What makes a story a “stroker”?

[filthytrancendence]

I like this definition a lot on vibes, but I’m not sure what it excludes. Can you give an example of a non-stroker? It seems like most stories on Lit would ultimately be about the sex

One of my most common comments on many of my stories is some variant of 'this isn't a stroker', for what that's worth. Typically in the context of why they liked the story.

To me, the distinction is that sex is a thing that occurs in my stories, rather than the outright purpose of the story. Even if it's a significant % of word count, my style tends to be such that sex is a part of my character's lives, and the other parts of their lives feed back into the ways/reasons they have sex with each other.

A stroker to me is a simple setup and some people fucking. I've done that too, it's not intended as derisive. It's just not typically why I sit down to write something.

 

[StillStunned]

I like this definition a lot on vibes, but I’m not sure what it excludes. Can you give an example of a non-stroker? It seems like most stories on Lit would ultimately be about the sex

I'd say these are strokers: Angry Fuck - A Vignette, and Closeness, and Full Moon on Old Jack's Hill.

But despite being essentially one-scene stories that climax in sex, these aren't: Tammy, Jessica, Yuliya and The Only Flower On Rose Street.

 

[AG31]

I'd add that length is a factor, too. No matter how hot your characters, no one wants to read the same handful of people having sex in the same configuration over and over. It'll get boring, routine. A stroke story is short. A longer story, by necessity, has to have some non-sex related plots. If I open a story that's only 1 page or so, I expect the sex will start within the first few paragraphs.

That was my default opinion, but there are a couple of exceptions. Enslaving Eli, by billierosie, is an example of a novella where every scene without explicit sex nevertheless deals with the sexual tension in the MC's life, without let up. I'm not exactly sure how she makes the tone of the book carry so much weight.

 

[AG31]

Nahh, it's just stroke. Nothing to be ashamed of. No need to euphemize it. No one on a porn site is judging you for that.

You keep assuming I'm ashamed. Not a bit. I'm just making a case for the possible presence of artistry in writing about a really important aspect of our humanity. "Stroker" implies a lack of attention to art.

Anyway, no shame here. But, of course, you're one of those who knows the inner workings of people who type posts in AH better than they know themselves...

 

[AG31]

I think erotica is about sex. If a story is about something else, it's fiction with some hot sex scenes. I think quite a bit of the stories in Literotica fall into the latter category. We have a bunch of authors who take delight in writing fiction. This is not to say that erotica has to be about explicit sex on every page. You can write about sex without people actually doing it.

I'd call a "stroker" a subset of erotica which doesn't pay much attention to the artistry of writing.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

You keep assuming I'm ashamed. Not a bit. I'm just making a case for the possible presence of artistry in writing about a really important aspect of our humanity. "Stroker" implies a lack of attention to art.

Why would you care if the term implies that your story is not art unless you were ashamed of not being arty enough? Any time that one tries to force others' perceptions (see this the right way, dammit!) it's either shame ego or both.

It's porn. Who cares? Get over it.

 

[AG31]

Why would you care if the term implies that your story is not art unless you were ashamed of not being arty enough? Any time that one tries to force others' perceptions (see this the right way, dammit!) it's either shame ego or both.

It's porn. Who cares? Get over it.

That's a weird interpretation of what it means to value artistry.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

That's a weird interpretation of what it means to value artistry.

How so?

 

[Areala-chan]

I equate a stroker story, visually, to a pencil drawing. Not a sketch, but a technically-executed and finished piece unto itself. The image has been captured, and the artist selected the medium for a specific purpose. That the artist chose not to further ink the piece, add color, or scan it so it could be digitally manipulated is a deliberate artistic choice, and I've seen enough artist friends working with simple pencil to know there's a reason behind that decision (even if the reason is, "I only had a pencil with me at the time, and I needed to draw something.").

