Men's and Women's

[dr_mabeuse]

Alll generalizations are false, right?

Is there such a thing as men's erotica vs women's erotica?

The stereotypes are as follows:

!. Men's erotica tends to be visual and objective.
Women's erotica tends to be emotional and subjective

2. Men like their stories to be almost all sex. The sooner they jump into the sack, the better.
Women like to know the setting and the social context of what's going on before any sex happens. They like a slow build-up.

3. Men like to read the concrete details of the sexual act; who did what to whom and how.
Women are not especially moved by the physical details. They like to know the circumstances that led up to the act.

4. For men, the climax is the climax.
For women, the climax is when the couple has sex.

Yet since I've been writing, I find more and more women who like what I would consider to be more "male" erotica. I don't see any men crossing over into "female" erotica though.

---Dr. Mabeuse

 

[Whispersecret]

I know several men who would rather read a story with a build-up than just jump right in to the sex. Of course, they're all writers, and so they value the development of plot and character, perhaps more than your average reader.

 

[M.A.Thompson]

I don't see any men crossing over into "female" erotica though.

Let's see: I chose nursing as a career, I love show tunes, and now it turns out I have "crossed over" into "female" erotica. I am a woman trapped in a mans body. However, I am sure I must be a lesbian because I just love women too much!!!!

All joking aside, call me what you want but I lean more to the "female" side of the good Dr_Mabeuses list in both my writing and reading tastes. And I know many other men who feel the same (and they arn't all nurses either!)

 

[karmadog]

I am a male who bartended in some pretty tough joints over the years and never got my ass kicked. I've bounced bikers, cops, drug dealers, and gangbangers, and I prefer a story with a story. I won't bother reading a stroke story.

Generalizations aren't necessarily false, just frequuently misused or misapplied, and sometimes mistaken for a universal truth.

 

[jon.hayworth]

dr_mabeuse

I think that you are falling into the trap of believing the generalisations, that de-individualizes people.

I am a man and I like stories that have developed characters and form. To be honest I find most sub thousand words "Jack-off" stories to be boring. I like having to use my imagination both when I am reading a story and when I am writing stories. Sometimes my stories could be faulted - as erotic stories for having too long lead in times.

All that said I do find that different stories attract different gender readers - Laura my heroine of "The Car" and "The Car ch2" seems to be attracting more feedback from women who empathise with her than from men. Juliana - my Roman gladiatrix "Juliana's Last Stand" attracted more feedback from men.

I think the truth is that some people read porn stories to Jill or Jack Off whilst other people read them to be entertained. And I think gender has little to do with that choice.

jon

 

[its Leslie]

I like to think I can write a story for the female audience, but having been born male, I have the inevitable doubt, do I really know what they want? How do I "know" what they want?
I can't really know what they want? I am not a woman after all.

Then I find myself saying I like a story with a detailed plot, does that mean anything?
If I read something just to get horny, does it matter what I read, as long as I end up sitting here getting off?

I think women enjoy getting off just like us guys enjoy it. If getting off is just getting off, does it really matter how we end up getting off?

I read science tect books for entirely differing reasons of course.
I think I could say the same about just about everyone else though.

Is it possible we are just over analysing this?

 

[wildsweetone]

Dear Dr Mabeuse,

I am totally a woman, (just in case anyone was still wondering rofl) I am unique.

I read stories written by both men and women under almost every category Lit offers.

The clue in that last sentence was 'stories'. No matter which gender has written it, whatever I read must have a good tale otherwise I do the backclick trick.

Now, having said that, I believe that there are stories each individual person prefers to read.

I have written stories in BDSM, Gay Male, Erotic Coupling, and also Romance (elsewhere). I have received 'encouraging' email and feedback from both genders in all categories.

I so hate stereotyping.

 

[Guest]

Gender preferences?

Actually....I have lately been trying to write with both of those concepts in mind.

I know, I know...you can't please all of the people all of the time.

But, I do think I have managed in a few instances to write a story that appeals equally to both sexes. I think the secret truly is in the character developization.

