sexual mechanics

[NotWise]

I've had some beta readers, all female, complain about the amount of time I spend describing sexual mechanics. "He turned her over, and pushed her legs apart," etc.

My defense has been that I'm a guy. I think that in most relationships guys are responsible for making sex work, while women want it to work. The mechanical details might have more meaning for me then maybe they do for most women.

That said, how much do readers (male or female) need to know about the mechanics of what's going on? The common acts are, well, common. We've done them, and we know how they work.

Do you describe them in pulsating detail? I think some readers want that, even for common acts, but I don't know.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I've had some beta readers, all female, complain about the amount of time I spend describing sexual mechanics. "He turned her over, and pushed her legs apart," etc.

My defense has been that I'm a guy. I think that in most relationships guys are responsible for making sex work, while women want it to work. The mechanical details might have more meaning for me then maybe they do for most women.

That said, how much do readers (male or female) need to know about the mechanics of what's going on? The common acts are, well, common. We've done them, and we know how they work.

Do you describe them in pulsating detail? I think some readers want that, even for common acts, but I don't know.

It’s an erotica site. If we don’t put in the details, we’re left with a 1930s western, with the hero kissing the heroine and... cut to a shot of a stallion rearing on its hind legs.
My two kopecks, anyway.

 

[MelissaBaby]

I thought this was going to be a thread about how I could get my car fixed for free.

I don't go into a lot of detail. Mostly, I have no idea how to write a long sex scene without it being tediously repetitious. Not all that interested in figuring it out either.

 

[NotWise]

I thought this was going to be a thread about how I could get my car fixed for free.

I'm waiting for your advice on that.

 

[BelleCanzuto]

For me, it depends on the story, and on the context of the particular scene in the story.

I have gone in to very graphic and minute detail in some scenes. I've also generally sketched what was happening. And I've also effectively mentioned it in passing. Overall, I have more detailed scenes than not, I think. Especially if whatever the characters are doing is new for them.

The more I'm thinking about it, I'd say I definitely lean toward more detailed than not. But I rarely write more than one vanilla scene in a story, so I think that means more details are needed, and there's less risk of repetition.

I certainly don't mind reading details, unless the author is just repetitive with their phrasing.

 

[Salacious_Scribe]

I don't write every motion or thrust, usually O only describe It if needed to make something happen. To each their own. No one can please everyone.

 

[KeithD]

This may, indeed, be a difference between male and female readers in general, just as, despite what keeps getting claimed on the discussion board, there are men readers aroused by measurements (even if they don't understand what they really measure out to be). So, you would have to do a bit of consideration of who your primary audience is. Again, as opposed to what a lot of poster here think, it isn't just one, universal-interest reader. (Ye olde "what does the reader want?" question.)

 

[HappySpouse]

I feel like it depends on a few things, but mostly if there is a point to us knowing that part. Your example, "He turned her over and parted her legs" does sound pretty standard, but maybe she was a control freak letting herself be handled. Maybe we needed to know how their bodies were positioned to understand what happens next. Maybe that motion is a callback to a fantasy from earlier. In that case, that bit adds to the story. Otherwise, I agree it can quickly get a little too "plug part D into slot P."

 

[kissedcherry]

If the story is about nothing...

If the story is about nothing than describing sex in detail may be the only thing going for the story. On the other hand, if the story is interesting and really about something and valuable in some way other than masturbation fuel then the explicit details are not needed.

To me the biggest problem with most stories is that there is no character development. I usually can't relate to any of the people in the story. They are such odd people that don't fit into real world concepts. For example, wives that have lost interest in sex and the next day they are loving a gangbang with guys in a porn shop. Just a disconnect from how life and sex works.

 

[Voboy]

I tend to be more descriptive of sensations, rather than actions. If that makes sense.

Not every thrust and grab needs to be minutely documented, because as you say: we've all been there and done that. So what I tend to do, instead of "he put in one finger, then added another, stirring counterclockwise until she gasped," is say something like "she gasped in ecstasy when he got his fingers involved," perhaps. I want to focus the reader on what she's feeling; to me, whether it's caused by one finger or two, it's her reaction that matters more.