Non-strokers could be equated, again visually, to an image which has been inked, colored, digitally enhanced, and so forth. The time commitment is commendable, and the end results can speak for themselves, but sometimes there is a power to the starkness of a pencil drawing which could be lost with too much further work. Whether the artist made the "right" choice in pursuing that lengthier time commitment is ultimately up to them, and unless we are privy to the pencils which came before, it's impossible for us to know which was "better".

But both are art, regardless of how one might personally feel or one's preference for seeing colored, digitally-enhanced works over simple black-and-white pencil illustrations. Doing either one requires talent, and in some cases, a simpler work requires exponentially more skill than a more complex piece.

The skillset required to complete a short story vs. the one required to complete a novel are different. Likewise, the skills necessary to craft a well-executed stroker differ from those needed to finish a non-stroker. Ultimately it comes down to artistic intention, but rarely, I think, does it come down to a writer going, "I'm feeling lazy today, so I'm going to dash off a two-pager and be done with it."

 

[AG31]

How so?

OK. I'm a sucker for analysis. I really should just let this drop, but here we go.

You said: Why would you care if the term implies that your story is not art unless you were ashamed of not being arty enough?

In the first place, we're not talking about whether or not "my story" is art. We're talking about whether erotica that is focused solely on arousing the reader can be put into two categories, "stroker," where little attention is paid to the art of writing, and the stories that are not only arousing, but have qualities that make them "good writing."

Then there's the question, "Why would <anyone> care....." Well, here are a couple of examples.

So, a colleague said to Michelangelo about the Sistine ceiling, "That's not art." Because the colleague was a respected art critic, Michelangelo was not happy. He was in no way ashamed of his art. That's ridiculous. But he did care what the critic thought.

A Boston Globe critic said to Itzhak Perlman, "Your playing is not art." Perlman didn't like that.

Same thing.

Your assumption that valuing art in erotica implies shame is just weird.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

In the first place, we're not talking about whether or not "my story" is art. We're talking about whether erotica that is focused solely on arousing the reader can be put into two categories, "stroker," where little attention is paid to the art of writing, and the stories that are not only arousing, but have qualities that make them "good writing."

Yes we are, because you are. Otherwise you wouldn't get so backed up and emotional every time someone opposes your views. You give long paragraph arguments to state your case, give links to them continuously, and when anyone disagrees you immediately assume that they did not read/understand your arguments, since apparently your stance is so unassailable. You couldn't possibly be wrong. It must be them not reading it right, so you implore them to go back and read again until they see your undeniable logical brilliance and agree with it.

If you did not care about your own stories and how they were perceived you would not have this crusade. Obviously you care to not be labelled as stroke. You write above that, indicating that you are ashamed of stroke. You are also arrogant about your definitions and arguments. This is obvious by your repeated insistence that if we all just re-read your brilliant stance enough times, eventually we will fall to our knees before it.

It's okay to write stroke. No need to rebrand it, and no need to feel ashamed, and certainly no need to redo the nomenclature that we all accept and use. There is no point to this for anyone else but you. You write stroke. That's cool. Just accept it. That's all that I've ever tried to tell you.

So, a colleague said to Michelangelo about the Sistine ceiling, "That's not art." Because the colleague was a respected art critic, Michelangelo was not happy. He was in no way ashamed of his art. That's ridiculous. But he did care what the critic thought.

A Boston Globe critic said to Itzhak Perlman, "Your playing is not art." Perlman didn't like that.

These examples are useless. In the first one, how would the Cistine Chapel ceiling be considered on the level of cheap pulp lit? Even if it were, how do we know that he didn't like the comment, let alone why? And even given all of that, it's a completely unsubstantiated 500 year-old story. The second is completely out of context and gives no reason for why Perlman didn't like the comment. Maybe he's just as arrogant about his art as you are?

 

[Comshaw]

Interesting as to how each of the participants here define the term "stroker" in different ways. Many see it as a term for a less well-executed story with the sole intent of arousing the reader to stroke (or rub) one out. I don't see it quite that way.

