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

[LongDraw]

Thank you for this insight from the reader's perspective, LongDraw! Could you maybe state your preferences in a positive way too, i.e., elaborating on the physical descriptions of a woman that rather turn you on than off?

Sure, just be forewarned that the positives far outweigh the negatives in sheer number and I'd have to type it up on my computer (phone I'm on right now is low battery atm lol).

To give a short run down though:
Feminine, Athletic, flexible, vibrant
Curvy, vivacious, busty, sumptuous, bubble butt
BBW, pillows for breasts, baby-making hips, badonka donk butt

Also, mature, pregnant, heavy sagging breasts

To get away from the stereotypical chauvinistic descriptions:
Plump full lips, long ear lobes, as well as the knees, legs, ankles, feet and toes can be described in a very sexy way without being obnoxiously sexual.

Hope that helps you

 

[davion2308]

The answer to me is "Whatever fits."

For example, I have an exhib/voyeur story about a woman who's not in the best of shape and doesn't have a model's body. But she pushes herself with exposing her body because it's something her boyfriend really likes and it's about building self-confidence. That one has score north of 4.5 because it does a good job addressing her issues with self-image while still being sexy.

I have another story that has an "H" and it's about djinn, a genie in Somalia, who's female and has the body of an Olympic swimmer basically, and is perfection on earth. That story also has a high score.

Successful body types that fit within the story and give it realism are what work the best. You're basically asking if a blonde is hotter than a redhead and we're more interested in who that woman is.

 

[ManitowocMike]

Go-go:

"He began to get hard as he watched the gorgeous taxi dancer up on the stage turning and swirling on the pole. Really hard, it of course started in his balls and immediately traveled to his dick before immobilizing his pelvis making him unable to stand. Doomed by his own lust, he sat at the bar transfixed and enjoyed the way she moved, in sync with the music, wearing nothing but her stilettos and costume wings. The light color and delicacy of both only serving to enhance her ebony skin tone.

"Marc, had he been a more literary type, and given to reading the classics, would perhaps thought about those jade snake and brass heads on the ends of her tight little cornrows... He might not be struggling to breathe as he watched the twirling assassin whose driver licence read "Gorgo Medusa..."

 

[ManitowocMike]

'Course lotsa folk also liked:

"You look like shit, Maybelle."

"Thank's, Earl," the waitress said, "you know I keep up my appearances just for you."

 

[Djmac1031]

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

My most popular female character is a petite little redhead with freckles and small boobs.

Someone even made some fan art of her.

 

[Lovecraft_Lore]

I had a woman with a prehensile tail that she used to sodomizes a Prego and ate people she murdered. She was a curly red head.

I think the story focus impacts the female description of outward appearance. Stories that are told from the female perspective, it might be best to leave it without a description so the female reader can put herself into the story.

There is a large number of escapist wish-fulfillment stories were the guy is a millionaire with a huge dick and all the women have DD sized breasts.

 

[Salacious_Scribe]

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

I generally try to avoid over dexcribing my characters. Long lithe body and frosted blonde hair.

For an average character I wouldnrmt describe the person. Maybe something like...

Sherry never saw anything special about herself. If asked she would describe herself as a plain jane. Her work clothes were knee length brown or gray skirts and a blouse in some shade of off white.

I never said a word about her appearance but everyone knows exactly how she looks and walks, and each oerson has a different image, all valid.

 

[stickygirl]

The more detail you add to a description, the more you alienate readers who don't share those characteristics as being hot or attractive. Zoom in too close and you lose flexibility in the readers interpretation - you end up taking their choice away. Generally I'll focus on faces, hair, fingers, limbs because those hint without being heavy-footed.

If I read 38D outside of the setting of a lingerie fitting, I'll leave the story.

As a side note, on first reading the OPs title, it did sound like the kind of purile notes that boys kept at school, where they graded girls by how attractive they thought they were. This isn't far off that under the guise of creativity.

 

[Djmac1031]

I wanted to contribute to this conversation more than the picture I posted earlier lol.

As a READER: while I like physical descriptions, if they get too over the top, it takes me out of the story.

I honestly hate the trap most writers here set for themselves of feeling like they have to give a fully detailed, checklist style description of each character as she or he is introduced. Although I've probably been guilty of it myself.

It's something I'm trying to find a balance with; giving the character enough of a description for the reader to visualize them but not beating them over the head with exact measurements or overly detailed descriptors.

On my story The White Room, I intentionally left my physical descriptions of both characters very vague so that readers could insert themselves into the story, or insert their ideal type of person they'd enjoy "seeing" in the scenario the story describes.

And I got very positive feedback for that.

My Jenna series, on the other hand, I've certainly fleshed out the female physical characteristics in more detail, because they're much more specific characters. I've also tried to give them different personalities as well, of course, so they're more well rounded characters and not simply a variety of sexually appealing women.

