Well, yes, an increase in sexual tension is a big part. I'm gearing up to submit a post "Making a case for the term Pure Erotica," in which I'll list a few examples of what I'm talking about. It may take a few days.
Presumably by that definition almost every story on a sex story site would be a stroker.
The specifications of the machine (like strokes per minute) doesn't really matter, it's the fuel that counts.
I think what I am referring to as a "stroker" is a story written with the specific intent to sexually arouse the reader to the point that they want to (or do) satisfy the sexual urges brought forward by that story. A great example is 12 Days of Christmas where the focus was all about sex.
Makes sense to me, but I think there is confusion on this point. Some seem to think "stroker" means the entire story is a sex scene, which is completely different. By your definition, I write stroke stories. By the other definition, I do not.
To me a stroker is a story where the sex is the point, vs a story that contains sex. A stroker is less likely to focus on balancing work and relationships, or a person's misgivings about getting back into dating after divorce, or getting revenge on a cheating spouse, or anguishing over a choice between two suitors. In the stroker, the relationship can begin with a blowjob at the workplace, or both suitors can be chosen at the same time with little hesitation, or the cheating spouse can make it up to their partner with a threesome, or post divorce dating can be jumpstarted with an orgy at a bikini carwash.
I think mine and Comshaw's are complimentary. A story intended to arouse where sex is the main point. I don't think it has to be entirely sex scene but it can be.
I agree that a stroker can have as much merit as a non-stroker. That's why I don't force it to be less with the definition. If the definition were "a story with nothing but sex scene in it," I think that would force it to be a lesser story to some degree, though it is possible to have a very well done sex scene. I define a stroker as a story that may make use of any writing technique any other story might utilize, but directs those techniques toward the goal of getting the reader off above anything else. A non-stroker may also want to get the reader off, but it's not the main point; they have some other point they're trying to get across and also have sex, and may in fact use the sex in service of their other point. But I think a stroker uses any element it contains in service of getting the reader off.
I think of a stroke story as one which attends almost solely to arousal, without paying much attention to character or plot. Not saying whether that is good or bad.
I don't see where your confusion or your claim of incoherence in the conversation comes from.
That could be because the people responding freely admit to writing strokers. If you were to start a topic along the lines of "what's better: a stroker or a "real" story?" I think you'd get quite a few responses deriding the former and claiming that the latter is far superior.
Apparently it's something that isn't written as well as the assessor's gold prose is.
While I agree a scene (or several combined with very short connecting text) needs to be long enough to get the reader off, the story itself doesn't need to be just that long. As proof, I offer my "12 Days of Christmas", a 35,000-word long stroke story. I've had several readers who let me know they read the entire thing, but over four or five readings, which means getting off multiple times to the story.
As I wrote in my first post in this thread, I believe that a good stroker is an art in and of itself, with as much merit as a more narrative story.
My idea on this is if it's plot driven or not.
