Which Physical Appearance of Female Characters Is the Most Successful with Readers?

[Auden James]

There are thousands of stories and thousands of different characters who populate said stories (and, potentially, those yet unwritten). But which description of outward appearance, which physiognomy or "body form" is the one most popular with readers?

Let's discuss this here for female characters!

What is your experience, fellow writers, whom do your readers like to read about the most? The blonde, the brunette, or the redhead? The big-titted, the fat-bottomed, or the anorexic female? What about hands and feet, noses and mouths, not to forget eyes and ears?

Rather seldom, methinks, writers on here dare to wax poetic about the pudendal details of their female characters' physical form. Why is that? Do our readers not like to read about beef curtains, blooming flowers, or serried clams?

I'm looking forward to your answers!

—AJ

 

[HeyAll]

Interesting question. I'd have to say 'average' is the most popular. People love the idea of an 'average' woman doing naughty things. It makes for compelling erotica.

In video people, big breasts are popular, but that doesn't always translate to erotica. If you describe big breasts in erotica it can often sound tacky and/or you're making something tacky. Same goes for small breasts. They look great in real life, but if you describe them too small, some people don't like it.

 

[TxRad]

Simple answer to a question that has no answer. Vague. Basic description and let the reader fill in the blanks as they like.

 

[Auden James]

I'd have to say 'average' is the most popular.

But what does the average fictional female in erotica look like exactly? What kind of physical descriptions given of fictional female characters are "average?"

 

[Auden James]

Basic description and let the reader fill in the blanks as they like.

So in your experience your readers actually prefer to have as little description as reasonably possible? How come? Did they tell you that they disliked it when you gave them more detailed character descriptions?

 

[TxRad]

Nope. People fantasize in their on ways with their own models. Letting them fill in the blanks can let them personize a story.

 

[Auden James]

Letting them fill in the blanks can let them personize a story.

It can also leave them dry, don't you agree?

 

[SimonDoom]

Great question! But I would say, based on my own experience as an author, and from having read hundreds of stories and looked at the responses to them, that there's no answer.

This is what I think: As an author, you can find one little turn of phrase to describe a woman, or a man, and if it's the right turn of phrase it outweighs anything else. It can be exquisitely detailed and physical, or metaphorical.

The key is to appeal to the emotion, not to describe something physical. I truly believe that. I think many readers are perfectly happy to fill in the physical details themselves.

 

[lovecraft68]

Here's my answer to this and many questions posed here that don't have a simple factual answer.
Who cares? Write your story describe in detail or be vague, write one story one way and one the other, or find an in between.
There is no common answer in regards to what readers like, therefore we should write what we want, and see what happens, and what will happen is some will love it, some won't but...very few will let you know one way or another.
I haven't given a fuck about what works better than what else since I started here. I've done just fine.

 

[Auden James]

So you cannot observe any difference in the popularity of your stories in relation to the physical descriptions of the respective female heroines? Interesting, to say the least . . . Have no readers ever commented on any of your heroines being "sexy," "hot," or anything even remotely comparable? Do none of them care about the physical appearance of your heroines?

 

[NotWise]

So you cannot observe any difference in the popularity of your stories in relation to the physical descriptions of the respective female heroines? Interesting, to say the least . . . Have no readers ever commented on any of your heroines being "sexy," "hot," or anything even remotely comparable? Do none of them care about the physical appearance of your heroines?

I've had very few comments on the appearance of my female characters, with the exception of Mel in "Valentine's for Cinderella." In that case the comments weren't because she looked sexy or hot, but because her description reminded people of one or more well-known dancers.

If I were to try to create a sexy or hot impression, I wouldn't depend on physical description to do it, but on characterization. Different readers respond differently to different physical features, but I can make a character sexy or hot with a glance.

 

[Auden James]

In that case the comments weren't because she looked sexy or hot, but because her description reminded people of one or more well-known dancers.

Well, but at least your readers recognized the physical description you gave them, which means that they actually cared or were "affected" by it somehow!

If I were to try to create a sexy or hot impression, I wouldn't depend on physical description to do it, but on characterization. Different readers respond differently to different physical features, but I can make a character sexy or hot with a glance.

Physical description is part of characterization, isn't it? Of course, readers have their preferences (otherwise the question this thread poses would be practically meaningless), but I for one wouldn't find your one-eyed, buck-toothed heroine deformed by rickets sexy or hot, no matter how expertly you'd describe her glance.

Though, naturally, by leaving out her physical description I wouldn't know anything about her being challenged in the looks department . . . But wouldn't I thereby also be missing an integral part of her character?

 

[gunhilltrain]

I have no idea what the readers think about that. It seems that the physical appearance of the female characters usually doesn't have a bearing on how well a story is received. I remember few if any comments about what they look like. Hair color, body shape, or the appearance of their genitals have never been mentioned by them.

What the characters say, do, and think is what seems to count. I tend to make them smart and witty, which usually goes over well. As someone wrote, "I really enjoyed reading this. [She's] such an interesting character, and this is only from me reading this chapter."

 

[NotWise]

Well, but at least your readers recognized the physical description you gave them, which means that they actually cared or were "affected" by it somehow!

