Romance

[PennLady]

Good thing your wife didn't reject that trope.

hee hee hee

 

[A_Little_Show]

I agree with PennLady: I should write the kind of "Romance" I want to read. I'm full of romantic ideals, and I see love everywhere.

[Skip past the following diversion if you want to get back to my main point]
I have now written several stories in the "Incest / Taboo" category. I have no personal interest in incest - my own family revolts me. However, I can imagine how it could be yummy in entirely different fantastical circumstances. We tend to long for people/things we know, and who do we know more intimately than our own family? Who already loves us? It makes sense.

I have written about "Gay Male" encounters even though I am not a gay male. Again, I have no personal interest in the acts portrayed, but I think I understand them. Love and lust aren't solely governed by the presence or absence of dangly bits. Could an emasculated man be the subject of lust? Of course. Could a woman unable to engage in intercourse be the subject of lust. Of course.

I've never had sex with a non-human, but I can write in that category.

I have never had sex non-consensually, but I can write in that category.

[Resume my main point]


My problem with "Romance" is that I CAN'T imagine anyone lusting for the woman who must be "won". The woman who turns away the man she desires because of her pride or his lack of status deserves to be alone. I can't understand her being the subject of lust. The woman who waits for her prince to come is a sad empty shell. Why would the prince want her even if his psychic visions somehow enabled him to find her?

I want to read/write a "Romance" about equals who are perceived to be equals as opposed to equals where one is more equal than the other until demonstrating some pointless heroics.

For example, I read the current NUMBER ONE "Romance" story. It made me cry. It produced an emotional roller coaster. http://www.literotica.com/s/charity-begins-next-door
I loved it - at first.

The female protagonist is a proud angry unpleasant recluse who doesn't deserve to be "won". The male protagonist is a sentimental fool. The whole "see through my rude ingratitude and love me anyway therefore proving you're worthy of the honor" bullshit makes me rage. The man proves his utility to the woman who callously rejects his help multiple times. She later takes him into her bed so he can prove one more aspect of his utility to her, and then she tries to throw him out. Where is her utility to him? Why should he be attracted to her at all - oh, right - she has a vagina. That entitles her to demand over-the-top proof of his utility before he's worthy of respect let alone love. The story mixes two evil tropes: "someday my prince will come" and "she's too proud to be with him until he proves himself to be the prince she doesn't deserve".

A man who continues to inject himself into a woman's life after she has angrily told him to stay away multiple times is called a STALKER. The male protagonist should be in jail. Instead, he wins her heart and they live happily ever after. If he had been uglier - then he'd be in jail.

Consider the opposite extreme: "She's a vagina on legs who exists as the receptacle for some man's masturbation." Romance objectifies "men" and their utility to woman. The opposite objectifies "women" and their utility to men. The difference is that the woman's utility comes from the fact that she has a vagina. No other attributes or actions are required. The man's utility comes from actions and heroic deeds needed to win access to the vagina.

I fundamentally don't like the whole subtext of "utility" determining fuckability. People have inherent majesty irrespective of their utility to others. A woman is a whole person whether she chooses to be a cum receptacle or not. A man is a whole person whether he fights through irrational social drama to gain access to pussy or not. Two or more people fuck because they want to give and receive pleasure. Two or more people fuck because they are attracted to each other. Two or more people fuck because they want to make babies.

I hate the "Romance" ideal that two people fuck because one of them has earned it (or is a prince and therefore worthy).

 

[lovecraft68]

Good thing your wife didn't reject that trope.

If she had met me at 23 she would have had nothing to do with me.

She met me at 33 when I'd settled down quite a bit. Still had the look and more than a bit of the attitude, but kept myself out of any actual trouble.

But thing is there are different types of "bad boys" in my case I never verbally, emotionally or physically abused a woman.

All my shit was between me and other trouble makers who could hit back and put up a fight. In fact I'm a known man hater so not your typical bad boy type.

My issue with the bad boy trope-and yes I know its fiction, but we all have are peeves-is let's face it the women who go with the bad boy?

