“Realism” in writing sexual relations

[pink_silk_glove]

I struggle with plot, so I am in awe of someone who handles it really well. Thank you!

The zen of plot is motive. The actions that move the story along are performed by the characters. If characters are a strength for you then I would assume that you can connect with your characters (put yourself in their shoes) and imagine what they feel so that you can describe them. Well then you just do the same with their actions - put yourself in their shoes in that given situation - and imagine how they would ACT, or more importantly their motive - WHY they would act in such a way. Then when the motives start crossing paths you can get some really cool fireworks.

It takes some practice to get the hang of but it really is that simple. The execution isn't always easy but the concept itself is simple.

 

[LdyHoneybee]

The zen of plot is motive. The actions that move the story along are performed by the characters. If characters are a strength for you then I would assume that you can connect with your characters (put yourself in their shoes) and imagine what they feel so that you can describe them. Well then you just do the same with their actions - put yourself in their shoes in that given situation - and imagine how they would ACT, or more importantly their motive - WHY they would act in such a way. Then when the motives start crossing paths you can get some really cool fireworks.

It takes some practice to get the hang of but it really is that simple. The execution isn't always easy but the concept itself is simple.

I can “just hang out” with characters without anything really happening just about better than anyone you ever saw. But the problem is that I do not like to read that kind of fiction and neither does anyone else. I love them, so I like exploring how they would deal with situations. But the stories that I enjoy are ones that have a long term purpose: save the world, destroy the Ring (and while you are doing it communicate all sorts of wisdom about the nature and purpose of life), kill the Leviathan (and destroy yourself), and the like. I have no problem relating to characters at all! But I will process what you said because it is the block that keeps me from sharing. Thanks!

 

[Winter_Fare]

The idea that men should try to “understand“ women is very new (although some individuals, literary artists most, knew it all along), just since the 1970s really. It is a credit to many, many guys, I think, that they are genuinely trying, but it takes generations to really change something like that.

i totally agree about both those authors. Even though I lack anything like full insight into what it is like to be a man, I think their characters are ridiculous. Ann Rice even tried Jesus once! I don’t know how she thought she could do that when she could not even do a believable undead! But she is laughing all the way to the bank at those of us who think so.

My (limited) take on this is that female characters before womens lib and the defanging of censorship were often weak metaphors for something else. Her honour/body/flaws/opinions were merely reflecting pools for some societal ill or virtue.

Rice uses her male characters the same way, hence they come off as caricatures at times.

 

[SimonDoom]

The bet

What I meant by that is that artists, particularly artists whose expertise is in language arts, are often more sensitive to human nature than ordinary people which lifts them out of the timeline in a way and installs them in “forever.” This is why, I suppose, that we still read and see and love Shakespeare even though he has been dead for over 400 years. For contrast, can you remember the most popular song of 2018 without doing an internet cheat? An anachronism is “out of place in time.” Shakespeare (and many other great authors) have no time. They transcend it, so they are always, in a way, “out of place.“ But you are right that Shakespeare was a good businessman. He knew how to write to appeal to everyone, even folks who did not agree with each other. Although I think that Shakespeare was not very Romantic and could make a good argument for it based on his work, someone who DID think he was Romantic could do the same based on his work.…more easily maybe because he wrote a whole bunch of comedies. That, to me, makes him an artistic super genius….and an excellent businessman to boot.

The better word for Shakespeare would be "anomaly." He was unusual for his time, or any time, for that matter. He can't be an anachronism, by definition, for the time in which he lived.

Shakespeare is an example of an author who wrote wonderful female characters--multidimensional, full of agency and intelligence, strength of character, often outwitting the men around them. Lady McBeth, Viola from Twelfth Night, Rosalind from As You Like It, Beatrice from Much Ado About Nothing. I think it is perfectly fair to say he understood women as well as any woman author understood men.

 

[LdyHoneybee]

My (limited) take on this is that female characters before womens lib and the defanging of censorship were often weak metaphors for something else. Her honour/body/flaws/opinions were merely reflecting pools for some societal ill or virtue.

Rice uses her male characters the same way, hence they come off as caricatures at times.

The bet

The better word for Shakespeare would be "anomaly." He was unusual for his time, or any time, for that matter. He can't be an anachronism, by definition, for the time in which he lived.

Shakespeare is an example of an author who wrote wonderful female characters--multidimensional, full of agency and intelligence, strength of character, often outwitting the men around them. Lady McBeth, Viola from Twelfth Night, Rosalind from As You Like It, Beatrice from Much Ado About Nothing. I think it is perfectly fair to say he understood women as well as any woman author understood men.

Indeed, a super genius appearing from out of nowhere In a very small village, son of a glove maker and sometime politician with no more than a grade school education, for all time and all places. i think the only word that really describes him, if any word can, is “phenomenon.“

 

[SamScribble]

In my writing experience, all characters - men, women, and dogs - define themselves, and they do it by what they say and do.