Defining a "stroker" in those terms presupposes that it can't be a good, well-written, complicated tale. I think a "stroker" can contain all of those and I would argue that even though it is written with the sole intent to arouse the reader, the better the tale is told, the more one can pull a reader in and make them immerse themselves in the story, it not only fulfills the major tenet of the story but fits into the category of good to excellent writing.

Detailing sex in a story can be a mistake-ridden, aimless, fuck fest stroker. Sometimes with some readers it will do what it was intended to do, arouse a person to the point where they are going to seek sexual release. BUT a much better way is telling a story about people having sex. Not just the sex but how they got there, how it plays out, the emotional entanglements caused and sometimes the hurts involved. If it's done right, if an author can drag the reader into the story, make them feel what the characters do as well as get a stiffy, it's a stroker allright because it meets the main criteria, but it also will be a good story, because it caused those characters in the story to be real to the reader.
All of my stories here are written with the intent to turn the reader on to the point that want sex after (or during) reading it. I understand that people are different, need different stimuli to get turned on, so I realize that my stories aren't going to do it for everyone. I aim for that, but the reality is it won't. If I write a story where the majority that read it get sexually excited and still enjoy the story as a good one, I've done what I've set out to do.

So that's my take on "stroker" stories.

Comshaw

 

[Comshaw]

If you put an engine on it, it's probably two stroke. But most motorcycles now are four stroke. Does that take two hands?

Aren't all stroker stories two-stroke oriented?

Stroker instructions: "Grasp firmly with the hand. While holding the intended object firmly, slide the hand upward but not so far as to allow the hand to exceed the length of the held object. Stop. Reverse direction downward while still holding the object firmly until the side of the hand contacts the flesh at the base of the object. Stop. Repeat as necessary until eruption occurs."

Two strokes: up, down.


Comshaw

 

[Comshaw]

I think erotica is about sex. If a story is about something else, it's fiction with some hot sex scenes. I think quite a bit of the stories in Literotica fall into the latter category. We have a bunch of authors who take delight in writing fiction. This is not to say that erotica has to be about explicit sex on every page. You can write about sex without people actually doing it.

I'd call a "stroker" a subset of erotica which doesn't pay much attention to the artistry of writing.

I agree there are a lot of stories on this site where the story isn't about the sex. Those weren't written to showcase the sex, but to tell a story the author wanted to tell and it just happened to contain some sex.

BUT ( I laid out my argument for this in my earlier post) I disagree with your highlighted statement above. I think a "stroker" story can be about people having sex with the intent of titillating the reader and have all the attributes of good writing.

Comshaw

 

[StillStunned]

BUT ( I laid out my argument for this in my earlier post) I disagree with your highlighted statement above. I think a "stroker" story can be about people having sex with the intent of titillating the reader and have all the attributes of good writing.

Agreed. In fact, I'd say that if you want to make a good sex scene that stands by itself come alive, you're going to have to pay close attention to how you write. Use the sounds and rhythm of the words to enhance the story. Build up the tension evenly. Avoid getting bogged down or sidetracked. Use your writing to engage the reader.

You don't have plot or characters to hide behind, so you'd better make sure that your writing skills can carry the scene you're describing.

 

[AG31]

so backed up and emotional

If you did not care about your own stories and how they were perceived you would not have this crusade.

Two more examples of your thinking you know what's in somebody's mind. Neither of these could be farther from the truth. And, push comes to shove, I've got more access to the truth of what I think and feel than you do.

BUT ( I laid out my argument for this in my earlier post) I disagree with your highlighted statement above. I think a "stroker" story can be about people having sex with the intent of titillating the reader and have all the attributes of good writing.

All I'm saying is that if it has all the attributes of good writing, I'd like to call it something besides a "stroker," with all its connotations of not-good writing. Here's where I explain in detail.

 

[Comshaw]

Two more examples of your thinking you know what's in somebody's mind. Neither of these could be farther from the truth. And, push comes to shove, I've got more access to the truth of what I think and feel than you do.

