Pathetic

[Hypoxia]

That's rather the universal answer each time this gender question comes up. You simply can't reliably tell ...

On the interwebs, nobody knows you're a cockroach.

 

[sr71plt]

On the interwebs, nobody knows you're a cockroach.

To my knowledge I don't even go on "interwebs" so I have to do my cockroaching elsewhere, I guess.

Ah, you just mean the Internet (had to look it up). I would think a cockroach would have a bit of trouble with a keyboard let alone establishing a web connection. But, then, I think I could readily name some folks of the cockroach variety on the forum tonight.

 

[lowphat]

To my knowledge I don't even go on "interwebs" so I have to do my cockroaching elsewhere, I guess.

Ah, you just mean the Internet (had to look it up). I would think a cockroach would have a bit of trouble with a keyboard let alone establishing a web connection. But, then, I think I could readily name some folks of the cockroach variety on the forum tonight.

Not me, because you have me on ignore, which gives me free reign

 

[slyc_willie]

I don't know. I'm pretty good at guessing if a writer is male or female.

But you have no real way of knowing if you're right, do you?

Unless, of course, you're sitting in the room with the person as they write and subsequently post the story . . . .

 

[slyc_willie]

But, then, I think I could readily name some folks of the cockroach variety on the forum tonight.

Cockroaches are ubiquitous. There's just no escaping them. I swear, they'll succeed us as the next dominant species on the planet.

 

[CyranoJ]

But you have no real way of knowing if you're right, do you?

Of course, what are the stakes, really? Since I'm pretty sure most of us don't actually give a shit whether women or men are doing better in the scores.

 

[sr71plt]

Cockroaches are ubiquitous. There's just no escaping them. I swear, they'll succeed us as the next dominant species on the planet.

I'm pretty sure they think they've already won--and have some evidence to back that up.

 

[slyc_willie]

Of course, what are the stakes, really? Since I'm pretty sure most of us don't actually give a shit whether women or men are doing better in the scores.

No, most of us, I suspect, don't. But when someone stirs the pot, all sorts of bubbles pop to the surface, and some people think they could be important.

The stakes, I think, are only self-congratulatory pats on the back . . . which can't be denied, so they are assumed to be given.

I'm pretty sure they think they've already won--and have some evidence to back that up.

Cockroaches are like that. They're very simple creatures, you know. And "evidence," as we have seen time and again, can be made to support just about anything.

 

[robertreams]

You are totally wrong! You asked. If a writer is good, you should not be able to tell what gender they are. A good writer reveals his characters from whatever 'lens' he or she chooses to write in. So far I have not chosen to write a story on Lit. in the 'voice' of a woman, but I once role played as a 22 year old woman, kept it up for over a year, and had the parties I was playing with convinced I was a woman.

Case in point: George Elliot.

Even if I choose Bob Jones for my pseudonym, I could still be a woman. You have no way of knowing for certain whether a certain writer is male or female, therefore your premise is fallacious,

 

[LadyVer]

But you have no real way of knowing if you're right, do you?

Unless, of course, you're sitting in the room with the person as they write and subsequently post the story . . . .

So what? I mainly read romance. You think romance readers can't tell the difference when men write romance, especially those who dont even read a romance? There's this false sense of certainty that I've noticed in a lot of male Lit writers. It's based on this: they think they know women, that anyone can write a romance, that just having had sex is all the experience they need to write a good romance. Some of these writers think they can throw out the HEA, the primary romance convention, add a little rape, a little alpha male, a TSTL female, and voila, romance. Meanwhile, you can't even pay the bastards to read a romance.. This also applies to a few female writers, who thinking they have to write "real" erotica like the men do, wouldn't read a romance willingly either.

