|
|
|
|
|
| SFReader Forums > SFReader > Anything Goes! > Men and sex | Forum Quick Jump
|
|  warfitz45 Stablehand

       Date Joined May 2007 Total Posts : 8 | Posted 5/31/2007 9:56 PM (GMT -4) |   | In regard to men writer's getting more flack for sex, in general I would agree w/ this - GRR Martin springs to mind. However, Laurel K. Hamilton has received more grief in recent years over the amount of sex in her books. This is quite similar to the complaints that are targeted at GRRM. To me, I would dare say that it is a question of the amount of sex described that creates the greater challenge.
In my novel, I have one scene depicting the sexual act, but it is drawn out for the whole chapter, breaking it down and juxtaposing it w/ other scenes. I do expect some flack, especially from my family *GRIN*, but in this case - it really adds to the story. To me, if you are building a story with the scene, it is no different than violence or anything else that can be considered vile.
(but there is no question that in the USA, violence is not held w/ nearly the level of scrutiny).
I think most people only have a problem w/ sex when it is gratuitous, or is perceived as such. I have heard that both Martin & Hamilton scoff at such criticisms, defending their amount of sex in their books. Perhaps a writer's time would be better spent thinking of ways to make that scene more a part of the story, and therefore giving the reader less of a "tacked on" feeling????
But that's just me :). | | Back to Top | | |
   |  Nicholas Adept

       Date Joined Jun 2006 Total Posts : 977 | Posted 6/1/2007 3:12 AM (GMT -4) |   | |
I was thinking about this very topic a few weeks ago and wrote a blog about it. For anyone who cares to read it--and with apologies in advance for this being longer than the average thread post--here it is, "American Taboo: Sexuality in Art and Literature":
From 1990 to 1992 I attended Grand Canyon University , a private college run by the Southern Baptists. Even then, in my youthful Protestant zeal, one policy of the college struck me as somewhat irrational. No nudity was tolerated in any of the artwork displayed in the university’s art gallery. Now just think about that for a moment. Think about the great works of art—even the great works of religious art—that could not be shown. Michelangelo’s David, for example, would not be allowed in the hallowed halls of GCU.
I remember someone—Chesterton, it may have been—arguing that clothing makes us complete, that we are not whole without it. But this is circular reasoning and clearly an argument from cultural bias. With our upbringing, we do feel “naked” when we’re naked, but this is certainly not innate. Visit a family with young children. The kids will come running out of the bath naked as jaybirds, without a trace of self-consciousness. Then a parent yells “Get some clothes on!” And thus the taboo is instilled.
How ironic that misguided European missionaries even tried to impart this taboo across cultures, appalled by the lack of self-consciousness displayed by native tribes in Africa . But the disposition toward being clothed did not come from Eve biting an apple and then slapping fig leaves on herself—it came when our ancestors left those very tribes and headed north into colder climates.
I was fascinated to learn that the taboo in Japan is not against genitalia, but pubic hair. In all but the most hardcore manga and anime, even ones full of nudity, naked people are portrayed as being smooth as a newborn around their pelvic region. Mind you, we’re talking hair here. At least it’s just hair on one part of the body—Amish and Muslim women alike must cover the hair on their heads!
This all seems quite silly and arbitrary to us. But if we could step outside our own culture and see it objectively, I have no doubt we would find taboos in our society that are just as fraught with logical inconsistencies and outright nonsense.
Graphic portrayals of sex: a strong taboo—perhaps one of the last taboos—in our society, in which even a pretty tame depiction of sex can get a movie slapped with an NC-17 rating, while virtually any portrayal of violence is rated R. Violence is fine for children, as long as they’re accompanied by a guardian. When it comes to sex, we’re ascetics; when it comes to violence, we’re barbarians. We shun the temples of Bacchus in our march to the altar of Mars. (Although given the profits generated by porn in terms of both home-video and online viewing, we are also great big hypocrites.) I’ve seen a lot of recent horror films, and even my calloused sensibilities are sometimes shocked by the graphic portrayals of prolonged torture that are deemed healthier viewing than the act of making love.
Now, I am an artist, a storyteller, a poet. I will likely never decapitate a man with an axe or blow his brains out with a gun, but it is generally acceptable for me to write about it. Yet the puritans in my society tell me that something I experience regularly (if not always as regularly as I would’ve liked) is a taboo subject. Should be kept offstage. One whole aspect of my life should be off-limits? An aspect that, next to eating and sleeping, is the most universal of all experiences of the human race? The physical act that is, biologically speaking, the reason for my being here? And everyone else, for that matter, unless they were a test tube baby or Jesus. It is also, frankly—assuming we are healthy, rested, and fed—one of the aspects of life we find most enjoyable, that we most anticipate, that has all sorts of interesting repercussions—physically, emotionally, and, ultimately, reproductively, literally ushering in the next generation of our species to live and love and wonder what the heck they’re doing here. How it ever became taboo is a long and convoluted tale, but I think we should look to our European brethren who have come to their senses, and who are much more grown up about it, even as they enjoy and celebrate it unburdened by guilt. For them it’s not dirty; it’s not taboo. No wonder they consider us Americans so odd.
www.myspace.com/Ropespor
| | Back to Top | | |
    |  BethS Adept
        Date Joined Jun 2004 Total Posts : 748 | Posted 6/1/2007 10:27 AM (GMT -4) |   |
warfitz45 said... In regard to men writer's getting more flack for sex, in general I would agree w/ this - GRR Martin springs to mind. However, Laurel K. Hamilton has received more grief in recent years over the amount of sex in her books. This is quite similar to the complaints that are targeted at GRRM.
I confess, I don't get this. There's not very much sex in the GRRM books. What's there is, is short-lived and always relates to story and character. I don't understand how anyone could accuse him of overdoing the sex. If there's criticism to be leveled, it might be that sex in conjunction with love and affection is largely lacking, but then, the world he writes of is a brutal place and love is scarce.
Hamilton, OTOH (I base this on reports from people I know who've read all her books; I've avoided them myself) has taken to writing almost pure sex, with only the cobwebbiest of plots to give it cohesion.
Now one male author who doesn't shy away from writing sex is Jack Whyte. There aren't a lot of sex scenes in his books, but the ones I've read are memorable and verging on pornographic. Interestingly enough, though, when it comes to writing about sex between a man and woman in love, he modestly draws the curtain. But if it's just a lustful encounter, well, let's just say they take on a life of their own.
I don't know whether he gets criticized for this. I'll likely be seeing him this fall at the Surrey Writers Conference and I'll ask him then, if I remember.
~Beth | | Back to Top | | |
  |  xiaotien Adept

