Writing Pan/Omnisexual character

[AlinaX]

Non-binary people exist and why shouldn't they be represented? Just as bi, pan & ace people exist and should be included. Ultimately it's up to the author, of course, but it's daft to whine like an anti-SJWer.

 

[dirtyriceking]

Sam had some great advice. I think was just being too clever by half. I think I'd just mess up my character. Though I DO go in knowing the orientation of my character generally.

 

[SimonDoom]

I think it would be helpful if authors include non-cishet supporting characters. To be clear, I'm not suggesting they shouldn't be main characters. I'm suggesting that we should all make an effort to give them a presence in the worlds we're presenting in our stories.

I would only do this if the supporting character's sexuality were important to the story. In many, perhaps most cases, it's not. The main characters' sexuality matters. The sexuality of the neighbor borrowing a bag of flour, or of the waiter taking an order at a restaurant, may not.

I'm totally supportive of authors writing stories with non-cis and non-het characters, and I've enjoyed plenty of such stories, but I confess my initial response to the use of the word "should" here is resistance. This is a fantasy site where authors indulge their fantasies. No one should feel obligated to adapt and revise their stories to meet any particular social ideal, or to appeal to other people's fantasies or sexual needs or politics. It may be, for instance, that in a particular story the sense of eroticism is heightened if the world in which it is presented is simplistically binary, even if that's not realistic. The needs of the particular story are what should dictate what goes in it, in my view.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I would only do this if the supporting character's sexuality were important to the story. In many, perhaps most cases, it's not. The main characters' sexuality matters. The sexuality of the neighbor borrowing a bag of flour, or of the waiter taking an order at a restaurant, may not.

I've read plenty of stories where supporting characters were mentioned to be opposite-gender-married even though it wasn't particularly important to the story. Unfortunately, "I only mention characters' sexuality when the story requires it" often actually translates to "every character is straight unless there's some specific plot reason why they shouldn't be".

It may be, for instance, that in a particular story the sense of eroticism is heightened if the world in which it is presented is simplistically binary, even if that's not realistic. The needs of the particular story are what should dictate what goes in it, in my view.

It's not about any one story. It's that it's bloody hard to find any story where trans and NB characters show up as something other than fetish fodder. There are a few but they're like hen's teeth.

 

[AlinaX]

Where's the whining?

Sorry, I'll get back to modelling society.

 

[jsmiam]

In my newest story, I've considered making my MC pan or omnisexual. Any tips for creating a believable character? She's monogamous, just not strictly heterosexual or lesbian.

Purely for the hell/heck of it, PM Laurel and ask her to create a new category.

Lit is littered with requests for changes involving modernizing/improving the site, which almost never happens (because they don't know how... ) A long-standing tradition is for all of us lament how things never will change.

However, something like this is quite different; It's not a technical web development challenge. There's a chance they (a) would know how to do this, and (b) would want to.

Give it a try!

 

[SimonDoom]

I've read plenty of stories where supporting characters were mentioned to be opposite-gender-married even though it wasn't particularly important to the story. Unfortunately, "I only mention characters' sexuality when the story requires it" often actually translates to "every character is straight unless there's some specific plot reason why they shouldn't be".

Supposing this to be true, so what?

I think this reasoning makes sense if one is, for example, scripting a TV show, especially one that depicts a broad range of people. Excluding non-cis and non-het characters may have the effect of normalizing the exclusion. One of the welcome trends on TV, for example, has been the depiction of characters and families that were once considered non-normal.

I don't see the same logic applying in an erotic short story at Literotica. I can see it in a multi-chaptered story with many characters, but so far I haven't written a story like that. For me, what matters is not realism but the erotic focus. Everything revolves around that. I don't feel any obligation to write my story in a socially responsible way. All that matters is the "art" (generously defined) or the kink that is the focus of the story.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

...I'm totally supportive of authors writing stories with non-cis and non-het characters, and I've enjoyed plenty of such stories, but I confess my initial response to the use of the word "should" here is resistance...

As you say, it depends on the character. If the character in question is just the mailman dropping off a letter, the mailman's sexuality wouldn't come up and therefore would never be identified. If the character is one of a group of friends paired off into couples, that's another matter. There are many stories, particularly longer stories, where minor characters play enough of a role that they need to be more completely fleshed out than the mailman.

"I think it would be helpful... I'm suggesting that we should all make an effort..."