Most of the time it ends in at the least a broken heart, ruined credit, alienated from friends and family etc...

Sometimes it ends in restraining orders and drama and pain, both emotional and the physical it took to get the restraining order. In the most pronounced cases it can end in death.

Again, I know the harlequin bad boy is always soft on the inside and can be redeemed. But the reality is its rare. I'm the first one to say I am not a "nice guy" but I'm good to my wife who is all that matters.

In fact my biggest issue with 50 shades and the material it blatantly copies Twilight is both glorify abusive stalkers. Twilight has teenage girls thinking abusive men are hot and Shades hits the older women with it.

No one can deny that fact its just how much it bothers one person to the next as a suspension of reality.

Gray and Ed or whatever the vampire goon is named is the type of bad boy this bad boy gained his reputation on.

 

[PennLady]

I agree with PennLady: I should write the kind of "Romance" I want to read. I'm full of romantic ideals, and I see love everywhere.

Go for it.

I want to read/write a "Romance" about equals who are perceived to be equals as opposed to equals where one is more equal than the other until demonstrating some pointless heroics.

I'm going to suggest one of mine, if you haven't already read it, "Rhythm and the Blue Line." http://www.literotica.com/s/rhythm-and-the-blue-line

I'd be curious to know if this is more your sort of thing. It's about two people (a musician and a hockey player) who have their own reasons for initially resisting their attraction, and then they decide to take the risk(s) and see what happens. I don't see it as a "typical" romance -- she's hardly a shrinking violet, and he is not a vain stalker.

I also don't like much of what you don't like. However, I think some of this may depend upon a lot of things, such as the setting of the book. Behavior that we would scoff at in a contemporary romance might make more sense in one set in the 1700s. So a woman in the 1800s might cling to her pride as long as she can because it's all she has - women had few rights back then. And a man back then might have been willing to wait a bit and challenge her on that.

Although let's be honest, tons of matches were made regardless of feeling; they were based on monetary issues.

It's a fine line, I grant you, between something like that and the woman and/or man being a stalker or just a jerk. There are a lot of good stories out there, they're just often hard to find.

 

[PennLady]

But thing is there are different types of "bad boys" in my case I never verbally, emotionally or physically abused a woman.

All my shit was between me and other trouble makers who could hit back and put up a fight. In fact I'm a known man hater so not your typical bad boy type.

I'll be honest, the "bad boy" trope no doubt gets tired, but many times he's almost a faux bad boy. He's the bad boy who isn't really, who's just had bad breaks and would go the straight (haha) path if someone gave him a chance. Then he finds the one woman who gives him a chance and he takes it. Then of course it's a few steps forward and back until the resolution, but like I said, I don't think the "bad boys" in so many romances are, in fact, bad people.

 

[sunandshadow]

I fundamentally don't like the whole subtext of "utility" determining fuckability. People have inherent majesty irrespective of their utility to others.

That's an interesting way of looking at it. Surprising to me, just because it's quite different from the way I normally look at things. For me, even in a non-sexual, non-romantic context I love stories about people coming together as a team, accomplishing something great together that none of them could do alone; that's kind of fundamentally a story about utility, though not specifically utility to another person. Some of the stuff I write has a race of hermaphrodites, so there is no "male utility" vs. "female utility", but there's often a character who has a self-esteem issue related to either lacking an ability their culture values, being mistakenly assumed to lack an ability, or having others refuse to acknowledge their exceptional ability due to prejudice.

On the other hand, I really like futuristic stories where humanity has progressed beyond capitalism and a person's value is judged in a completely different way than money or job, because they don't have either. Biting The Sun by Tanith Lee is one of my favorite examples of this; and it's sort of a romance, though it takes a while to get there, and at first it's more like a mild version of Clockwork Orange. It's not a romance about utility, but more about one character who has creative passion and another character who is loyal and caring; the attraction between these two character archetypes in IMO one of the healthy classic tropes of romance.

