Learning to write tender and romantic sex

[sr71plt]

In the Hollywood writers underground from the thirties (which was Jewish and gay), there was no mistake that Batman was named Bruce Wayne and that his male child sidekick was named Robin. Just sayin'.

 

[lovecraft68]

In the Hollywood writers underground from the thirties (which was Jewish and gay), there was no mistake that Batman was named Bruce Wayne and that his male child sidekick was named Robin. Just sayin'.

Yeah, but in the 30's Gay people were just happy, right?

Every time I hear the name Bruce all that goes through my mind is that annoying ELO song Don't bring me down (Bruce)

Speaking of Batman. Useless Comic trivia, his first appearance was not in Batman #1

 

[sr71plt]

In Greece and Rome, gay people weren't just happy.

 

[lovecraft68]

In Greece and Rome, gay people weren't just happy.

Same can be said for Sodom and Gomorrah

I heard there was a lot of trouble there.

Lot's family got a-salted!

Sigh.

 

[PennLady]

Yeah, but in the 30's Gay people were just happy, right?

Every time I hear the name Bruce all that goes through my mind is that annoying ELO song Don't bring me down (Bruce)

Speaking of Batman. Useless Comic trivia, his first appearance was not in Batman #1

Because Mr Penn is a big ELO fan, I actually happen to know that the lyric you quoted is "gruce," or "groose," and not "bruce." But it's a reasonable thing to think.

On the OP, I was thinking that with a tender or romantic scene, it of course depends a lot on the characters. However, as many have said, there is often more focus on the emotion, and I think that's true. But I think it's also tying in the physical to the emotion, how each heightens the effect of other.

 

[sr71plt]

Not in the Sodom/Gomorah references as far as I remember. You'll find it in the Rahab/fall of Jericho story, though.

 

[lovecraft68]

Because Mr Penn is a big ELO fan, I actually happen to know that the lyric you quoted is "gruce," or "groose," and not "bruce." But it's a reasonable thing to think.

On the OP, I was thinking that with a tender or romantic scene, it of course depends a lot on the characters. However, as many have said, there is often more focus on the emotion, and I think that's true. But I think it's also tying in the physical to the emotion, how each heightens the effect of other.

Really? I'll have to listen closer next time. But you know how it is with song lyrics, you get them wrong and they stay that way.

Know that song "Give me the Beach Boys...." My sister always thought they said "Give me a beat boys" and still sings it like that sometimes.

 

[lovecraft68]

Not in the Sodom/Gomorah references as far as I remember. You'll find it in the Rahab/fall of Jericho story, though.

Gays? Pretty sure that's what was going on in Sodom. You know, back when it was a big sin.

Matter of fact if-and I could be mistaken been awhile since I was interested in the bible- the term Sodomy came from Sodom so...think there were some deliveries in the rear going on there.

I'll have to look up The Rahab story, bit vague on that one.

 

[patientlee]

Personally, I just make all of the lyrics up as I go along. I blame it on the number of years that I lived my life without lyrics.com.

 

[lovecraft68]

Personally, I just make all of the lyrics up as I go along. I blame it on the number of years that I lived my life without lyrics.com.

There was a commercial awhile back-I think it was for a car- where a bunch of people just killed the lyrics to Rocket man.

But I think the funniest "it sounds like" has to be The Hendrix song where it really sounds like he's saying "scuse me while I kiss this guy!"

 

[slyc_willie]

In terms of word choice, using "Bruce" for a hetero story will be seen by quite a few as a bad word choice to begin with.

Sort of like using Lance.

Indeed. I have known three men in my life named Bruce; two were gay.

 

[JKendallDane]

But I think mood setting is paramount. Those word choices, those emotions, those little things that piece together one big glowing picture... these are all dials that you can use to fine tune the atmosphere of your story. Romance should teem with a feeling of love.

The flickering of candles in the background; being led to a bed sprinkled with rose petals; the specific music playing softly as they crawl between the sheets; a sliver of moonlight poking between a split in the drapes to spotlight a body part getting attention...things like that show the mood is much more than raw fucking. Sex tends to just happen many times and is easily predictable. Romance is what you use to make the reader hard and/or moist long before the first cries of pleasure.

Adding a little humor even helps establish that the atmosphere is going to be about more than flesh getting busy. A little whip cream on the nipples or chocolate sauce on the erection makes for giggles but also says it's two people that are truly into each other.

 

[JKendallDane]

Gays? Pretty sure that's what was going on in Sodom. You know, back when it was a big sin.

Matter of fact if-and I could be mistaken been awhile since I was interested in the bible- the term Sodomy came from Sodom so...think there were some deliveries in the rear going on there.

I'll have to look up The Rahab story, bit vague on that one.

Actually homosexuality is never mentioned as the reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Ezekiel is the only place in the Bible where it is specified and it revolved around being the original self-absorbed yuppies, ignoring people in need, and being inhospitable to strangers.

Course the fundies conveniently pretend those verses don't exist, much in the same way they totally ignore the multi-chapter love story of David & Jonathan in first and second Samuel.

 

[sr71plt]

Indeed. I have known three men in my life named Bruce; two were gay.

Most of the Bruces I have known (no pun intended) weren't gay. But there are name connotations in literature (which would make for a good thread discussion), and unfortunately Bruce comes out as gay in literary name symbolism.

And on LC's point about S & G. He's right. That story (Genesis 18 and 19) has the same "bring the men out so that we might 'know' them" references that the Rahab Jericho story has.