The use of "should" here is not dictatorial or judgmental. It's used more like, "it would be desirable." I feel it's used much the same way you used it:

The needs of the particular story are what should dictate what goes in it, in my view

I suppose I might have used "could" instead of "should," but that would have been wrapping the same package with a less accurate label. I'm not suggesting that anyone pretzel their stories to convey a social message. I'm suggesting that we shouldn't (yes, I'm using that word again) blindly and accidentally perpetuate the erasure of large parts of our society. I think it's useful for writers to recognize their own inherent biases. I don't mean "bias" in a negative way here. I mean it in the sense that we have a natural tendency to see things certain ways, and those tendencies are translated by imagination.

I'm perplexed by the pushback to a suggestion phrased so non-confrontationally. This board frequently includes posts telling other people how they should write. Quite a few posters do it regularly. To some degree, it's difficult to express what we think is a desirable end without saying someone "should" do something.

If a writer had an accidental tendency to write 80 percent of their supporting characters as women, and the story was about the general population in situations where you would expect roughly 50 percent of the population to be women, that writer might want to try to add some men in future stories. I think the same thing applies to gender and orientation.

I'm simply suggesting that it's a good idea to be conscious of the issue. I don't intend to tell people how to write. I don't believe that's what my comment conveyed, but I understand there's a sensitivity to being told what one "should" write about. My comment was directed more towards how things are written rather than what's written. It's a fine distinction here, with a lot of overlap, but it's a suggestion about how background characters are portrayed, not a suggestion about what a writer's story is about.

I hope this explanation will clarify my intended meaning.

 

[SimonDoom]

I suppose I might have used "could" instead of "should," but that would have been wrapping the same package with a less accurate label. I'm not suggesting that anyone pretzel their stories to convey a social message. I'm suggesting that we shouldn't (yes, I'm using that word again) blindly and accidentally perpetuate the erasure of large parts of our society. I think it's useful for writers to recognize their own inherent biases. I don't mean "bias" in a negative way here. I mean it in the sense that we have a natural tendency to see things certain ways, and those tendencies are translated by imagination.

I'm perplexed by the pushback to a suggestion phrased so non-confrontationally. This board frequently includes posts telling other people how they should write. Quite a few posters do it regularly. To some degree, it's difficult to express what we think is a desirable end without saying someone "should" do something.

If a writer had an accidental tendency to write 80 percent of their supporting characters as women, and the story was about the general population in situations where you would expect roughly 50 percent of the population to be women, that writer might want to try to add some men in future stories. I think the same thing applies to gender and orientation.

I'm simply suggesting that it's a good idea to be conscious of the issue. I don't intend to tell people how to write. I don't believe that's what my comment conveyed, but I understand there's a sensitivity to being told what one "should" write about. My comment was directed more towards how things are written rather than what's written. It's a fine distinction here, with a lot of overlap, but it's a suggestion about how background characters are portrayed, not a suggestion about what a writer's story is about.

I hope this explanation will clarify my intended meaning.

It does, and I thought this was very well said. I want to be clear that my response is not a knee-jerk, anti-SJW response. My general view is that artists have no responsibility to be socially responsible, regardless of whether the concept of social responsibility is conservative, liberal, whatever. At the same time, I also believe writers don't write in a vacuum, and as a writer I want to try to connect with as broad an audience as possible. So if it turns out that I am reflexively and unconsciously ignoring non-cis and non-het characters -- something which may very well be the case -- it's something I want to think about. I don't mean to suggest I'm not open to being more inclusive in my world-building.

 

[KeithD]

Purely for the hell/heck of it, PM Laurel and ask her to create a new category.

Lot of good that would do. Lobbying has been going on for a bi category for over a decade, even heavily polled (coming out in favor of a bi category) once with Laurel's blessing, which she later denied having given, leading to a blowup with a regular forum poster, Stella Omega, departing. Just a lot of wasted asking.

 

[KeithD]

I'm one who doesn't favor giving any character a background that isn't going to serve the needs of the storyline--at least in a subplot. Guess it's the mystery writer in me who rejects (and gets irritated by) totally irrelevant clues in a story. I also don't think moralizing about or projecting the political correctness or societal balancing of the moment is my job as a writer.

What I do in most of my stories is to create worlds where gay and/or bi is the norm of the world. I just treat it as a given for that story.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

Lot of good that would do. Lobbying has been going on for a bi category for over a decade, even heavily polled (coming out in favor of a bi category) once with Laurel's blessing, which she later denied having given, leading to a blowup with a regular forum poster, Stella Omega, departing. Just a lot of wasted asking.