       Date Joined Jul 2006 Total Posts : 562 | Posted 6/1/2007 5:14 PM (GMT -4) |   |
BethS said...
xiaotien said...
does this mean that as a woman writer, you DO have sex scenes in your novel, beth?
Yep. You?
(Though I'd like to clarify. I don't write any scene that doesn't actually move the plot and develop character. So sex is there, but it has a purpose in the story.)
~Beth
beth, the climax of my novel
is a sex scene.
yikes! and no, i'm not writing
romance. and yes, it's pivotal. cindy p.
a little sweet, a little sour.
| | Back to Top | | |
 |  BethS Adept
        Date Joined Jun 2004 Total Posts : 748 | Posted 6/1/2007 6:35 PM (GMT -4) |   |
Nicholas said...In a nutshell, here's my whole problem with people criticizing writers like Laurel Hamilton or John Ringo or Jack Whyte or anyone else on this point. Hamilton fans (I'm not among that number, have no interest in reading her myself) read her because of her plots that hinge on sex between supernatural beings. People who aren't interested in that sort of thing don't have to read her. People who read her do like that sort of thing. THEREFORE, I must conclude that the people who criticize her for it are the people who don't like and don't read that sort of thing. What business do they have telling her what she should write and for whom? And if someone says, "I'd like for her to write something I approve of," my reply would be, "What--there aren't enough other authors for you to read? Why does Hamilton have to cater to your specific tastes?" The only way I could see such criticism as being valid would be if the publishers were marketing Hamilton's books as YA.
Hamilton can write anything she wants, so far as I'm concerned. But the particular beef in her case is, I gather, that she abandoned good storytelling in favor of sex scenes. Sort of like planting an orderly garden and then letting ivy smother it. Some (many?) of her readers who loved her Anita Blake series became disgusted when the sex starting taking over the plot. And that's a legitimate criticism, IMO. No, they don't have to read it, but they do have a right to be peeved when a favorite author becomes more entranced with eroticism than plot and character.
~Beth | | Back to Top | | |
  |  nathan Sage