I put more effort into that description than I normally do.

Physical description is part of characterization, isn't it? Of course, readers have their preferences (otherwise the question this thread poses would be practically meaningless), but I for one wouldn't find your one-eyed, buck-toothed heroine deformed by rickets sexy or hot, no matter how expertly you'd describe her glance.

Though, naturally, by leaving out her physical description I wouldn't know anything about her being challenged in the looks department . . . But wouldn't I thereby also be missing an integral part of her character?

Physical description isn't inherently part of characterization, but it can be used that way to a highly variable degree. I think some writers would like to simplify characterization down to a bra size and/or hair color, and maybe that fulfills their purpose. I don't lean in that direction. In my most recent story, the main female character is intentionally plain, but she's sexually motivated. No complaints so far.

 

[Winter_Fare]

Depends on the category, right? And whether the story is involved enough for her other attributes to be more or as important than her appearance.

So many other things affect the ratings especially between categories and I don't have a gazillion stories to compare. My best rated stuff is split between erotic horror and non human, and most have graphic descriptions of hypersexual curvy succubi and vamps. My most highly rated horror story has a dying but horny one armed woman MC who'd had a double mastectomy and turns into a plant. Go figure that one out

 

[Auden James]

It seems that the physical appearance of the female characters usually doesn't have a bearing on how well a story is received. I remember few if any comments about what they look like.

I don't think that explicit comments about the physical appearance of your female characters are a necessary precondition to recognizing certain voting patterns (or comparable measures of reader success), or do you think otherwise?

What the characters say, do, and think is what seems to count. I tend to make them smart and witty, which usually goes over well.

So you'd say that physical appearance doesn't matter at all, as long you make your characters "smart and witty?" If that's so, I'd like to know how extensive your descriptions of physical appearance usually tend to be, if provided at all that is. Because, as I pointed out above in my reply to NotWise, the less description there is given, the less there is for readers to recognize! Case in point:

Well, but at least your readers recognized the physical description you gave them, which means that they actually cared or were "affected" by it somehow!

I put more effort into that description than I normally do.

I daresay that NotWise's readers started recognizing his heroine's appearance (and liking her story more for it) precisely because NotWise provided them with a detailed description thereof in the first place!

Physical description isn't inherently part of characterization . . .

Well, Dean R. Koontz—to lean on the authority of one of the most popular writers of all time—tends to disagree, I quote from his book How to Write Best-Selling Ficion (p. 151):

In order to focus your attention and in order to make your fictional people seem solid to you while you are developing them, it is not a bad idea to draw up a list of character details on each of them . . . These character detail lists—perhaps I ought to call them "dossiers" henceforth—should include, but not be limited to, information about the following:

Physical appearance: height, weight; body type; age; the shape of the mouth and nose; the shape of the face; the color and quality of the eyes; the color, texture, and length of the hair; the shade and texture of the skin; birthmarks; the size and condition of the hands; manner of dress; et cetera.​

Physical appearance tops Koontz's list which forms the basis of well-rounded characters!

But it might be, however, as Winter_Fare implies, that the physical description most successful with readers in one genre of stories might not necessarily be equally as successful in a different one. Though I find it quite conceivable that even for something as specialized as succubi stories there might be a certain demonic description that is more successful with readers of that particular genre than most—if not all—other ones. As Winter_Fare said herself: most of her "best rated stuff" features "descriptions of hypersexual curvy succubi and vamps."

 

[YDB95]

The best feedback I've received regarding my female characters' appearance is that I avoided the usual erotica cliches (i.e. always the blonde with big breasts and that's the first and only thing we learn about her). Some of my characters are blonde, some have big breasts, but I don't let that be their defining characteristic. (I guess "D Cup Blues" is an exception, but as the title suggests, Caryn doesn't like her big breasts very much. So it's a matter of personal growth as she learns to accept them.) My fans tell me I'm great with body positivity and having realistic-looking characters who, well, have sex just like beautiful people in the movies do.

So I guess the short answer is, don't get hung up on any one body type, and don't let that be the character's defining characteristic.

 

[NotWise]

It would be possible to write an erotic story in which the main female character is a voice on the telephone. I'm not about to claim that it would qualify as best-selling fiction, but I'd consider trying it, and placing the result in Toys and Masturbation.

It's probably been done.

 

[JGittes]

It would be possible to write an erotic story in which the main female character is a voice on the telephone. I'm not about to claim that it would qualify as best-selling fiction, but I'd consider trying it, and placing the result in Toys and Masturbation.

It's probably been done.

It's been done as a movie. Lucy, I think.

 

[SimonDoom]

So you cannot observe any difference in the popularity of your stories in relation to the physical descriptions of the respective female heroines? Interesting, to say the least . . . Have no readers ever commented on any of your heroines being "sexy," "hot," or anything even remotely comparable? Do none of them care about the physical appearance of your heroines?

I've published 47 stories, almost all of which are focused on the sexiness of women. My stories have had millions of views. And my response to your question, which is a good and interesting question, is . . . no.