Though, too, it can depend on the narrator. Some of my narrators are more clinically-minded than others. Write what's best for the story.

 

[gunhilltrain]

If the story is about nothing than describing sex in detail may be the only thing going for the story. On the other hand, if the story is interesting and really about something and valuable in some way other than masturbation fuel then the explicit details are not needed.

To me the biggest problem with most stories is that there is no character development. I usually can't relate to any of the people in the story. They are such odd people that don't fit into real world concepts. For example, wives that have lost interest in sex and the next day they are loving a gangbang with guys in a porn shop. Just a disconnect from how life and sex works.

I think I've quoted George Carlin before, "I hate it when a writer starts describing clouds. I don't are about clouds. I think, 'Let's get to the fucking already.' "

He was being tongue-in-cheek, of course. But in fact, you do have to describe the "clouds," or really something about what is going on between the people (perhaps more than two of them!) first. I happened to be browsing another site and I came across a story where the sex act starts in the first sentence.

Sure, there are no rules, necessarily, but one probably wants to use that first sentence technique sparingly.

 

[KeithD]

But in fact, you do have to describe the "clouds," or really something about what is going on between the people (perhaps more than two of them!) first.

I don't think so. I often describe what's going on between the people after they've fucked in a story. Why don't you think that works? It's very much the current-century approach to writing, established by the thriller genre--starting with a bang, the action, and slowly opening up the circumstances to the reader after that.

 

[Tio_Narratore]

When I taught the Anthropology of Sex, physiology and pleasure was a significant component of the course, and the students did appreciate the details. I tend to include the details in my stories because they give a deeper feeling of what's actually happening. Those details often include a description of parts (a description, not a statement of cup size), and I have found that women readers do appreciate my including such details as the hue of the areola. In that, I am not a minimalist, though I will occasionally leave the details to the reader's imagination.
Most people aren't that conversant with the mechanics, though, and if I said the couple found American Yab Yum was quite enjoyable while they were trapped in the hall closet, most readers wouldn't be able to imagine it. And a graphic description of it is much more erotic than the mere naming of it.
So, to leave out details would turn erotica to romance, while including them can lead a reader to vicariously feeling the pleasures of things she or he never knew or understood. (How many of us actually know the 169 ways known to all the people, let alone the 13 ways known only to the Emperor. And then, of course, there's the one way even the Emperor doesn't know).

 

[SimonDoom]

I like mechanics in my sex stories, and I include them as a writer. I think a way to make them go down easier f is to alternate lines or short paragraphs of describing action with snippets of dialogue or with descriptions of feelings or sensations. I DO find the description of sexual mechanics tedious without these other elements.

 

[SisterJezabel]

I think mechanics have their place, but without experience or sensation they are pretty worthless.

Jack's cock was hard as steel. He spread Jill's legs and lined it up with her hole. Pushing forward he was fucking her like she needed to be fucked. In and out like a jackhammer he pumped away, pistoning for all he was worth. Then he shot gallons of cum into her waiting womb...

Of course for men and women it's probably different. For all the hype about reverse cowgirl- I'm not that fond of staring at my partner's feet or the wall across from us! cf doggy for instance and it's totally different for a reason!

 

[auralist]

That said, how much do readers (male or female) need to know about the mechanics of what's going on? The common acts are, well, common. We've done them, and we know how they work.

Do you describe them in pulsating detail? I think some readers want that, even for common acts, but I don't know.

Great prompt, thanks! My writing style is to dive into the psychology, so I like to poetically skip over some detail, and maybe zoom in on certain things.

In terms of erotica I've read, there is a style that speaks from a materialist/mechanical perspective, which can include tedious and trite stuff, and with 2D characters, with sometimes silly gender stereotypes. But that's not to knock it outright--I'm consuming that quite simply for and because of the lust. And then there's a "deeper" level of erotica that dives a bit more into the psychology of things, isn't afraid to tell a more robust story and add some three-dimesionality, and maybe a 10th if we're getting sci-fi kinky.