For those of you who have read a few of my stories, especially my newer ones, they tend to be a bit longer than the norm...I know. But its because I have personally chosen to create believable characters, give them some depth and personality...and that takes time in any given story. And yes...doing that you can lose an audience, especially some men who are looking for the cumshot.

Plain and simply, I try and apply the squeeze technique, keep the excitement going...hopefully I've had time to draw the guys interest back in...and then I can get into the meat and potatoes for the guys...and finish up with a nice creamy desert for the gals.

If I've got a fairly intense sex scene going, I think it can be handled on the one hand as decriptive with all the grunts, groans, ohhhs and ahhhs necessary. And yet....give a visual description of what got us there and why for the gals who tend to be more interested in how we got there in the first place.

Yeah...it's a lot of work sometimes, but damn....the feedback says it's been working. So I'll keep writing and doing what I'm doing until it isn't working any more....or until people quit reading my stories.

I remain,

 

[Pookie]

Most of my feedback is from men it seems. Personally, I think a story with a well thought out plot and character development can be a great "jack off" story.

A story is like sex. The more the author (lover) teases the reader (woman or man), flirts with her, makes her anticipate, builds her slowly to a release, then gives her the release she wants ... then those are the best stories. I like the idea of teasing the reader, flirting with them awhile, but you better deliver the "goods" or they will be very frustrated with you and less likely to give you a second read. Some people want a quickie sometimes, but if you are great at quickies, they will seek you out faster than anyone else. Short or long stories, doesn't really matter other than personal preference ... but you better deliver the "goods" or you will be viewed as an inadequate author (lover).

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Here I Stand

I was pretty abashed by the lectures I got on my sterotyping men's and women's erotica, but after thinking it over, I've decided to put my ass on the line and stand my ground.

If the purpose of horror fiction is to frighten us, and the purpose of mystery writing is to baffle us, then I think it's fair that we should expect erotica to sexually excite us. Some make the distinction that this is the role of pornography as opposed to erotica, but I won't quibble. I expect to get sexually excited by the erotica I read, and if it doesn't do it for me, then it's simply not working as far as I'm concerned.

So, first of all I'm wondering how many people accept this definition of erotica.

Now: in all the stuff I've read, here and elsewhere, I just don't get sexually excited until skin touches skin. I'm not immune to the erotic tone and flavor of many stories; all the mysterious glances, air full of sexual tension, romantic strangers, voyeuristic thrills, bodies stretched out on warm and lanquid beaches, etc. It's just that they don't do it for me. I realize that Dracula has strong erotic images in it, but I consider it a horror novel, not an erotic novel. Maybe I'm just a male pig, but for me the excitement doesn't start till the clothes come off.

So: if you accept that erotica is that which is intended to sexually excite the reader, I must say that I'll have to stick with descriptions of physical acts. Nothing else does it for me, and I find it hard to believe that other guys get sexually aroused from character and plot development, no matter how skillfully done.


---dr.M.

 

[Pookie]

I see character and plot development as the "tease" before "delivering the goods". It is amazing how hot an otherwise bland sex scene can be when wrapped around a good plot with characters that you can see in your mind. Put a great sex scene inside a story with a well developed plot and character development, then you have what I call my kind of "stroke story".

I like the hot sex scenes just like any guy would. But I want a "story" to go with my sex too. I don't mind reading a great sex scene sometimes. It is just more powerful within a good plot in my opinion.

 

[its Leslie]

Good literature is good literature and bad literature is not surprisingly bad.

The opinion of what makes the difference is the big defining moment.

I rate Fantasy against Tolkien, and Scifi against Frank Herbert, Horror against Stephen King, and on and on.

Of course I do the same with erotica. I will read the material with an eye to saying it was good if it truely was. It matters not if it was a short fiction or a long one.
Plot or no plot, it all comes down to whether the author was good with their craft.

 

[BigTexan]

I rate Fantasy against Tolkien, and Scifi against Frank Herbert, Horror against Stephen King, and on and on.