I think readers respond to how much authors love and/or are turned on by their characters, and how they express that in words. I see no evidence at all, in my stories and the comments I receive, that they are focused on how I describe what they look like. Vague descriptions of personal appearance are all that is needed.

For instance, I think readers would be much more turned on by a story in which the author deftly and erotically described a small-busted woman, than by a story in which an author clumsily described a big-busted one.

 

[purplishy]

It's been done as a movie. Lucy, I think.

That's Her (2013) where Scarlett Johansson is a sexy computer voice. To be fair, Lucy (2014) also features Scarlett Johansson as a sexy computer voice.

To the OP: I write stories that feature growth, usually breast expansion and sometimes other bits as well! My experience has been that in many of the best stories in this genre, character descriptions really are the single most important thing. In some cases, they are the entire story.

I think you're more likely to see long character descriptions in expansion stories because it heightens the erotic allure, just as other fetishes would be highlighted in their respective erotica, and isn't that what it's all about?

 

[JGittes]

That's Her (2013) where Scarlett Johansson is a sexy computer voice. To be fair, Lucy (2014) also features Scarlett Johansson as a sexy computer voice.

...

That's a bingo. I stand corrected. Scarlett Johansson is a seriously underrated actor and I wish Spike Jones would make more films.

 

[PennameWombat]

There are thousands of stories and thousands of different characters who populate said stories (and, potentially, those yet unwritten). But which description of outward appearance, which physiognomy or "body form" is the one most popular with readers?

<snip>

—AJ

No one has told me. Nope, no one has specifically commented on my stories to say they liked or disliked my physical description of my female characters. So I can't and won't bother answering your question.

I tend to have fewer blondes, more brunettes of all kinds of shades along with lots of redheads ("hair the color of a spectacular sunset"). I have voluptuous women and I have petite ones who describe themselves as "I'm like a teenage boy!" I have ones who are very athletic and a variety of other body types.

I have readers who reacted to liking my two leads from "You Promised me Geeks," - Asha is voluptuous, biracial (Tracy describes her skin as "latte colored"), with red hair that's an odd crimson shade and very outgoing. Tracy is pale, petite, thin, with dark brunette hair and has small breasts and narrow hips (she's the one who refers to her body as akin to a teenage boy's) and she was quite shy but Asha is pulling her out of her shell. But the reactions said nothing about their physical descriptions, rather the comments referred to the aspects that they'd become great friends (and occasional lovers) who have adventures together (usually they're threatened with death and dismemberment when they're not fucking each other or seducing or being seduced by men and/or women).

You seem to have a point of view and expect everyone else to validate it for you and jump up and down in agreement. I do often provide physical descriptions, usually via PoV of other characters as opposed to narrative, so it builds. There are some stories that I guess Dean Koontz would hate of mine because I give sketchier descriptions, but I DGAFF. Probably why he's a rich author and I'm not. But the intent of these is to keep a character less defined, either to leave questions to the reader or mostly to indicate the attitude of my PoV characters doing the describing (they don't notice or don't care.)

On the other hand, of Mel (aka, Devil Girl) Asha said "if Brandi's surgeon touched up her nose, she'd be nuts beautiful." But the only other mention ever of said nose is "it's a bit sharpish." So... said nose isn't obviously a major issue, but something that can be noticed, if you're of a mind to. But no, no reader has ever reacted to it (well, they've never passed their reaction on to me.)

Having those details allows you to better relate characters to each other when writing them, it doesn't mean you have to include them in your actual story, just that you should be aware of those details for your character.

I have pages of notes on personality and appearance for some of the characters I've written novels about. About 1/10th of that actually makes it into the story.
<snip>

And, this. I know most of these details. But I'm not going to slavishly follow Koontz's instructions and dump it all in the story.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Vague descriptions of personal appearance are all that is needed.

For instance, I think readers would be much more turned on by a story in which the author deftly and erotically described a small-busted woman, than by a story in which an author clumsily described a big-busted one.

I've found that if a character is described in too much detail, then readers who were happily visualising themselves or someone they know as the character will get jerked out of the story if a detail which doesn't match their imagination is mentioned. And nothing makes for unhappy readers like being interrupted in their fantasy.

You can go too far the other way - I've learnt to make the sex of the narrator clear in the first two paragraphs, to avoid complaints - but generally a broad-brush description in the first 1000 words (if a story is 10k or more) is probably a good idea.

Beyond that, the looks aren't that important - it's what you do with them that counts.

 

[jsmiam]

OP, you have some clear beliefs, nothing wrong with that. It seems like you asked and are trying to talk others out of what they think too though.

I’ll relate my own case; without saying what it is, (it’s nothing obvious), I have a few “back key body types” for me. So I know without a doubt at least one user (me) who stops reading over certain things. And it’s a waste. Body types usually aren’t that important, unless it goes with the plot (ballerina, sumo wrestler, basketball player.)

So. I don’t keep reading just for a body type I like.

But I do stop reading for ones I’m annoyed by.

That’s just me, but I bet I’m not alone. So, when I write, I lean toward implying the main character (always first person in my case) finds the other(s) attractive, but not necessarily through detailed descriptions