That said, I'm so tired of anyone ever mentioning specific cup size. I'd much rather know they're being sucked in the moonlight.

And of course, this is sort of a false dichotomy set up just for the purpose of suggesting that there can be different audiences for different styles. I hope any of that makes sense.

 

[SisterJezabel]

That said, I'm so tired of anyone ever mentioning specific cup size. I'd much rather know they're being sucked in the moonlight.

You and me both! That and cock length- I don't care if it's 5" or whatever- it's not the size of the wand but the magic it weaves!

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

I'm far from certain of this, but I suspect the reader preference in this regard isn't limited to the description of sex. Some readers appreciate and compliment detailed descriptions of all sorts of things: setting, people, actions, etc. Others are bored and skip over it. I imagine that those same preferences are reflected when it comes to sex scenes. There's a sliding scale on the amount of visualization that's important to people.

Generally, I suspect that the perception that women don't enjoy the detail really has more to do with what kind of detail that is included and the way it is presented. Relating the mechanical description to the emotional content is key.
Unless the author is intentionally presenting a disconnect between what's happening physically and what's happening emotionally, each should reflect and communicate the other.

The best sex scenes, from my perspective, are like physical dialog. They may or may not be supported by actual verbal dialog, but I think they should nearly always be accompanied by internal dialog or an equivalent method of conveying at least one of the participant's perceptions and feelings. I want to be able to picture what the characters are specifically doing, but that's only meaningful to me in the context of how the characters feel about what they're doing and how they're reacting to what's being done to them.

While it's true that the mechanical principles of sex are not unique, I think there's a tremendous variety of ways in which they can be executed. Do you need to explain to how thrusting works? No, but if you want the reader to understand how the character is thrusting, you're going to have to provide that description. Simply saying "he was thrusting," is of little interest because we already knew that. Taking the reader through the types of thrusting the character is doing over the course of the scene is not only interesting, but a way to carry the mood and set the level of intensity. Consider the difference between the following:

• He slid in tentatively.
  
• He buried himself in a single fluid stoke.
  
• He slammed into her.
  
• He thrust raggedly..
  
• He rocked in and out.
  
• He fucked her with punishing strokes

Etc., etc. The construction and POV of the above is the same. Even without being written imaginatively or well, they still convey very different information. They essentially describe the same act, but they mean completely different things emotionally. This is something we all know and understand, but it's also something that is easy to lose track of while choreographing the scene. Fortunately, once the scene's blocked in, it's not too hard to go back and add the right kind of details.

 

[Jada59]

I thought this was going to be a thread about how I could get my car fixed for free.

I don't go into a lot of detail. Mostly, I have no idea how to write a long sex scene without it being tediously repetitious. Not all that interested in figuring it out either.

Can we have that thread? Cuz... I want that!

 

[Jada59]

This may, indeed, be a difference between male and female readers in general, just as, despite what keeps getting claimed on the discussion board, there are men readers aroused by measurements (even if they don't understand what they really measure out to be). So, you would have to do a bit of consideration of who your primary audience is. Again, as opposed to what a lot of poster here think, it isn't just one, universal-interest reader. (Ye olde "what does the reader want?" question.)

I think males like more detail.

I tried to co-write with a male and it went badly because no matter what I wrote, it wasn't enough detail to suit him.

I also remember being asked to give feedback on a story and the guy went so far as to mention the color of the stitching on his jeans and to describe the room they were in, in intricate detail. And then they left there and had sex elsewhere. The jeans and the room were not even a vital part of the story so I felt lost in the details.

I suppose when it comes to the sex bits, I wouldn't so much say how the guy was positioning me but I might say that I got on my knees or he took me from behind. Then again, in thinking about some of what I've written, I do give these details when he is taking control. I can't always say that he is taking control. Sometimes I am. Sometimes it's sort of mutual.