Do you know what the objection to the category was? It seems so non-controversial.

 

[KeithD]

Do you know what the objection to the category was? It seems so non-controversial.

No, the Web site has never, to my knowledge, responded on why they won't open that category. They don't have to, of course, they have the right to chose what their product is going to be. It isn't just bi. The site is heavily skewed to the hetero, offering a multitude of hetero categories, with reward systems set up for each category, but no bi category, and one GM, lesbian, and trans/crossing categories each. This builds in reader downgrading possibility going both ways if you post outside of presumed category--if you post GM to BDSM, you risk "wrong category" reader criticism and down voting, but you do as well if your story is predominately BDSM and posted to GM. The system also massively disadvantages anything but hetero for the monthly awards (not that they're a big deal here anymore).

 

[SimonDoom]

No, the Web site has never, to my knowledge, responded on why they won't open that category. They don't have to, of course, they have the right to chose what their product is going to be. It isn't just bi. The site is heavily skewed to the hetero, offering a multitude of hetero categories, with reward systems set up for each category, but no bi category, and one GM, lesbian, and trans/crossing categories each. This builds in reader downgrading possibility going both ways if you post outside of presumed category--if you post GM to BDSM, you risk "wrong category" reader criticism and down voting, but you do as well if your story is predominately BDSM and posted to GM. The system also massively disadvantages anything but hetero for the monthly awards (not that they're a big deal here anymore).

I imagine the justification is that they don't want too many categories because it will balkanize the audience. That would explain why, despite years of objections and hostility, they haven't divided Loving Wives into two categories. But it seems like "Bi" would be the most sensible category to add that currently is missing.

I did a Tag search for "bisexual" in all categories and it yielded over 9,000 story results, so obviously people are writing these stories and tagging them to be found.

"Pansexual" yielded only 29 stories with that tag, and "omnisexual" yielded no results, which surprised me.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

I would love to see the term "political correctness" disappear from the lexicon. It's a derisive term accepted for polite use and employed far too often to slap a label on something without addressing the merits of an argument. The dictionary has yet to take my views on any matter into consideration, of course.

Being considerate of other people and their place in the world is not being moralizing. It is common courtesy. This post, on the other hand, is moralizing. Because for God's sake, people... Really?

The suggestion that writers should consider making the people in the background of stories more representative of the population makes people balk and preemptively declare their independence from the shackles of something so basic as being thoughtful? It may be fashionably artistic to ignore human considerations, but does it truly add anything to good writing? Unless you're writing something far more edgy and rebellious than I'm accustomed to seeing here, I think the answer is no. If a writer is kicking up their heels at a more, value, tradition, etc., shouldn't it be done purposefully, and not out of negligence?

I think it's highly debatable whether writers have a free pass where it comes to social responsibility. (Yes, I've read oodles of essays penned by writers championing it as a pillar of artistic integrity, and yes, I know that means I'm not invited to the Christmas party.) But the point isn't whether a writer has a responsibility. Nobody has suggested that the quality, import, or meaning of anyone's writing should be sacrificed for "social responsibility."

I suggested that we could make an effort to make sure we didn't render people invisible out of carelessness. I'm not sure why that rubs people the wrong way.

 

[KeithD]

I did a Tag search for "bisexual" in all categories and it yielded over 9,000 story results, so obviously people are writing these stories and tagging them to be found.

71 with that tag would be from my accounts. None of them did as well here as elsewhere. All of them gave me pause on where to categorize them. Now I don't bother.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

No, the Web site has never, to my knowledge, responded on why they won't open that category. They don't have to, of course, they have the right to chose what their product is going to be. It isn't just bi. The site is heavily skewed to the hetero, offering a multitude of hetero categories, with reward systems set up for each category, but no bi category, and one GM, lesbian, and trans/crossing categories each...

If this site weren't bogged down by very old mechanics, it would probably allow filters so that you could define a category based on theme and then filter by sexual dynamic. Or vice versa. Sometimes the architecture of any database can become so archaic that it can no longer be exported without very significant manual intervention. Maybe that's what's going on. As you say, it's their site. We're fortunate to have the use of it.

 

[SimonDoom]

I would love to see the term "political correctness" disappear from the lexicon. It's a derisive term accepted for polite use and employed far too often to slap a label on something without addressing the merits of an argument. The dictionary has yet to take my views on any matter into consideration, of course.