Leslie, I find this interesting. I'm not saying you're wrong, but have you ever looked at the mechanics of either Tolkien or Herbert?

Now, please understand that I love the "Lord of the Rings" books (all four of them) but when I study his writing, well, Tolkien's mechanics are lacking. He was a master storyteller, no doubt, but his grammar bordered on shameful.

Herbert has a similar problem. His first "Dune" book was magnificent in plot, story, and character, but the grammar was not up to the standard of Clarke, Asimov, or Heinlein. The later Dune books were simply heinous.

If I were to list my favorite authors I would put Terry Brooks above Tolkien and I would put many above Herbert.

As far as King, goes. I don't read books to scare myself. I have an imagination that is more than willing to do that for me. But I really enjoyed many of his movies. "Maximum Overdrive" was one of the funniest shows I've ever seen.

Well anyway that is my opinion.
BigTexan

 

[Quasimodem]

... well, Tolkien's mechanics are lacking. He was a master storyteller, no doubt, but his grammar bordered on shameful...

Generalizations, even about generalities, are generally dangerous.

I agree with the point hidden behind Tex's preferences. No matter how good a grammarian you may be, if you are not a good storyteller as well, you will remain an academic.

Alternately, if you are a good storyteller, you can get by, even with less than perfect grammar.

Of course, that doesn't mean you wouldn't be an even better author if you could tell your story in faultless grammar.

I do not believe that the two goals are mutually exclusive.

 

[BigTexan]

I agree with the point hidden behind Tex's preferences. No matter how good a grammarian you may be, if you are not a good storyteller as well, you will remain an academic.

Wow Quasi, I hadn't even thought of it that way, but you hit the nail on the head.

A good friend of mine and I were talking about talent and skill the other day. With your insite I think I may have figured out what she was talking about. (Yeah, I'm a little slow)

I think good storytelling is the talent part of writing and grammar is the skill part. You must have the talent but the talent can best be lifted up and shown off by having the skill to write effectively.

But no matter how much skill you have, if you lack the talent it will show.

Now I just hope that I have some little bit of talent. The skill part I can, and eventually will, learn.

BigTexan

 

[Guest]

Quasimodem.........

And I quote you:

"Alternately, if you are a good storyteller, you can get by, even with less than perfect grammar."

I'd have to say...I resemble that remark. (But I am trying to better myself!)



Great thread....all points certainly well taken. Must give this some further thought myself.

I remain,

 

[RussH]

I fully agree with most of this thread. I am a man, most definately. Like the female of the species too much to be anything else. I also like a long story with character development, a good plot, action that is believable, and characters that act within their mores. (sound familiar?)

While sex is nessacary for a good erotic story (explicit or implied), a STORY is needed more. Stroke stories don't usually last thru the first paragraph.

I think BigTexans friend hit it right on the head with skill and talent. I have skill, but absolutley no talent. Makes me appreciate those that have it.

Anyone can string words together, only an author can write a story.

Russ H.

 

[its Leslie]

Tolkien and Herbert lousy in grammar!!

Are you serious!!

Hmmm well to be sure, I sure am not so confident I would even contemplate examining their work, with the notion I could even hope to correct it.

I just find it alarming sounding. Tolkien only created Lord of the Rings and his other related works in an effort to give his Elven language a world to exist in.

The idea that the man could completely create out of nothing an entire language, and be unable to master grammar!!!

Hmm I require someone to cut and paste verbatim some serious examples right out of their work, or the notion is just to preposterous for me eyes to accept.

I mean geeeees I get fairly badly slagged for pointing out how the Bible is so badly written, that reading it with intent to believe in it, only indicates that a person will believe in anything. But I can offer up the examples if I am put to the task.

The reason I say Tolkien and Herbert are the yardsticks literature is measured by (and remember, its not me that says this necessarily), I grew up hearing their respective works are rated the pinnacle of their respective genres.

I need specific proof here people.