Post-apocalyptic stories or marooning stories (the kind where a few people are living in a land with no civilization or government and a lack of other humans) are examples of the same thing from the opposite position. A character's abilities to hunt, craft, protect, built, etc. are extremely valued in this kind of situation. But, everyone has roughly equal ability at these kind of basic tasks and spends a roughly equal amount of time keeping themselves fed and building up some homey comforts. This kind of setting has also been used for many romances, because whatever the personalities of the two or more characters, they have to work as a team to survive and prosper, and they value each other because in a situation lacking other people, a companion becomes valuable just because they provide human companionship, and they're the only part of your world that actually cares about you and wishes you well.

So in conclusion, I think utility is seen in different ways depending on the situation, and in fact two people don't have a relationship at all if they don't have at least social or emotional utility to each other, i.e. each is happier and mentally healthier spending time with the other person than being alone. Thus utility is an essential ingredient of romance, but should be equal between the two characters and not defined narrowly in an economic way.

 

[emap]

Bad boy trope is just that, a trope. They are not bad boys, they play at it. I have run into bad boys and they leave you wondering if you will live.

Do not look at me like that it was a biker gang and they came in to my work. See the thing is, even that guy wasn't that bad. He had morals, also a cold fish which is never in the bad boy romance stories.

The bad boy in those is always with a heart of gold. I mean basically Billy the Kid, as he was portrayed in the novels. The person was rather scary because he literally was more or less like he is portrayed in Young Guns, he had screws loose.

The bad boy in the novels is never the guy you are nice to because if he gets mad people die.

 

[Bramblethorn]

My problem with "Romance" is that I CAN'T imagine anyone lusting for the woman who must be "won". The woman who turns away the man she desires because of her pride or his lack of status deserves to be alone.

Depends on the context, and what sort of "pride" we're talking about. To a modern reader, Jane Austen's heroines seem like shallow, status-obsessed people: e.g. Anne Elliot breaks off an engagement with the man she loves because although he's clever and decent, he has no money and no connections. Years later Frederick becomes a successful captain, eventually forgives her, and they marry after all.

But it's not a case of "hero proves himself, silly woman realises she was being shallow and cold-hearted to focus on status". Frederick comes to understand that she was right to make a hard-headed choice - she could just as easily have become a penniless widow. One of JA's recurring themes is that a single romantic/impetuous decision can ruin a woman's life (Lydia Bennett and Louisa Musgrove are both very lucky that JA is a kind-hearted author) and being in love doesn't put food on the table.

I can't understand her being the subject of lust. The woman who waits for her prince to come is a sad empty shell. Why would the prince want her even if his psychic visions somehow enabled him to find her?

I want to read/write a "Romance" about equals who are perceived to be equals as opposed to equals where one is more equal than the other until demonstrating some pointless heroics.

No reason why you can't. There are plenty of other ways to generate dramatic tension and challenge the characters. Mine isn't a "prove yourself" story, it's a "reconcile this relationship with the rest of your life and your own emotional baggage" story, and both characters have to make that journey in their own way.

A man who continues to inject himself into a woman's life after she has angrily told him to stay away multiple times is called a STALKER. The male protagonist should be in jail. Instead, he wins her heart and they live happily ever after. If he had been uglier - then he'd be in jail.

Yep, there are a lot of unhealthy relationship models in romance and media generally. I've recently been introduced to "West Wing", where Danny keeps pestering CJ for a date; it's supposed to be cute but I keep muttering "no, she said no, FUCK OFF NOW". (And then eventually she says yes, reinforcing that this is a good way to behave. Ugh.)

So write one that models responsible behaviour. You may find there are readers who've been hanging out for something like that.

 

[sr71plt]

I just write the story I want to write. I let others decide what genre it fits in best. I don't care if there are "rules" for Romance or BDSM or anything else. I let others worry about that.

 

[lovecraft68]

I'll be honest, the "bad boy" trope no doubt gets tired, but many times he's almost a faux bad boy. He's the bad boy who isn't really, who's just had bad breaks and would go the straight (haha) path if someone gave him a chance. Then he finds the one woman who gives him a chance and he takes it. Then of course it's a few steps forward and back until the resolution, but like I said, I don't think the "bad boys" in so many romances are, in fact, bad people.