Being considerate of other people and their place in the world is not being moralizing. It is common courtesy. This post, on the other hand, is moralizing. Because for God's sake, people... Really?

The suggestion that writers should consider making the people in the background of stories more representative of the population makes people balk and preemptively declare their independence from the shackles of something so basic as being thoughtful? It may be fashionably artistic to ignore human considerations, but does it truly add anything to good writing? Unless you're writing something far more edgy and rebellious than I'm accustomed to seeing here, I think the answer is no. If a writer is kicking up their heels at a more, value, tradition, etc., shouldn't it be done purposefully, and not out of negligence?

I think it's highly debatable whether writers have a free pass where it comes to social responsibility. (Yes, I've read oodles of essays penned by writers championing it as a pillar of artistic integrity, and yes, I know that means I'm not invited to the Christmas party.) But the point isn't whether a writer has a responsibility. Nobody has suggested that the quality, import, or meaning of anyone's writing should be sacrificed for "social responsibility."

I suggested that we could make an effort to make sure we didn't render people invisible out of carelessness. I'm not sure why that rubs people the wrong way.

A few thoughts. I take seriously what you have written and am trying to word this in a way that is not dismissive or slapdash.

There are a lot of assumptions embedded in your post. One, as I read it, is that people who get called "politically correct" are just trying to tell people to be more thoughtful, and who can possibly complain about that?

I just don't believe that at all. I don't find that to be true at all in my actual dealings with people. There's an assumption in that position, that, to be thoughtul, one must think and act the way I do. I don't agree. I think this is a big world, with many different ways of doing things, and there's room for people to act in ways that will rub other people the wrong way. I think, in fact, it's important to tolerate acting in ways that will rub some the other way. There's a big and valuable place in a civilized society for modes of expression that give offense.

It is true that some, probably myself included, make what might be seen as "anti-SJW" comments that may seem to caricature the so-called Social Justice Warrior crowd. That's probably so. But it also is very definitely true that there are many who do take up the Social Justice Warrior mantle and make comments that are so arrogant, dismissive of others, and ridiculous that they deserve to be caricatured and mocked. That, anyway, is my view. It's a big, complicated discussion, with many sides and legitimate perspectives. When I hear certain people say, "All we're doing is trying to get people to be more thoughtful" I often roll my eyes, because, that, in fact, is not at all what they're doing, and when they say that they sometimes show a lack of self-awareness and in fact are treating others they don't agree with with arrogance and dismissal.

I'm not accusing you of doing anything or lumping you in with that. I actually thought your previous post was thoughtful and well put and made me think about my own position. But I personally find the term "potitically correct" to be dead-on, accurate, and useful. I'm old enough to remember when it was used by certain people to describe themselves with all sincerity. I remember when people proudly wore "Politically Correct" buttons. I remember quite well the attitudes that tended to accompany people who wore those buttons. Then the term was turned against them by their critics as a term of mockery. In my view, they deserved it. They've been hoist with their own petard. And the attitudes that accompany "political correctness" still exist to this day. If you're politically correct, you don't see it, because all of us have trouble seeing our own foibles. But if you're not politically correct, you understand exactly what I mean.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

A few thoughts. I take seriously what you have written and am trying to word this in a way that is not dismissive or slapdash.

You beat me to taking down my earlier post, not because I don't stand behind it, but because it's counterproductive.

I'm not sure what I said to give you the impression that I assume people who are called "politically correct" are just trying to tell people to be more thoughtful. That would be an extremely narrow interpretation of the usage, and it's not how I view it. In my view, the term is frequently used as a logical shortcut, which is not to say a shortcut that is logical, but a shortcut of logic. It's a label used to discount views without ever addressing the views themselves.

I'm slightly less uncertain why you think that I believe being thoughtful means thinking and acting the way I do. You're incorrect, but at least I understand why you think that. However, if you re-read what I've written, I hope that you will not find support for that notion. If you do, feel free to let me know. I imagine that most of the things I get wrong are due to blind spots. I come with at least my fair share of things that need improvement, and I'm pretty open to being shown the error of my ways, provided that the error is my own and not one attributed to me as a member of a group of which I may or may not be a part.

Your observations about political correctness explains what has colored your thoughts on the subject. I don't think your experience has been dramatically different from other people who have drawn different conclusions. The inverse is true as well, so I don't think it's fair to assume people who have a different view haven't shared similar experiences.