 

[slyc_willie]

So what? I mainly read romance. You think romance readers can't tell the difference when men write romance, especially those who dont even read a romance? There's this false sense of certainty that I've noticed in a lot of male Lit writers. It's based on this: they think they know women, that anyone can write a romance, that just having had sex is all the experience they need to write a good romance. Some of these writers think they can throw out the HEA, the primary romance convention, add a little rape, a little alpha male, a TSTL female, and voila, romance. Meanwhile, you can't even pay the bastards to read a romance.. This also applies to a few female writers, who thinking they have to write "real" erotica like the men do, wouldn't read a romance willingly either.

Actually, I think most readers can't tell the difference between male and female authors, no matter the category. And I'm of the mind that most readers don't really care if they are right or not in their assessment of the author's gender. In the end, it's their perception -- of the story, of the author -- that makes the story work for them.

I challenge your claim of "false sense of certainty" among male Lit writers and apply it to female authors. Do they really know how to write like men? Do they really know how men think, or act? Is the fact that they have had sex with a man enough to clue them in on the male point of view when it comes to sex?

What it comes down to, I think, is not the validity of writing like the opposite sex, but whether or not any particular writer gets "close enough" to satisfy the fantasy.

In the end, after all, no one here is pedaling reality.

 

[LadyVer]

Actually, I think most readers can't tell the difference between male and female authors, no matter the category. And I'm of the mind that most readers don't really care if they are right or not in their assessment of the author's gender. In the end, it's their perception -- of the story, of the author -- that makes the story work for them.

I challenge your claim of "false sense of certainty" among male Lit writers and apply it to female authors. Do they really know how to write like men? Do they really know how men think, or act? Is the fact that they have had sex with a man enough to clue them in on the male point of view when it comes to sex?

What it comes down to, I think, is not the validity of writing like the opposite sex, but whether or not any particular writer gets "close enough" to satisfy the fantasy.

In the end, after all, no one here is pedaling reality.

Well, to each their own opinion, of course. Romance, like any other genre, has conventions. What I'm saying is if a writer can't take the time to learn the conventions, and wouldn't be caught dead reading the genre they're writing, it makes it hard to edit for them. And usually, most romances are written from the female's POV because most romance is written for women.

 

[NaokoSmith]

OK, I think Bramblethorn really has the question of whether women get higher scores (I mean our stories!) on here taped; those are some interesting statistics so I am kinda grateful to FantasyXY for putting up this thread.

Pace Andre Norton and George Eliot, I just want to point out that they were writing at times when most people assumed women were too stupid to write, and would more readily believe a writer was of course a man.

We are going in different and more interesting directions now on this thread. Can you tell if it's a man or woman writing the story? Can a man write convincingly as a woman and vice versa?

I'm just going to throw this into the mix.

Feminist standpoint theory would suggest that while men would struggle to write both like and for women, women would find it a lot easier to write like and for men. This is a theory based on Hegel's Master/Slave dialectic. In the M/S dialectic, the Master knows his own needs. The Slave knows both his and the Master's needs (they are all 'he' in Hegel), he has to because if he doesn't guess what the Master wants and give it to him quickly he is dead meat.

Feminists adapted this to women's situations, arguing that men know their own wants while women have to understand both their menfolk's and their own wants (oh, and the kids, the pet dog, and take Grandma to do a little shopping, no no I added that bit in LOL). So this would suggest that women writers do have a better chance of understanding what the world looks like from a male perspective, although writing it convincingly as if a man had written it would IMHO be more about writerly skill than gendered standpoint.

 

[LadyVer]

OK, I think Bramblethorn really has the question of whether women get higher scores (I mean our stories!) on here taped; those are some interesting statistics so I am kinda grateful to FantasyXY for putting up this thread.

Pace Andre Norton and George Eliot, I just want to point out that they were writing at times when most people assumed women were too stupid to write, and would more readily believe a writer was of course a man.

We are going in different and more interesting directions now on this thread. Can you tell if it's a man or woman writing the story? Can a man write convincingly as a woman and vice versa?

I'm just going to throw this into the mix.