Good point, which in fact is part of why the trope makes me head desk as you say all the time. In reality the bad boys are just that; bad boys. In the romances they are-as my wife always says about me with a laugh "just misunderstood"

 

[lovecraft68]

I just write the story I want to write. I let others decide what genre it fits in best. I don't care if there are "rules" for Romance or BDSM or anything else. I let others worry about that.

Careful with the BDSM crowd.

For a supposedly "edgy" group rules me everything to that crowd.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't recognize that any "crowd" determines what BDSM is and what it isn't. It's a whole range of intensity of activities. Fuck 'em (bound and whipped even). Let them write their own stories.

 

[lovecraft68]

I don't recognize that any "crowd" determines what BDSM is and what it isn't. It's a whole range of intensity of activities. Fuck 'em (bound and whipped even). Let them write their own stories.

You're right. It's referred to as the lifestyle for a reason and it vaires per individual

But...

go drift over to the BDSM forums where the reigning experts will tell you all about how anyone not doing it their way is doing it the wrong way.

The biggest disappointment for me here was seeing that forum when I first came here and thinking it would be fun.

Its the GB with bondage.

 

[A_Little_Show]

You make a good point, sunandshadow.

So in conclusion, I think utility is seen in different ways depending on the situation, and in fact two people don't have a relationship at all if they don't have at least social or emotional utility to each other, i.e. each is happier and mentally healthier spending time with the other person than being alone. Thus utility is an essential ingredient of romance, but should be equal between the two characters and not defined narrowly in an economic way.

A heroine who is attracted to a man but rejects him anyway clearly already sees part of his "utility" in some sense. I agree "at least social or emotional utility" are required for any relationship. Both of those traits work bidirectionally between people irrespective of power or status differences.

In contrast, expecting the hero to overcome obstacles in order to be worthy of accessing the vagina is narcissistic. What (other than existing) has the heroine done to be worthy of all that effort? Such stories are the chick-lit counterparts of "fuck the vapid slut" stories written for men who can only see walking vaginas and not whole people.

I thank everyone for this thread. It started as me venting into the void and turned into a thought provoking exchange - at least for me.

 

[PennLady]

A heroine who is attracted to a man but rejects him anyway clearly already sees part of his "utility" in some sense. I agree "at least social or emotional utility" are required for any relationship. Both of those traits work bidirectionally between people irrespective of power or status differences.

But there are many other factors at work when people look at "utility." It'd be nice if we were all well-adjusted and could see all the good and bad in people and figure out right away which people are better matched to us. But we can't. So, people will reject (still) potential loves/mates/whatever on social or financial bases, just as they did in Jane Austen's books. And then they may come to realize that they were wrong, and feel they must prove themselves. But a lot of it is the one character/person realizing they made a mistake.

In contrast, expecting the hero to overcome obstacles in order to be worthy of accessing the vagina is narcissistic. What (other than existing) has the heroine done to be worthy of all that effort? Such stories are the chick-lit counterparts of "fuck the vapid slut" stories written for men who can only see walking vaginas and not whole people.

What the heroine has or has not done is up to the author -- you can't just dismiss all romance books, or their readers, like that. And again, it seems to me a lot of this would depend on the time the book is set in. In times when women could not work, or rarely worked, and so could not show their competence in the workplace or other areas, the dynamics will work differently than in current times.

And whether your -- or I -- like it, some readers enjoy that kind of fantasy, where someone wants the heroine (or them, if they put themselves in her place) and will overcome obstacles to get there.

 

[emap]

Something to keep in mind, until the vacuum cleaner and laundry machine being a house wife was more or less the only job for a woman because it was FULL time.

I am not kidding, doing laundry was taking it to the river or filling a bucket with water and then hand washing every article of clothing, sheet and towel in the house. This took upwards of three hours to do. Plus there wasn't getting pre cut steaks, you got a hunk of meat and cut it yourself. Not to mention sweeping the house and dusting.