 

[LdyHoneybee]

You may consider it "frustrating and dumb," just as the opponents of the Romantics considered them in their time, but again—similar to "Flesh and Blood"—you recount the story not entirely correctly, as Lotte, the woman he adores, is already betrothed to another fine gentleman, and the romantic idea of dying for one's (unattainable) love is still current in our times, as proven by the third highest-grossing film of all time "Titanic," where Jack (played by Leonardo DiCaprio) dies in the end for his love Rose (played by Kate Winslet).

That's true, but I pointed out the Romantics exactly because their ideas of love went much further than mere medieval "romance," i. e., courtship and chivalry, with love becoming the only proper basis for marriage as well as everlasting, and so on and so forth.

But not as an example for Romanticism.

Still, even if you think that these artists were exceedingly sensitive, their sensibilities must have reached out or "spoken to" their respective audiences to garner them the overwhelming success they enjoyed during their lifetime, thereby confuting your implicit argument that they weren't as willing to "understand" women as, according to your explicit argument, solely post-1970s men are supposed to be.

The difference between the Romantics and the medievals in terms of romance is, at the most basic level, for the medievals, romance was almost invariably fantasy because its structure was ”young poet woos married noble lady, often in his absence with compliments and poetry, putting her on a pedestal not out of love but because she was noble and he was common.” Or it better be that because at the time a husband could kill his wife and her lover if it ever got real and suffer no legal consequence. When Abelard (tutor) deflowered Heloise, her brothers put her in a nunnery, hunted Abelard down, and relieved him of his ability ever to deflower another woman, no legal consequence. They wrote to each other for the rest of their lives, so I think there was something there. However, the consequences upon anyone who tried to make romance a reality were so profound that it was something that mostly just happened in poems. By the time the Romantics came along, “love” was a (not the, at least in the upper classes) reason for marriage. In fact that idea started to become a reality in the late Renaissance. This may have complicated the pursuit a little for the guys, but it did not do much to change the having. Flaubert and Ibsen both got that. I venture that the first step in understanding anyone is to realize that everyone likes to be respected. That is not gender specific. It is a lovely gesture if a guy opens a door for me, especially (!) if he is not doing it just because he is courting me, but if he thinks that he HAS to because I do not have the sense to open it myself, he has a real serious problem with understanding.

 

[ElectricBlue]

It is a lovely gesture if a guy opens a door for me, especially (!) if he is not doing it just because he is courting me, but if he thinks that he HAS to because I do not have the sense to open it myself, he has a real serious problem with understanding.

I'm glad you appreciate the simple gesture of a door being held open.

I recall in my uni days back in the seventies (yes, I am ancient, no, the 66 means nothing), holding a door open for a bunch of people behind me. One of them was a notorious Rad Fem (I'll give her the courtesy of a title, back then she didn't deserve one) who said, "Don't hold the fucking door open for me, just because I'm a woman," so I replied, "If you noticed anything, you'll see I held the door open for everyone behind me. You're not fucking special, I'm just being polite."

 

[geronimo_appleby]

And just how do we know you are not really a black female dominatrix from the rural south...dipping your cat-of-nine-tails in a mint julep?

Shit, you got me! Took years for someone to figure out I wasn't really an obnoxious dude from the East Coast.

pics, or it never happened.

 

[MsNatalie99]

That is not gender specific. It is a lovely gesture if a guy opens a door for me, especially (!) if he is not doing it just because he is courting me, but if he thinks that he HAS to because I do not have the sense to open it myself, he has a real serious problem with understanding.

I try not to be overly sensitive. If a guy pays for my coffee, I'll thank him for the gesture. Same goes for holding a door, lending me his notes, or telling me to have a nice day. Did he do it because he's a gentleman, because he didn't think I could do it for myself, or because he wants to fuck me? Doesn't matter. It was a kind gesture, and I decide what will come of it. I have no control over how others think or act, nor do I want to. I am, however, accountable for my response.

 

[Auden James]

The difference between the Romantics and the medievals in terms of romance is, at the most basic level, for the medievals, romance was almost invariably fantasy because its structure was ”young poet woos married noble lady, often in his absence with compliments and poetry, putting her on a pedestal not out of love but because she was noble and he was common.”

Medieval romance didn't only concern poets wooing married noble ladies, but in fact mostly knights and their services and adventures for ladies as an expression of their amour courtois.

When Abelard (tutor) deflowered Heloise, her brothers put her in a nunnery, hunted Abelard down, and relieved him of his ability ever to deflower another woman, no legal consequence.

And once again, you don't recount history correctly, for it was Abélard himself who sent Héloïse to the convent at Argenteuil, not her uncle. Also you're completely mistaken that there were no legal consequences for the attackers, for "when apprehended, [they] were subjected to both castration and blinding." And whether Abélard was indeed in love with Héloïse, at least in any "romantic" sense, is a matter of critical debate (see his reluctance to marry her, etc.).

By the time the Romantics came along, “love” was a (not the, at least in the upper classes) reason for marriage.