 

[BigTexan]

I mean geeeees I get fairly badly slagged for pointing out how the Bible is so badly written, that reading it with intent to believe in it, only indicates that a person will believe in anything. But I can offer up the examples if I am put to the task.

Leslie, Thank you for a lucid and enticing post. I can't do as you ask just yet, since I'm at work and my copies of the books in question are at home. Later tonight, if I'm able to get online, I'll try to get you some specific examples.

About your take on the Bible. Remember that it was written by many different authors during many different periods of time in several different languages. Since that time it has been translated over and over again, rarely from the original text.

Take any book and put it through the same process and I suspect it would end up in much worse shape, grammar and style wise.

No I don't want to get into a theological debate with you. I just wanted you to consider the history of the Bible before you go blasting it for poor grammar.

 

[BigTexan]

About Tolkien

Okay to put my mouth where my money is or something like that.

Here are a few random quotes from J.R.R. Tolkien's "The Fellowship of the Ring"

He appeared already to know much about them and all their families, and indeed to know much of all the history and doings of the Shire down from days hardly remembered among the hobbits themselves. It no longer surprised them; but he made no secret that he owed his recent knowledge largely to Farmer Maggot, whom he seemed to regard as a person of more importance than they had imagined. 'There's earth under his old feet,and clay on his fingers; wisdom in his bones, and both his eyes are open,' said Tom. It was also clear that Tom had dealings with the Elves, and it seemed that in some fashion, news had reached him from Gildor concerning the flight of Frodo.

In this passage, which is fairly typical of Tolkien he has run-on sentences, and a sprinkling of oddly used semi-colons.

One of the most glaring idiosyncracies that I find in Tolkien's writing is the prolific number of excessively long sentences with several unrelated subjects.

Another passage, again taken at random.

The Sword of Elendil was forged anew by Elvish smiths, and on its blade was traced a device of seven stars set between the crescent Moon and the rayed Sun, and about them was written many runes; for Aragorn son of Arathorn was going to war upon the marches of mordor."


This is a single sentence, as constructed. But would have been better constructed as several sentences.

Once again I want to say this: I am NOT trying to discredit Tolkien in any way. I love the "Lord of the Rings" books and believe they represent the finest Fantasy story ever written. However, I think Tolkien's writing style made the books harder to read and directly attributed to the ordeal he went through getting them, first published, and then accepted by the world.

Yes now, many, many years after he wrote them, they are regarded as masterpieces, but had his style been better, I think that they would have been instant classics.

One last thing I would like to say. It is easy for me to sit here and pick apart his writing. But my own writing will never be as fine or as inspired as his. I may, some day, master the mechanics better, but unless I'm struck with lightning or visited by God, I'll never have the awesome talent that Tolkien had.

About Herbert, I have misplaced my copy of "Dune" and so am unable to provide examples of his writing. If my copy shows up in the near future I will come back here and do the same thing. If not, then I won't.

BigTexan

 

[TheEarl]

The later Dune books were simply heinous.

The later Dune books weren't that bad. Admittedly Dune was the best and it went downhill from there, but they were definitely readable.

I will always hit Back if the writer just makes the characters jump into bed for no reason. Story is important, but not the be-all and end all. There are some stories on this site with terrible plots, but they are believeable, so as long as everything else works, then I'm happy. A story called Buffy:Unexpected, which is on the celebrities page in several chapters is one of the best I've read on this site, despite the fact that there is very little sex in it. Okay so the author has it easy cause she's got ready made characters to work with, but she makes the most of them and the sexual tensions running through the story so far are fantastic. Unfortunately it's not finished; I think she might have written herself into a corner, but it's still v.good.

The Earl

 

[jon.hayworth]

I looked at BigTexan's critique of Tolkein's use of punctuation and sentence construction.

I think there are several key factors to remember when looking at Tolkein's work.

1. As an American, you are essentially reading a foreign language. We might use the same words, but they do not have the same meanings. Indeed in some extreme cases they do not even have simular meanings. (Read Bill Bryson "Mother Tongue: The English Language)

2. Tolkein's work was written over half a century ago and that English Language was substantially different at that time.