Feminist standpoint theory would suggest that while men would struggle to write both like and for women, women would find it a lot easier to write like and for men. This is a theory based on Hegel's Master/Slave dialectic. In the M/S dialectic, the Master knows his own needs. The Slave knows both his and the Master's needs (they are all 'he' in Hegel), he has to because if he doesn't guess what the Master wants and give it to him quickly he is dead meat.

Feminists adapted this to women's situations, arguing that men know their own wants while women have to understand both their menfolk's and their own wants (oh, and the kids, the pet dog, and take Grandma to do a little shopping, no no I added that bit in LOL). So this would suggest that women writers do have a better chance of understanding what the world looks like from a male perspective, although writing it convincingly as if a man had written it would IMHO be more about writerly skill than gendered standpoint.

I must be a feminist.

 

[Hypoxia]

Cockroaches are ubiquitous. There's just no escaping them.

Not even in literature. Cf archie and mehitabel. Of course, contemporary roaches hit the CapsLock key first.

EDIT: interwebs

 

[NaokoSmith]

I must be a feminist.

LOL, why wouldn't you be a feminist?


Like I say on my review blog: these days you can be as sexy as you like, but can you be a feminist? I'm constantly amazed that people think believing there is such a thing as gender politics, and that women are equal to men if different (we are all different anyway), is not cool!

What you really want to ask is, what kind of feminist are you?

 

[LadyVer]

LOL, why wouldn't you be a feminist?


Like I say on my review blog: these days you can be as sexy as you like, but can you be a feminist? I'm constantly amazed that people think believing there is such a thing as gender politics, and that women are equal to men if different (we are all different anyway), is not cool!

What you really want to ask is, what kind of feminist are you?

Well, I'm sure a few authors I've edited for would probably rate me a 10 on a 1-10 scale. Actually, I'd probably break their feministometer. Which reminds me, I screwed up my profile the other day. Somehow, I removed the sentence that more or less stated that if you're looking for a Stepford you're looking at the wrong damn profile.

 

[AZMotherLover]

And every "crap", "double-crap", "Jeez", and "argh" uttered during sex -- pirate porn, perhaps? Her inner goddess that sulked, fist-pumped, merengued, and did a triple axel dismount off uneven bars (those are all literally in the books). And, of course, literary gems like:

“'Put the chicken in the fridge.' This is not a sentence I had ever expected to hear from Christian, and only he can make it sound hot, really hot.”

"Oh my… sweat and body wash and Christian. It's a heady cocktail—so much better than a margarita, and now I can speak from experience."

"Why hasn't he given me back my panties? I steal into the bathroom, bewildered by my lack of underwear."

LOL...sorry. You are right, I have read worse. But I don't believe I've read worse that made the author a billionaire. And I've read a LOT better here on Lit by authors who aren't getting paid for their work.

I know, I know. I quickly tired of the constant references to Christian's near other-worldly beauty, but for what it was, I did enjoy reading it.

It just seems to me that a lot of the criticism that comes from other authors is somewhat due to the popularity of the series. If FSOG had only sold 100K copies, the critics wouldn't be so... critical. I'm not saying it's all jealousy, but a little of it has to be.

Respectfully...it might be the subject matter? Unless you are writing under another name, your stories on here are all mother/son incest stories, probably not as popular with women as with men. They are resonating with someone, because you have pretty high marks.

What? Chicks don't go for mother/son incest? Now you tell me. LoL

I do write other stuff, I just don't post it here.

Glad FSOG worked for you, and yes, a lot of women are buying those books. Some of us are just really sorry we spent the money.

I own all three books.

 

[slyc_willie]

I'm willing to bet that I could establish a new Lit name, list myself as female, post a story to Literotica under the guise of a woman, and write convincingly in the established vein. I have that much faith in my skill as a writer. In short, I can prove that a man can write convincingly from a woman's point of view.

Care to take me up on the challenge?

 

[lowphat]

I'm willing to bet that I could establish a new Lit name, list myself as female, post a story to Literotica under the guise of a woman, and write convincingly in the established vein. I have that much faith in my skill as a writer. In short, I can prove that a man can write convincingly from a woman's point of view.