All I'm saying is that if it has all the attributes of good writing, I'd like to call it something besides a "stroker," with all its connotations of not-good writing. Here's where I explain in detail.

I understand your point, even though it is what it is you would rather call it by another name. I'm of the opposite mind, I call it what it is. As far as I see it, neither of us is wrong, it is just a difference in how we view things.

Way back, I drove a garbage truck and I was referred to by a couple of my customers as a "Sanitation Engineer". That always tickled me. For me things are what they are and I never had a problem with people referring to me as a garbage man, 'cause it was the honest way of describing me and what I did.

Comshaw

 

[StillStunned]

I never had a problem with people referring to me as a garbage man

I get called that all the time.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

All I'm saying is that if it has all the attributes of good writing, I'd like to call it something besides a "stroker," with all its connotations of not-good writing. Here's where I explain in detail.

So I do understand you perfectly. Your statement backs up what I said.

Not only that, you link me just like I said that you do, as if I just read your dissertation again it's brilliance will eventually convince me.

Obviously you care to not be labelled as stroke.

So I don't need to assume anything that is in your head. I'm not mind reading. I'm going by your own statements, and have been all along.

 

[AG31]

I understand your point, even though it is what it is you would rather call it by another name. I'm of the opposite mind, I call it what it is. As far as I see it, neither of us is wrong, it is just a difference in how we view things.

Way back, I drove a garbage truck and I was referred to by a couple of my customers as a "Sanitation Engineer". That always tickled me. For me things are what they are and I never had a problem with people referring to me as a garbage man, 'cause it was the honest way of describing me and what I did.

Comshaw

Your garbage truck analogy doesn't apply. My point is that there really are two different kinds of arousal-centric stories.

 

[PennyThompson]

As with most things in life, I feel like stroker/non-stroker is a spectrum not a binary!

At one end of the spectrum would be a completely non-erotic, non-sexual, not-even-fade-to-black-suggestion.

On the other end would be... I don't actually know what a pure um... Cis-Stroker would look like? Just "fuck, cum, tits, butt" for 3,000 words?

Thinking about what I've published here, most of my stories are probably in the 55-65% stroke range? With a few 750s containing no actual described sex but still meant to tease and titillate!

 

[Djmac1031]

Technically, a stroker is anything people will masturbate to.

And people will masturbate to pretty much anything. Hell before porn was readily available at our fingertips, people used to masturbate to the lingerie section of the Sears catalog or a half glimpse of a breast on a scrambled cable channel. Or the pictures of naked tribe women in National Geographic.

If it makes someone horny enough to touch themselves, it's a stroker.

 

[TheLobster]

I wouldn't call it a spectrum, that seems too one-dimensional.

For one, I'd distinguish the amount of sex in the story vs. how much focus there is on it. You can definitely have a plot that's chock-full of explicit sex that still has a lot of things happening that make sex not the main focus; GoT is the obvious example.
At the same time, you can have an erotic story revolving around sexual topics that doesn't actually have all that much explicit action.

In other words, if we were to nerdily classify the stories by, ahem, strokiness, I think we'd need at least a grid of "amount of sex" vs. "focus on sex".

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Your garbage truck analogy doesn't apply. My point is that there really are two different kinds of arousal-centric stories.

It totally applies. You just don't like the idea that someone might call you a garbage man despite the fact that no one here is calling you one and on a site like this very few look down upon them anyways - and in order to circumvent this, you have a crusade to make us all change how we classify and think around here. it's quite silly.

 

[Gamblnluck]

What makes it a stroker? If the subject matter is something that the reader connects to or is turned on by it, that's a stroker. Every story that has a lot of sex that's written in great detail has that potential.

Could perhaps. I consider a 'stroker' a story that offers nothing more than a sex scene. Very poor plot if there was even one attempted, and poor characterization. In other words a story that I will likely pass. I'm not after reading pulitzer prize material but I do want to read a decent story along with th sex scene.