In the end, it depends on the story, and the writer of course.

 

[windar]

As a side note, on first reading the OPs title, it did sound like the kind of purile notes that boys kept at school, where they graded girls by how attractive they thought they were. This isn't far off that under the guise of creativity.

That's how Facebook started...

 

[stickygirl]

That's how Facebook started...

Meh... I wasn't meaning to bitch about it, because in the context of writing I think it's fair enough. All the same, that's where my thoughts went first. So..

 

[JuanaSalsa]

The more detail you add to a description, the more you alienate readers who don't share those characteristics as being hot or attractive.

On the other hand, a story that describes a short, fat, middle-aged woman with all the typical negative physical descriptions, as intensely attractive to the first person narrator really turns me on, lol - way more than a story with no physical description which I inevitably imagine as looking nothing like me.

A story doesn't have to appeal to everyone, after all. Sometimes it can be more powerful because it's so directed to a particular audience.

 

[yowser]

A number of folks have said minimal is the way to go, let readers fill in the blanks.

This doesn’t work for me. If you only give me a couple data points, all I have to work with is a straight line. For me it is not so much the quantity of detail as the quality.

Here is where the measurement obsession is wildly counter-productive - it tells the reader almost Nothing about the character. Having a chest of such-and-such a size does not illuminate except in the most basic way. But have someone squint into the sun while they’re talking, tell me how they hunch their shoulders when they’re nervous, fidget with their hands in a conversation, carefully stuff said chest into bra that isn't quite adequate for the task – all of those exhibit some facet of the character to make them interesting, a sweet visual bit of shorthand that the reader can then understand without a lot of exposition.

It is usually not ‘too much’ detail that is off-putting, just too much of the wrong kind of detail.

 

[Djmac1031]

It is usually not ‘too much’ detail that is off-putting, just too much of the wrong kind of detail.

I think that's kinda what I was trying to say, but you said it better

Colorful descriptions can be wonderful.

Detailed measurements, not so much.

 

[stickygirl]

On the other hand, a story that describes a short, fat, middle-aged woman with all the typical negative physical descriptions, as intensely attractive to the first person narrator really turns me on, lol - way more than a story with no physical description which I inevitably imagine as looking nothing like me.

A story doesn't have to appeal to everyone, after all. Sometimes it can be more powerful because it's so directed to a particular audience.

So we're both correct You're describing the niche market created by including extra detail and less ambiguity. The AH and OP is interested in creating broad appeal, higher ratings and Booker prize.

The OP also mentions a singular appearance in female characters. If that's correct and not a typo, then we should be indicating legs or boobs or bums

 

[Auden James]

A number of folks have said minimal is the way to go, let readers fill in the blanks.

This doesn’t work for me. If you only give me a couple data points, all I have to work with is a straight line. For me it is not so much the quantity of detail as the quality.

I'm kinda surprised too that most participants on here seem to think that "vague is best" when it comes to the physical description of female characters. Though, alas, it's not become wholly clear, at least to my mind, if they were talking only about their personal preferences in writing a/o reading, or if they truly shared what was most successful with their readers?

I, for one, sympathize more with with your take: no (or virtually nil) description of outward appearance rather strikes me as kind of unimaginative or "lazy" writing where the writer couldn't even be bothered to come up with a clear picture of her own characters. And since we're talking about erotica here isn't that—the physical aspect—integral to the whole?

Here is where the measurement obsession is wildly counter-productive - it tells the reader almost Nothing about the character. Having a chest of such-and-such a size does not illuminate except in the most basic way.

Still, it illuminates more than revealing nothing at all (what most others here seem to favor)!

It is usually not ‘too much’ detail that is off-putting, just too much of the wrong kind of detail.

Exactly! And as you were so kind already as to quote Nabokov on the issue in your signature, I'll just add that what ultimately sets supreme writing apart from the merely great is all in the details. As the man himself said so in his lecture "The Art of Literature and Commonsense" where he extols the "supremacy of the detail over the general, of the part that is more alive than the whole, of the little thing which a man observes and greets with a friendly nod of the spirit while the crowd around him is being driven by some common impulse to some common goal."

My Jenna series, on the other hand, I've certainly fleshed out the female physical characteristics in more detail, because they're much more specific characters. I've also tried to give them different personalities as well, of course, so they're more well rounded characters and not simply a variety of sexually appealing women.

And it's the Jenna story, the one with the greater detail, which got some fan art made!

The OP also mentions a singular appearance in female characters. If that's correct and not a typo, then we should be indicating legs or boobs or bums

I'm not sure which "typo" you're alluding to, but yes, I think that legs, boobs, and bums are all part of a character's physical appearance. And, yes, it might be so that there's a certain body part whose description trumps all others as far as success with readers is concerned!