Stories set before laundry machine and vacuums meant a woman looked at a man and decided if he is cute enough, can provide money and continue to provide money. Not because she is a vain little bitch, or only wants a man who makes more than anyone else. This was important because the wife kept the house clean, made sure the kids lived as long as possible, and made the meals.

To a certain degree this is still the prevailing view of women. Not because they have house work to do all day every day, because their mom had the same view on what is important, along with grandma and great gram. I see in articles about relationships that women view having a good paying job as needed. Bullshit, men don't have to make more than a gal, it is better if they do because most of us want to be the stay at home mom, because mom was.

 

[soflabbwlvr]

If she had met me at 23 she would have had nothing to do with me.

She met me at 33 when I'd settled down quite a bit. Still had the look and more than a bit of the attitude, but kept myself out of any actual trouble.

But thing is there are different types of "bad boys" in my case I never verbally, emotionally or physically abused a woman.

All my shit was between me and other trouble makers who could hit back and put up a fight. In fact I'm a known man hater so not your typical bad boy type.

My issue with the bad boy trope-and yes I know its fiction, but we all have are peeves-is let's face it the women who go with the bad boy?

Most of the time it ends in at the least a broken heart, ruined credit, alienated from friends and family etc...

Sometimes it ends in restraining orders and drama and pain, both emotional and the physical it took to get the restraining order. In the most pronounced cases it can end in death.

Again, I know the harlequin bad boy is always soft on the inside and can be redeemed. But the reality is its rare. I'm the first one to say I am not a "nice guy" but I'm good to my wife who is all that matters.

In fact my biggest issue with 50 shades and the material it blatantly copies Twilight is both glorify abusive stalkers. Twilight has teenage girls thinking abusive men are hot and Shades hits the older women with it.

No one can deny that fact its just how much it bothers one person to the next as a suspension of reality.

Gray and Ed or whatever the vampire goon is named is the type of bad boy this bad boy gained his reputation on.

LOL Just having fun with you.
But if you read your story, you'd one bomb it.

 

[sr71plt]

Fuck the BDSM board discussions, Lovecraft68. Good lord, man, Literotica is a nice place to put stories and get some readers, but this isn't money in the bank. I don't even know what the "rules" are for either Romance or BDSM. I write stories that say something to me and I post them. Readers can either travel with me or not. This place isn't some sort of arbiter of taste on what I can write or not. It's just one of several parking places for stories. I don't need to float something here to know if it's any good or not or to obtain some sort of validation.

And having you razz my writing doesn't rattle my cage on my abilities as a writer either.

 

[A_Little_Show]

Some of us (at least me) try to please the audience. This place _is_ an arbiter of taste. I think categories do have rules even if I haven't figured them out yet. Well, "loving wives" is chaos.

I write stories I enjoy writing, but I share stories I hope others enjoy. When they don't enjoy my stories or even see some abstract merit, I have failed.

I'm sure that's my own insecurity speaking: If I write a story and nobody likes it, I reasonably feel like my story is undesirable. My story is a tiny sliver of my psyche - and nobody likes it [and/or my technical presentation skills suck]

I had high hopes for my return to Literotica. It hasn't been all bad, but my stories are the person standing alone against the wall at the school dance. My stories are the kid picked last for sports. I want my stories to be popular. When they aren't, well, dances and school sports suck...

Meanwhile, I remain in awe of the other authors here including those of you in this thread. I look at your pages full of red 'H' icons, and I long to be one of you.

 

[sr71plt]

This place _is_ an arbiter of taste.

Not much. These are folks looking for free reads on a porn board. This isn't the New Yorker. This isn't in an "arbiter of taste" league. It's a fun place to park erotica, though, and a bit of laugh to find nonerotica--sort of a "where did you take a wrong turn?"

 

[slyc_willie]

Meanwhile, I remain in awe of the other authors here including those of you in this thread. I look at your pages full of red 'H' icons, and I long to be one of you.

That's easy to fix. Write a bunch of incest with implausible themes and two-dimensional characters who just want to fuck every family member in sight. The red Hs will magically appear.