 

[carlieplum]

Sodom is for sure the root of sodomy. Lot has the guests in his house and the people of Sodom are banging on the door demanding Lot send the male guests out. "Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us so that we may know them."

And lest you think they just wanted a meet and greet, Lot responds by offering his two two virgin daughters to the crowd,"I shall bring them out to you and do to them as you please. (That's Genesis 19:4-6).

 

[sr71plt]

Actually homosexuality is never mentioned as the reason for the destruction of Sodom and Gomorrah. Ezekiel is the only place in the Bible where it is specified and it revolved around being the original self-absorbed yuppies, ignoring people in need, and being inhospitable to strangers.

Course the fundies conveniently pretend those verses don't exist, much in the same way they totally ignore the multi-chapter love story of David & Jonathan in first and second Samuel.

No, it's directly included in the Sodom story (Genesis 18 and 19) "But before they lay down, the men of the city, the men of Sodom, both young and old, all the people to the last man, surrounded the house; and they called to Lot, 'Where are the men who came to you tonight? Bring them out to us, that we may know them.'"

You could, I guess, argue that didn't mean they wanted take the men in the ass, but I don't think you'd get much support for the interpretation.

And you'll find almost exactly the same wording in the Rahab/fall of Jericho story. Rahab is a whore and takes Joshua's two spies in, and the men of Jericho come to her house in the city wall and call the men out to "know" them. They aren't just wanting introductions to them.

Sodomy isn't just a male-male act either in the Bible or in the present, though. It covers both anal and oral sex and between man and woman as well as man and man--and both are mentioned here and there between man and woman in the Bible as egregious sins.

 

[JKendallDane]

Yes...I will agree that the supposition of homosexual activity *IS* mentioned. What I am saying is that it is *NOT* among the sins listed in Ezekiel for the destruction of S&G.

You very rarely hear that side of the story though. "It's all about the gays" has been the battle cry for so long, that most people just accept it as fact.

 

[sr71plt]

Yes...I will agree that the supposition of homosexual activity *IS* mentioned. What I am saying is that it is *NOT* among the sins listed in Ezekiel for the destruction of S&G.

You very rarely hear that side of the story though. "It's all about the gays" has been the battle cry for so long, that most people just accept it as fact.

It's certainly given in Genesis as a reason. Right after this episode (and these weren't just men who were going to take it in the ass; they were God's angels), starting in Genesis 19:12. There's a direct correlation between why Sodom is wicked and why it is going to be destroyed.

 

[patientlee]

Indeed. I have known three men in my life named Bruce; two were gay.

Don't be sad 'cause two outta three ain't bad.

 

[JKendallDane]

It's certainly given in Genesis as a reason. Right after this episode (and these weren't just men who were going to take it in the ass; they were God's angels), starting in Genesis 19:12. There's a direct correlation between why Sodom is wicked and why it is going to be destroyed.

I don't intend in getting into an argument with you about this.

The Genesis story references the intention of rape; albeit homosexual rape. Nowhere is that listed as the only reason...or actually even one of the reasons...for destroying the cities. If anything, it is telling you just how depraved the citizens of the city had become when it came to strangers.

On the other hand, Ezekiel 16:49-50 gets down to the nitty-gritty and lists the sins of Sodom. It's the only place in the scriptures you find it and homosexual activity is not among them.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't intend in getting into an argument with you about this.

The Genesis story references the intention of rape; albeit homosexual rape. Nowhere is that listed as the only reason...or actually even one of the reasons...for destroying the cities. If anything, it is telling you just how depraved the citizens of the city had become when it came to strangers.

On the other hand, Ezekiel 16:49-50 gets down to the nitty-gritty and lists the sins of Sodom. It's the only place in the scriptures you find it and homosexual activity is not among them.

If you don't intend to get into an argument, then don't. In Genesis 18 and 19, the men of Sodom want to rape two angels (men) and Sodom is destroyed (19:24, Sodom goes bye bye)--with the intended rape being the obvious (the one given) reason. Who needs Ezekiel for that? And again, if you don't want to argue the point, then stop doing it. Especially on a point I let LC correct me on.

 

[JKendallDane]

If you don't intend to get into an argument, then don't. In Genesis 18 and 19, the men of Sodom want to rape two angels (men) and Sodom is destroyed (19:24, Sodom goes bye bye)--with the intended rape being the obvious (the one given) reason. Who needs Ezekiel for that? And again, if you don't want to argue the point, then stop doing it. Especially on a point I let LC correct me on.

Great job of proof texting. The angels had already been sent to destroy Sodom...the "reception" they received was just icing on the cake.

Even most Biblical scholars nowdays say that the Ezekiel reference shows just how misinterpreted and misrepresented the S&G story has been for centuries. THAT is where the sins are specified and they are listed there for a good reason.

I'm surprised that you of all people, would be arguing this from a far-right fundie standpoint.

 

[RichardBacula]

This conversation seems to have taken an odd turn.
I'll have to scroll back and catch up!

 

[sr71plt]

Great job of proof texting. The angels had already been sent to destroy Sodom...the "reception" they received was just icing on the cake.

Even most Biblical scholars nowdays say that the Ezekiel reference shows just how misinterpreted and misrepresented the S&G story has been for centuries. THAT is where the sins are specified and they are listed there for a good reason.

I'm surprised that you of all people, would be arguing this from a far-right fundie standpoint.

I take it this is you not wanting to argue.

Of course the question of how many reasons were needed to destroy Sodom is irrelevant to anything on this thread.

 

[SecondCircle]

Imagine how much more of this book has been misinterpreted and reinterpreted. Scary.