       Date Joined Mar 2006 Total Posts : 2111 | Posted 6/1/2007 8:03 PM (GMT -4) |   |
BethS said...
Some (many?) of her readers who loved her Anita Blake series became disgusted when the sex starting taking over the plot. And that's a legitimate criticism, IMO. No, they don't have to read it, but they do have a right to be peeved when a favorite author becomes more entranced with eroticism than plot and character.
~Beth This is exactly what happened to me, lol. I read the first 4-5 books/novellas way back in the beginning. I was more excited about Anita Blake then I had been about ANYTHING I had read in a long, long time. I stood right up the first time she put were-rats in a plot. Her books were perfect in my opinion a perfect blending of harboiled detective story meeting supernatural adventure meeting very well done psychological profile of the main character.
Now in the first book(s) Anita was a virgin but hey she was being chased by a vampire and in a post-Ann Rice world I knew what that meant but damn the unfolding drama of her mysteries rocked along with some of her CSI scenes, she did everything right.
Then I lost track of her for a couple of years. Don't know why. Then I kept hearing this Laura Hamiliton name over and over realized it was her and was shocked that the rest of the reading world had finally woken up and recognized great stories (mainly ones I like  ) but damn was I in for a shock.
I read two erotica masterpieces where the supernatural mystery danger adventure took a way way way backseat to were-leopard orgies and hot undead sex.
I miss Anita Blake but have to admit, when I first loved her no one knew who L H was. Now that she's a bestseller I'm bored by what it took her to sell so many copies.
I mean, I'd rather read about a good zombie gunfight than be in one but the maximum for sex scenes tends to be the reverse... VIEW IMAGE"Writing the wet dreams of teenage boys" - Lindsey Llyod, Tangent Reviews
Tarantino himself has been forward and unapologetic about his influences. In a 1994 interview with Empire magazine, he said, "I steal from every single movie ever made. If people don't like that, then tough tills, don't go and see it, all right? I steal from everything. Great artists steal, they don't do homages." | | Back to Top | | |
       |  erazmus Master

       Date Joined Jul 2005 Total Posts : 4475 | Posted 6/2/2007 4:46 AM (GMT -4) |   | So is there a different standard for men writers and women writers?
It just seems to me that when a man writes too much sex, he's peddeling pornography and when a women does it, she's championing eroticism.
A bit of perspective. I sit on the pajama panels at Mile Hi Con most years. Those are usually having to do with Sex in fantasy, erotic writing on the net etc. I'm on them because I give good panel, and my first pro sale was about a web-cam girl. Some of my copanelist write things that make me blush. Some write things I can't even work out without a picture book. All of the really hard core porn/ porn horror panelist are women.
I can't imagine writing a story centering around images like these gals work. I'd never hear the end of it. My byline is not welcome at most of the places they publish, because I'm male and straight. (or so is infered from the wife and three kids, how do they really know?) I'm not sweating the loss of potential markets, that kind of fiction generally pays even less than what I sell now, but I've _seen_ the men getting a hard time for writing things that would pass for mild amoung the ladies on the panel. A lot of that is in the nature of the audience-- we get hard core feminist who come every year to stridently demand all men bow to what ever goal they are currently pushing, while I've never caught a mysoginist ranting that women shouldn't pretend they can write books and go back into the kitchen. (I'm not saying such dinosaurs don't exist, just that they haven't gotten our Con's address yet.) You hear a lot about the religous rights disapproval(of everything), most second hand, we've never had a born-again preacher come rail at us in person yet, but I've bantered with disapproving feminist at more than one panel. For some of them, I'm not wrong writing about sex, I'm just wrong for having a penis. oh well, there are some lengths I won't go to to please an audience.
Mike Michael D. Turner "Psyched Up" in _Turn the other Chick_-ed. E. Friesner-Baen books www.baen.com "Dutchman Rescue"in Continuum SF #6 www.continuumsciencefiction.com/orders.htm
"An Incident at Black Tongue Tavern" in _Bash Down the Door and Slice Open the Badguy_ from Fantasist Enterprises: www.fantasistent.com/books/anthologies/BASH.php | | Back to Top | | |
  | | |