I've been trying to figure out what it is about this story that rubs me so badly the wrong way, and I think I figured it out. Simply put, you're being lazy.
Your characters don't have any back story or personality. Or rather, they do, a little
, but only so much as is required for you to tell the story you want. For instance, you want Claudia to appeal to the virgin-whore dichotomy by being an excellent cocksucker but still being a technical virgin. Okay, cool. What in her personality
makes her do this? How does this make sense to her
? You aren't very specific about it. "Oh, I like the power of making a guy cum." How did she end up making that compromise? Why does she like facials? "Oh, the right guy never happened." How did she know
that? What criteria did she make to determine it? These are all questions that get into the heart of her psychology and her personality... But because, to your mind, the story is just about the turn-ons, you don't answer. It's enough to you that she exists, not that she make sense. "This is what I want, and so she's going to be that way because reasons." Uh-huh.
So now we have Claudia. Since she has no personality (since you have, essentially, forbidden
her from having a personality) her entire appeal lies in the turn-ons she personifies. The problem is that turn-ons do not have inherent sexual value
. Just because you like (BM WF interr) (technical virgins) (anal) (blondes) whatever doesn't mean that anyone else does, or that anyone else finds it a turn-on. Even worse, one man's fetish is another man's squick, and the very things you're counting on to make Claudia appealing could be the cause of an automatic [BACK] instead. Your characters need to have personality outside of
Tab A going into Slot B. If they are not interesting and lovable for their own sake
, not just for what they do in the bedroom, the story is over.
And on top of that the damn fetishes themselves are clichés. "Exotic beauty"--just about the only thing more hackneyed is "black man with large endowment," and you hit that too. A cliche is when you toss something at The Reader and just assume it's going to work without your explaining or justifying it. Laaaaazy. And let's also not even get
into how you are objectifying your characters, men and women both, by evaluating their worth solely using ethnic stereotypes.
To paraphrase John Rogers, the showrunner for Leverage
, "The three questions that screenwriting boils down to are, Who is this person, What do they want, and Why do I give a shit." By neglecting your characters' personality, you flunk the first question. The second gets answered--sex--but it loses potency without the context of the other two answers. Everyone
wants sex. Why should I care about Claudia?
Your answer ends up being, "Because she's a walking list of all the things I think are hot." Well, good for you, but that doesn't explain why I
should care about Claudia. And I don't. And things go downhill from there.
If you want to explore your turn-ons, go for it. A healthy fantasy life is always a good thing. But there's a line between fantasy and story, and your text hasn't yet managed to cross it.
My apologies: I messed up John Rogers' words of wisdom. The exact quotation, as seen here
, is, "The main three rules of all storytelling: who wants what, why can't they have it, and why do I give a sh**." Similar to what I claimed, but not the same.