And, holy mackeral, to figure out things like that is just the purpose of this thread!

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm kinda surprised too that most participants on here seem to think that "vague is best" when it comes to the physical description of female characters. Though, alas, it's not become wholly clear, at least to my mind, if they were talking only about their personal preferences in writing a/o reading, or if they truly shared what was most successful with their readers?

I, for one, sympathize more with with your take: no (or virtually nil) description of outward appearance rather strikes me as kind of unimaginative or "lazy" writing where the writer couldn't even be bothered to come up with a clear picture of her own characters. And since we're talking about erotica here isn't that—the physical aspect—integral to the whole?

"Vague" is the way it's usually done in fiction. Scan novels and stories from the 1700s to the present and you'll see that the most common way to do things is to be vague about physical descriptions. Jane Austen never describes Elizabeth Bennet, her heroine. I don't think it's lazy; it's deliberate. The physical description is not needed for the purposes of the story. The reader can imagine the character in whatever way he or she wants.

Erotic stories present a choice. On the one hand, you can write an erotic story the way most fiction is written: with relatively minimal physical description. This method allows the reader to imagine the character in whatever way is arousing or appealing to the reader. On the other hand, you can describe your character in detail to appeal to the particular interests of some of your readers. The problem with this approach is you may lose readers who don't share the appetite for those particular features. The safer choice is not to present much detail. But if the story has a particularly fetishy quality to it then description may be helpful.

I go both ways on this issue, because on the one hand I see the logic of keeping it vague, but on the other hand I know what I like and I like writing characters that embody features that I find attractive or arousing. I think there are stories where that approach works.

But getting back to your original question, which is a good one: I don't think there's an answer. Having published 47 stories here, I haven't noticed any correlation between the "success" of one of my stories with the degree to which it specifically describes the physical appearance of the female character. I can't recall, for example, having received many or any comments from readers that suggest the degree of description was important. The all-important factor is whether and how a detailed description fits with the needs of the story. In most stories, I don't think a detailed description serves much purpose. But in some, it does.

 

[Auden James]

"Vague" is the way it's usually done in fiction. Scan novels and stories from the 1700s to the present and you'll see that the most common way to do things is to be vague about physical descriptions.

Be that as it may, it doesn't address my question at all because I didn't want to know what is or has been commonplace in mainstream fiction, but what is actually most successful with erotica readers today!

Erotic stories present a choice. On the one hand, you can write an erotic story the way most fiction is written: with relatively minimal physical description. This method allows the reader to imagine the character in whatever way is arousing or appealing to the reader.

Well, the all-important word you used here is "relatively." But what do you mean by "relatively minimal physical description?" What kind of writing constitutes that? And even if you meant by it using nothing else but some general physical descriptors like "blonde," "fat," or "tall," it would still provide some basis to answer my question!

On the other hand, you can describe your character in detail to appeal to the particular interests of some of your readers. The problem with this approach is you may lose readers who don't share the appetite for those particular features. The safer choice is not to present much detail. But if the story has a particularly fetishy quality to it then description may be helpful.

So what do you make of guys like yowser and myself who prefer their characters to be flleshed out in detail? You seem to presume that in giving only vague or no descriptions at all you wouldn't lose any readers because everyone would be happy and free to imagine whatever they liked, yet there evidently exists a subset of readers who you do lose because of not fleshing out your characters in detail. And I don't see at all how that reader loss would be strictly limited to fetish material! Except, of course, if you were to regard physical description as being "fetishy" in and of itself . . .

But getting back to your original question, which is a good one: I don't think there's an answer. Having published 47 stories here, I haven't noticed any correlation between the "success" of one of my stories with the degree to which it specifically describes the physical appearance of the female character.

Again, my question didn't regard only (or even mainly) the quantity, but rather the quality of physical description provided! I didn't query how much, but rather what kind of description is most successful with readers (though, admittedly, quantity may certainly be of import here at some point as you can surely overdo it just like anything else).

 

[SimonDoom]

So what do you make of guys like yowser and myself who prefer their characters to be flleshed out in detail? You seem to presume that in giving only vague or no descriptions at all you wouldn't lose any readers because everyone would be happy and free to imagine whatever they liked, yet there evidently exists a subset of readers who you do lose because of not fleshing out your characters in detail. And I don't see at all how that reader loss would be strictly limited to fetish material! Except, of course, if you were to regard physical description as being "fetishy" in and of itself . . .

Again, my question didn't regard only (or even mainly) the quantity, but rather the quality of physical description provided! I didn't query how much, but rather what kind of description is most successful with readers (though, admittedly, quantity may certainly be of import here at some point as you can surely overdo it just like anything else).

It's possible I lose readers because of not providing more description, but I don't see any evidence of it. I see no evidence one way or another.