 

[Voboy]

...the guy went so far as to mention the color of the stitching on his jeans and to describe the room they were in, in intricate detail. And then they left there and had sex elsewhere. The jeans and the room were not even a vital part of the story so I felt lost in the details.

Speaking as a male?

I don't see the point of that, either. Besides, the stitching was orange, yes?

 

[Jada59]

I think mechanics have their place, but without experience or sensation they are pretty worthless.

Jack's cock was hard as steel. He spread Jill's legs and lined it up with her hole. Pushing forward he was fucking her like she needed to be fucked. In and out like a jackhammer he pumped away, pistoning for all he was worth. Then he shot gallons of cum into her waiting womb...

Of course for men and women it's probably different. For all the hype about reverse cowgirl- I'm not that fond of staring at my partner's feet or the wall across from us! cf doggy for instance and it's totally different for a reason!

Agree! I read one story where it said, "And then they copulated!" It wasn't a comedy story either. *Guffaw*

 

[Jada59]

You and me both! That and cock length- I don't care if it's 5" or whatever- it's not the size of the wand but the magic it weaves!

Agree. Exception would be a whopper of cock that is so long or so thick that the poor guy couldn't give a good fucking. I once read a purportedly true story of a guy with a super long dong. Said he was unable to get it fully into his GF's pussy but could get it all the way in her ass. I can't speak for the logistics of that but others that I've mentioned it to have commented that it wasn't possible.

I don't think something like that would make for a good Lit. story though. Ha The dude that couldn't fuck!

 

[Jada59]

I'm far from certain of this, but I suspect the reader preference in this regard isn't limited to the description of sex. Some readers appreciate and compliment detailed descriptions of all sorts of things: setting, people, actions, etc. Others are bored and skip over it. I imagine that those same preferences are reflected when it comes to sex scenes. There's a sliding scale on the amount of visualization that's important to people.

Generally, I suspect that the perception that women don't enjoy the detail really has more to do with what kind of detail that is included and the way it is presented. Relating the mechanical description to the emotional content is key.
Unless the author is intentionally presenting a disconnect between what's happening physically and what's happening emotionally, each should reflect and communicate the other.

The best sex scenes, from my perspective, are like physical dialog. They may or may not be supported by actual verbal dialog, but I think they should nearly always be accompanied by internal dialog or an equivalent method of conveying at least one of the participant's perceptions and feelings. I want to be able to picture what the characters are specifically doing, but that's only meaningful to me in the context of how the characters feel about what they're doing and how they're reacting to what's being done to them.

While it's true that the mechanical principles of sex are not unique, I think there's a tremendous variety of ways in which they can be executed. Do you need to explain to how thrusting works? No, but if you want the reader to understand how the character is thrusting, you're going to have to provide that description. Simply saying "he was thrusting," is of little interest because we already knew that. Taking the reader through the types of thrusting the character is doing over the course of the scene is not only interesting, but a way to carry the mood and set the level of intensity. Consider the difference between the following:

• He slid in tentatively.
  
• He buried himself in a single fluid stoke.
  
• He slammed into her.
  
• He thrust raggedly..
  
• He rocked in and out.
  
• He fucked her with punishing strokes

Etc., etc. The construction and POV of the above is the same. Even without being written imaginatively or well, they still convey very different information. They essentially describe the same act, but they mean completely different things emotionally. This is something we all know and understand, but it's also something that is easy to lose track of while choreographing the scene. Fortunately, once the scene's blocked in, it's not too hard to go back and add the right kind of details.

I think you're right! I once attempted to read a novel and the first three pages went into intricate detail of how the front yard looked, sounded,smelled, felt, etc. Had there been a reason for this, it might have been okay. But then the 4th page zoomed over to another place and time. I read about half of that page and threw the book. Disjointed and irrelevant are not for me.

 

[sirhugs]

The longer I am a writer, the longer the writing gets. As a reader, I love lots of detail, so as a writer, I try to deliver.