more severe than acute arousal, so it at least can hold its ground in terms of immediate intensity. We don't really want to read about that in serious contexts, though. Some authors still include it, but there are probably more sex scenes than pooping scenes out there. Which is good. I don't want it to be the other way around.

Ambling back around to your point, though, I think that some people think any depicted sex is gratuitous in the same way pooping is, hence what you've pointed out there is an either acknowledged or unspoken demand that it have clear narrative value greater than sum of its private parts, absolutely more so than a meal or trip to the zoo.

I think, in the face of that, some creatives just lean into being gratuitous, meta-lamp shading that shit, then get to work while riding a wave of notoriety.

That's because people buy books because there's sex in them. Can't say the same about pooping, though there's probably a sicko or two.

 

[Also]

narrative value greater than sum of its private parts,

 

[Also]

I haven't read any of Outlander, but I'm halfway through Season 6 in watching it. There has been, by comparison to most series, a lot of erotic intimacy and quite a bit of sexual violence, but it all felt authentic, and the positive sex has been very positive and relationship-building, even often eu-modeling. I found none of it arousing, simply very relatable.

It makes me curious to see how the books handle it. I anticipate they're fantasy-history-romance with possibly a touch of literary sensibility. They could be bodice-rippers or they could be highbrow, but I anticipate something in between.

The extreme violence is off-putting but assuredly authentic. Is that pandering or is it responsibly, historically edifying?

The most inauthentic-feeling aspect so far (apart from the necessary premise of time travel) has been the extreme romanticising of the prison rape and relationship between Jack Randall and Jamie Fraser.

 

[Also]

picking one's nose comes to mind as parallels

Salinger went there with Holden Caulfield in Catcher.

 

[Homer Potvin]

Salinger went there with Holden Caulfield in Catcher.

Worst. Novel. Ever.

 

[Also]

Worst. Novel. Ever.

Why? (Not that I remember much of it from 50-55 years ago, except that I didn't get the hoopla.)

 

[Homer Potvin]

Why? (Not that I remember much of it from 50-55 years ago, except that I didn't get the hoopla.)

Short answer: Holden Caulfield is a whiny little bitch.

 

[Homer Potvin]

Short answer: Holden Caulfield is a whiny little bitch.

At least it inspired Scrotie McBoogerballs