Just kidding (sort of).

In truth, though, a red H is only a measure of popularity, not quality. Sometimes, the two coexist, but not always.

 

[emap]

Oh my god hell froze over, I am agreeing with Slyc.

Just write the stories and post them, or not I suppose. After that it's not so much waiting for high votes as seeing if it is being read. The voting is closer to is a good story or not.

Now if you are writing short stroke stories and you get voted low either you are in a not quite right category or you need to work on your descriptive words. Course making the sex seem to last longer than five minutes is a good idea, so pad it liberally so you get above at least five paragraphs. Unless you are doing a western and following the style of the time.

Do that in my western series of series and lots of red H's there. It's not what you write, it's how you write it. Seriously, it could be a boring as fuck treatise on quantum physics, but if you do it right nobody will care because it's interesting.

Don't ask how to do quantum physics so it is interesting.

 

[sunandshadow]

I'm sure that's my own insecurity speaking: If I write a story and nobody likes it, I reasonably feel like my story is undesirable. My story is a tiny sliver of my psyche - and nobody likes it

I said pretty much the same thing over at AbsoluteWrite a few weeks ago. Response from the other forum posters mostly disagreed and was not sympathetic though. :/

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Something to keep in mind, until the vacuum cleaner and laundry machine being a house wife was more or less the only job for a woman because it was FULL time.

I am not kidding, doing laundry was taking it to the river or filling a bucket with water and then hand washing every article of clothing, sheet and towel in the house. This took upwards of three hours to do. Plus there wasn't getting pre cut steaks, you got a hunk of meat and cut it yourself. Not to mention sweeping the house and dusting.

Stories set before laundry machine and vacuums meant a woman looked at a man and decided if he is cute enough, can provide money and continue to provide money. Not because she is a vain little bitch, or only wants a man who makes more than anyone else. This was important because the wife kept the house clean, made sure the kids lived as long as possible, and made the meals.

To a certain degree this is still the prevailing view of women. Not because they have house work to do all day every day, because their mom had the same view on what is important, along with grandma and great gram. I see in articles about relationships that women view having a good paying job as needed. Bullshit, men don't have to make more than a gal, it is better if they do because most of us want to be the stay at home mom, because mom was.

Partial credit.

People wanna be where they get the most comfort. That's usually inside a bottle or baggie or bong, but for many the most comfortable place is home. Women who hate home are fighting millions of years of evolution, and, from the ones I know, are seriously unhappy.

 

[PennLady]

Some of us (at least me) try to please the audience. This place _is_ an arbiter of taste. I think categories do have rules even if I haven't figured them out yet. Well, "loving wives" is chaos.

I think to an extent we all try to please the audience. However, if we don't please ourselves first, we won't please anyone. And I can say -- I just found a new comment on the last chapter of R&B -- that sometimes there's simply no pleasing everyone.

I don't know that categories have rules so much as there are readers' expectations of common themes. People expect, for example, that in a romance the two protagonists will end up together after overcoming obstacles; if that doesn't happen, you better have a really good reason. That may be the only "rule" in romance.

I write stories I enjoy writing, but I share stories I hope others enjoy. When they don't enjoy my stories or even see some abstract merit, I have failed.

I'm sure that's my own insecurity speaking: If I write a story and nobody likes it, I reasonably feel like my story is undesirable. My story is a tiny sliver of my psyche - and nobody likes it [and/or my technical presentation skills suck]

You haven't failed. You may not have found the right audience, but you haven't failed.

I had high hopes for my return to Literotica. It hasn't been all bad, but my stories are the person standing alone against the wall at the school dance. My stories are the kid picked last for sports. I want my stories to be popular. When they aren't, well, dances and school sports suck...

Meanwhile, I remain in awe of the other authors here including those of you in this thread. I look at your pages full of red 'H' icons, and I long to be one of you.

If you are going to play with the conventions of any genre, you run the risk of not being in the popular group. This doesn't mean you may not find a niche with a group of like-minded people, but it may take longer to come together.