Oh god, here we go. please explain how you'd do this.

 

[LadyVer]

I'm willing to bet that I could establish a new Lit name, list myself as female, post a story to Literotica under the guise of a woman, and write convincingly in the established vein. I have that much faith in my skill as a writer. In short, I can prove that a man can write convincingly from a woman's point of view.

Care to take me up on the challenge?

I'd be willing to read a good romance. (No squirting involved, please).

 

[sr71plt]

I'm willing to bet that I could establish a new Lit name, list myself as female, post a story to Literotica under the guise of a woman, and write convincingly in the established vein. I have that much faith in my skill as a writer. In short, I can prove that a man can write convincingly from a woman's point of view.

Care to take me up on the challenge?

I think I've already been doing that for years.

 

[lovecraft68]

I'm willing to bet that I could establish a new Lit name, list myself as female, post a story to Literotica under the guise of a woman, and write convincingly in the established vein. I have that much faith in my skill as a writer. In short, I can prove that a man can write convincingly from a woman's point of view.

Care to take me up on the challenge?

I've proved that already and so have many others. You want to go for it, please do I'd be interested in reading it.

But I think its a waste of time-unless you feel the challenge is worth it to you-because end of the day gender of the author should be meaningless.

It should be as simple as "Did I like the story" nothing else should matter. And every story some will like it some won't for reasons uncountable either way.

This thread reminds me of the one that's been ongoing about a guy saying he doesn't like to read stories he knows were written by men. Its just ridiculous and in his case I feel reeks of homophobia.

But simple fact some men prefer to believe that their erotica was written by a green eyed red head who sits at the desk in just a thong and types one handed while she masturbates....That's what they want.

I get comments and feedback referring to me as female.

The pic requests are my favorite because I'm tempted to send one

 

[GriffyD_Boy]

OK, I think Bramblethorn really has the question of whether women get higher scores (I mean our stories!) on here taped; those are some interesting statistics so I am kinda grateful to FantasyXY for putting up this thread.

Pace Andre Norton and George Eliot, I just want to point out that they were writing at times when most people assumed women were too stupid to write, and would more readily believe a writer was of course a man.

We are going in different and more interesting directions now on this thread. Can you tell if it's a man or woman writing the story? Can a man write convincingly as a woman and vice versa?

I'm just going to throw this into the mix.

Feminist standpoint theory would suggest that while men would struggle to write both like and for women, women would find it a lot easier to write like and for men. This is a theory based on Hegel's Master/Slave dialectic. In the M/S dialectic, the Master knows his own needs. The Slave knows both his and the Master's needs (they are all 'he' in Hegel), he has to because if he doesn't guess what the Master wants and give it to him quickly he is dead meat.

Feminists adapted this to women's situations, arguing that men know their own wants while women have to understand both their menfolk's and their own wants (oh, and the kids, the pet dog, and take Grandma to do a little shopping, no no I added that bit in LOL). So this would suggest that women writers do have a better chance of understanding what the world looks like from a male perspective, although writing it convincingly as if a man had written it would IMHO be more about writerly skill than gendered standpoint.

I've heard this theory before and I'm not sure I totally buy it because it's always come across as way too much of a generalization for me. In my history I've met women who seem to not understand men as much as they think they do as well as men who seem to have way too much of an understanding of the opposite sex. I've of course also met examples of the opposite.

My point is that humanity is way too varied for us to fit so neatly into the package that theory seems to want us to fit into.

 

[lovecraft68]

e.My point is that humanity is way too varied for us to fit so neatly into the package that theory seems to want us to fit into.

This says it best.

But by nature people cannot accept that and need to try to force things into neat little folders that they can understand.

Just look at the endless threads that ask "which do people like better" or "what do people like here"

Its a lot simpler to go with just write the story you want to write and toss it out there. Way to much over thinking goes on here sometimes.