3. Tolkein was an Oxford Academic. Unfortunately he does not seem to have made the transition from Academic style of writing, in which long run on sentences are acceptable (I have a book on the Roman Family, and one sentence on the characteristics of the elite Roman Family fills a whole page!). - If you really want to see a wierd punctuation take a look at James Joyces Ulysses and look at the final chapter "Penelope".

As writers, I think the one technological invention we should fear is the "grammer checker" - given time we might all be using the same mechanistic sentence construction. Eventually we would then end up with a new language "English (Bill Gates)".

Sorry this is a long way from male and female erotica, but I felt moved to write a reply.

jon

 

[its Leslie]

Hmmm not sure if this is even relevant, but there might be an identifiable analogy possible.

I am a woodworker (occasionally I even go so far as to wear the label cabinetmaker, but a real artisan could make me look like a dolt with their eyes closed).

There is always an active and lively discussion on the subject of hand tool skills. A master craftsman it is often said, has mastered hand tools, or quite frankly is not a master craftsman.
But I have seen woodworkers wield power tools and produce fine quality products.
At what point though, does the hand tool skill define what is a craftsman?

In writing, how far should the KISS principle apply, and at what point does needless artistry, become pointless wordiness.

A run on sentence in my hands for instance, is likely to be a span of words that is just to unbearable. But to a word smith, it might be a matter of just applying the right amont of skill to make it work.

I have read many books in the past, that used words so far outside of normal dialogue, that the reader is vexed wondering at the definitions constantly.
If on a page, I have read more than 10-20 words I have never seen before, it is possible the author is just trying to look to clever.

One of the reasons I love Issac Azimov is because of his ability to entertain, without constantly beating me down with excessive "originality" in word choice.

I am impressed with Texans example, but I myself didn't find the sentences difficult to read.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

You Don't Need a Plot

Plots aren't necessary for literature.
There is another way to approach writing that is less concerned with telling a story and more concerned with reinterpreting the world around us by redescribing it and making us see things through new eyes that, to me, is more satisfying and more valuable then a well-crafted sequential plot. Fiction can put you in someone else's head so that you see the mundane in a wholey new way, so that you walk away from the story with a totally new way of thinking about things. Think of the best books you've read. DMaybe you did walk away thinking, "what a great plot that story had!" But I almost always walk away thinking about how fascinating it was to see things through the author's eyes for a while.

I know that we'll all finally decide that both plot and authorship are important in a story. So I want to go on record as saying I simply don't agree. My man Jack Kerouac never wrote a word of fiction after his first book, but his view of the world was so delightful and so heart-breaking & poetic that I can go back and read his stuff over and over again. I read 2 Stephen King books and have absolutely no desire to read any more.


There's not much plot in two people making love. But if you can describe the event in such a way that people see new beauty in it--or horror, or anything--in it, than, to me, you've accomplished more than you have with the cleverest O. Henry ending.

To the person who said that anyone can string words together but only a writer can come up with a plot, I say bull. Everyone knows jokes, but if you can tell a joke really well, you become a professional comedian. The story is in the telling.

And finally, to those who measure a book's worth against their favorite aithors, you do everyone a disservice. Tolkein is not Bradberry, Anne Rice is not Bram Stoker. Comparisons are odious.
Learn from them, but if you try and be them then you're bound to be disappointed. All you can do is develop your own voice.

---dr.M.

 

[TheEarl]

DrM: Things will always be judged against the current benchmark (whether personal or public). If given the choice between Christopher Brookmyre and Ben Elton, I'll choose Brookmyre. They both write a similar brand of satire and when the best is available, you'd be silly to go for second best.

Human nature is comparative. No-one has the same perspective as the man standing next to him, so the only way of transferring your opinions is to transfer it to the benchmark.

Just out of interest, which two Stephen King novels did you read? He had produced some schlock horror in his time (Some of which he actually admits to not remembering writing due to a drinking and drugs problem), but books like The Stand are masterpieces.

The Earl