You made a point of explaining why you feel those you would term politically correct are abrasive, rude, arrogant, and have been proven fools by history. No doubt they smell bad and their mothers dressed them funny, as well. It is clearly a deeply held sentiment anchored by emotional memory, and there is no point in me trying to disturb it. There's also no need.

I suggested that it would be helpful to make an effort not to accidentally and unconsciously delete a portion of society from the pages of literature. People should be able to address the essence of that thought without resorting to the label of "politically correct." Saying something is "politically correct" says very little at all. It is evocative, but not terribly substantive.

I objected to the application of the term as a tool for discussion. I have not addressed the merits of political correctness one way or the other. I'm sure you can tell that my own views on it are different than your own, but again, it's simply beside the point. Or, at least it is beside the point in my opinion.

I'm not going to continue to defend the suggestion that we should try to be more representative in our writing. It speaks for itself. I will, however, continue to ask that people meet the essence of the idea - the actual thought presented and not a categorical stamp - in their arguments against it. Or for it, for that matter.

 

[AlinaX]

... I personally find the term "potitically correct" to be dead-on, accurate, and useful. I'm old enough to remember when it was used by certain people to describe themselves with all sincerity. I remember when people proudly wore "Politically Correct" buttons. I remember quite well the attitudes that tended to accompany people who wore those buttons. Then the term was turned against them by their critics as a term of mockery. In my view, they deserved it. They've been hoist with their own petard. And the attitudes that accompany "political correctness" still exist to this day. If you're politically correct, you don't see it, because all of us have trouble seeing our own foibles. But if you're not politically correct, you understand exactly what I mean.

Indeed...

But! It's also true that in recent years 'political correctness' (along with 'snowflake' and, "Identity Politics!") has more often been used by reactionaries against inclusive language and respectful diversity.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I don't see the same logic applying in an erotic short story at Literotica. I can see it in a multi-chaptered story with many characters, but so far I haven't written a story like that. For me, what matters is not realism but the erotic focus. Everything revolves around that. I don't feel any obligation to write my story in a socially responsible way. All that matters is the "art" (generously defined) or the kink that is the focus of the story.

As I said, it's not about any one story. It's about the pattern.

It's like that time back in the 1990s when Les Misérables was a big thing, and every busker on every street corner was playing "Castle On A Cloud". It's a good song, and taken individually most of them were good performances, but there's only so much one can take before it gets a bit monotonous.

Literotica sometimes feels... like that, only it's been twenty years and we're still playing "Castle on a Cloud". There are other songs and it'd be nice to hear them a bit more often.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Indeed...

But! It's also true that in recent years 'political correctness' (along with 'snowflake' and, "Identity Politics!") has more often been used by reactionaries against inclusive language and respectful diversity.

Yep. Nine times out of ten "politically correct", used as a term of opprobium, translates to "treating people with respect".

 

[Bramblethorn]

Do you know what the objection to the category was? It seems so non-controversial.

IIRC, part of the response was that while a person might be bisexual, any given sex act would fall under one of Gay, Lesbian, Default Hetero^W^WErotic Couplings, or Group Sex, so stories would be categorised accordingly.

I'm not sold on this argument - I think it falls down for longer stories following a bi character through life, where there's no one category that's a good fit for the story as a whole. But that was the argument I recall hearing.

 

[KeithD]

I don't recall hearing any response at all--other than posting that there was no intention to add the category, and posting that on an entirely different board from the one where a claimed sanctioned discussion on the issue had been running for eighteen months.

In any case, the key here is reader response, and the preferences covered in a bisexual category story are quite often disparate enough that only readers looking for bisexual content seem to be fully agreeable to find that content in one story.

It's sort of like the separate LGBT discussion board here--it includes so many disparate preferences in one glop that I don't have much interest in checking in on it.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

IIRC, part of the response was that while a person might be bisexual, any given sex act would fall under one of Gay, Lesbian, Default Hetero^W^WErotic Couplings, or Group Sex, so stories would be categorised accordingly.

I'm not sold on this argument - I think it falls down for longer stories following a bi character through life, where there's no one category that's a good fit for the story as a whole. But that was the argument I recall hearing.

Thanks! It makes more sense from that perspective, but yeah, it falls apart over larger arcs. I do understand why there's resistance to letting the categories proliferate, as it could easily get unwieldy.