I am a visual person who is attentive to and attracted to visual details, so I actually DO tend to add certain details about appearance, but not all. For instance, I tend to like fit, slender, athletic women over 40. Very often, I write my women protagonists that way, because that's what's sexy to me. I will mention things such as the fact that they run, and that they're slender, or perhaps mention the appearance of their abs. I switch it up with things like hair color or eye color. That doesn't matter much. I don't get into breast cup size numbers, or other measurements in inches.

To try to answer your question--and I think it is a very good question--more helpfully, I DO think it's good to provide just enough detail, and no more, to give the reader a sense, roughly, of the physical type of character you are writing about. For instance, if you say that a character is a marathon runner, that creates a different image from the image one conjures up if you say she is a belly dancer. I think details like that are helpful. But once you've said something like that, the reader can fill in the rest. Most readers don't need measurements. But my sense is that some readers DO like knowing that the woman character has 38DD breasts. It's perfectly legitimate to write a story to appeal to those readers. But I don't think you are going to get anything more than a speculative answer about what readers in general want. As I say, I've written 47 stories with a lot of views, and I've received almost no feedback on this issue. I would just be guessing about what my readers want. I know what I like, and that's what I tend to write.

 

[Auden James]

For instance, I tend to like fit, slender, athletic women over 40. Very often, I write my women protagonists that way, because that's what's sexy to me. . . . As I say, I've written 47 stories with a lot of views, and I've received almost no feedback on this issue. I would just be guessing about what my readers want. I know what I like, and that's what I tend to write.

Well, wouldn't you consider it fair then to say that you cannot go wrong with "fit, slender, athletic women over 40" as female heroines in erotica? For as you say so yourself your stories have received "a lot of views," and if your preferred kind of description would indeed turn too many readers off, how would your stories then have received so many views in the first place?

 

[SimonDoom]

Well, wouldn't you consider it fair then to say that you cannot go wrong with "fit, slender, athletic women over 40" as female heroines in erotica? For as you say so yourself your stories have received "a lot of views," and if your preferred kind of description would indeed turn too many readers off, how would your stories then have received so many views in the first place?

Excellent point. I would say based on my own personal experience that whatever I'm doing seems to work OK, but I have no idea whether things might have worked out even better if I'd done it differently. I'm thinking about this and making it up as I go, because when I wrote I didn't have an explicit "philosophy" or set of rules about how to approach this issue. I would say figurative language is important. "She looked like a belly dancer" is probably a better way to describe a female character than to go into great detail about her hair and skin color and her body dimensions in inches or centimeters. It gives the reader what the reader needs to know, and the reader can fill in the numbers to his or her satisfaction. I'd say this, further: a little goes a long way. If you offer just the right detail, in the right way, then you may be able to skip the rest. There are some adjectives I like. For instance, the word "lithe." That captures in my mind an image that is attractive to me. Once I've used that word, I don't need to say a lot more.

But I have NO idea whether male readers would rather read a story about a woman who is "lithe" as opposed to "buxom." My highly speculative sense is that this choice matters much less than your ability as an author artfully to describe whatever sexy body type your female character has.

 

[jehoram]

Well, one thing that ruins the story for me, at least in part, is any mention of bra measurements such as 32-C or 44-DD. It doesn't give me any real gauge to what the woman's breasts are really like.

The more real naked women you see outside of porn, the more you realize that women's breasts come in all shapes and sizes, and very few of them look like Playboy centerfolds. So if I'm mentioning them at all in a story, I like to point out one or two things that make them distinct from other women's breasts, such as nipple or areola size or color, or the way a breast sags or swings. If I happen to see a particular woman in a room full of naked women, what's the thing that makes her different from the rest?

The same thing applies to vulvas, although the variation isn't as visible. But is there hair there? What color and thickness and texture?

And faces... nose shape, eye color, eyebrows, and so on. What color is her lipstick?

If you're not going for specifics, it's usually best to only delineate only what makes that character different from the rest, and leave it up to the reader to assign a body size or shape to the reader.

And yeah, this is advice that I don't follow all the time.

 

[Auden James]

Well, one thing that ruins the story for me, at least in part, is any mention of bra measurements such as 32-C or 44-DD. It doesn't give me any real gauge to what the woman's breasts are really like.

Oh my, not wanting to toot my own horn, but then you must surely dislike my story "Hard Measures," wherein the heroine's 34DDs play a prominent role! Though, admittedly, I also describe her chest in less numerical ways . . .

Anyway, I fully agree with you that the multitude of female shapes and sizes is nearly overwhelming. All the more, I think, that ought to give erotica writers reason to mark out their female characters from this amorphous multitude! After all, isn't their physical aspect part of the unique individuality that makes striking characters so striking?

 

[SS100]

I think at least healthy and above average in every department is what works best. So like something someone can aspire to with work.