Love has always been a reason for marriage since this instution exists in society, especially for the lower classes, that's why I pointed out the Romantics who made it the only proper reason for marriage, especially in the upper classes too.

I venture that the first step in understanding anyone is to realize that everyone likes to be respected.

And because of that you disrespect virtually all men who ever lived before the 1970s by denying that they were willing or even able to "understand" women?

 

[LdyHoneybee]

In my writing experience, all characters - men, women, and dogs - define themselves, and they do it by what they say and do.

I'm glad you appreciate the simple gesture of a door being held open.

I recall in my uni days back in the seventies (yes, I am ancient, no, the 66 means nothing), holding a door open for a bunch of people behind me. One of them was a notorious Rad Fem (I'll give her the courtesy of a title, back then she didn't deserve one) who said, "Don't hold the fucking door open for me, just because I'm a woman," so I replied, "If you noticed anything, you'll see I held the door open for everyone behind me. You're not fucking special, I'm just being polite."

If somebody doesn’t respect you for doing something nice, it probably has nothing to do with you.

 

[LdyHoneybee]

I try not to be overly sensitive. If a guy pays for my coffee, I'll thank him for the gesture. Same goes for holding a door, lending me his notes, or telling me to have a nice day. Did he do it because he's a gentleman, because he didn't think I could do it for myself, or because he wants to fuck me? Doesn't matter. It was a kind gesture, and I decide what will come of it. I have no control over how others think or act, nor do I want to. I am, however, accountable for my response.

Sure. if a gal paid for my coffee, I would thank her. If anybody did. Exactly right. You cannot control how other people act, fantasy aside. But if they act like jerks, you don’t have to like them.

 

[MsNatalie99]

Sure. if a gal paid for my coffee, I would thank her. If anybody did. Exactly right. You cannot control how other people act, fantasy aside. But if they act like jerks, you don’t have to like them.

True, but I was speaking in context. Kind gestures. I wouldn't accept a jerk coffee.

 

[LdyHoneybee]

I try not to be overly sensitive. If a guy pays for my coffee, I'll thank him for the gesture. Same goes for holding a door, lending me his notes, or telling me to have a nice day. Did he do it because he's a gentleman, because he didn't think I could do it for myself, or because he wants to fuck me? Doesn't matter. It was a kind gesture, and I decide what will come of it. I have no control over how others think or act, nor do I want to. I am, however, accountable for my response.

Sure. if a gal paid for my coffee, I would thank her. If anybody did. Exactly right. You cannot control how other people act, fantasy aside. But if they act like jerks, you don’t have to like them.

Medieval romance didn't only concern poets wooing married noble ladies, but in fact mostly knights and their services and adventures for ladies as an expression of their amour courtois.

And once again, you don't recount history correctly, for it was Abélard himself who sent Héloïse to the convent at Argenteuil, not her uncle. Also you're completely mistaken that there were no legal consequences for the attackers, for "when apprehended, [they] were subjected to both castration and blinding." And whether Abélard was indeed in love with Héloïse, at least in any "romantic" sense, is a matter of critical debate (see his reluctance to marry her, etc.).

Love has always been a reason for marriage since this instution exists in society, especially for the lower classes, that's why I pointed out the Romantics who made it the only proper reason for marriage, especially in the upper classes too.

And because of that you disrespect virtually all men who ever lived before the 1970s by denying that they were willing or even able to "understand" women?

No actually. That is your read, apparently, but not my intention. Please refrain from trying to read my mind. It is not productive. You don’t stand a chance of understanding anyone if you are always assuming that they think only what you think they think. Thanks.

 

[Auden James]

Please refrain from trying to read my mind.

I'm not even trying to read your mind, I'm merely reading your posts here:

The idea that men should try to “understand“ women is very new (although some individuals, literary artists most, knew it all along), just since the 1970s really.

 

[LdyHoneybee]

Sure. if a gal paid for my coffee, I would thank her. If anybody did. Exactly right. You cannot control how other people act, fantasy aside. But if they act like jerks, you don’t have to like them.

No actually. That is your read, apparently, but not my intention. Please refrain from trying to read my mind. It is not productive. You don’t stand a chance of understanding anyone if you are always assuming that they think only what you think they think. Thanks.

I'm not even trying to read your mind, I'm merely reading your posts here:

That was a remark about societal expectations, not about men. In our modern day, men are beginning to be EXPECTED to understand and many of them are trying to do it. This is a good thing. But it did not exist in the past, and it made many women very unhappy but they had little to no power so they just adjusted to make their lives livable. OF COURSE, there were exceptions. But the society did not really support them. There is a lot of support now for a guy who helps with the household chores for example. In the past, a guy like that had to keep it a secret or he got called names. I think highly of a man who honestly tries to understand instead of deciding that I want what he wants and mean what he thinks I mean. So thanks for the opportunity to clarify.

Sure. if a gal paid for my coffee, I would thank her. If anybody did. Exactly right. You cannot control how other people act, fantasy aside. But if they act like jerks, you don’t have to like them.

No actually. That is your read, apparently, but not my intention. Please refrain from trying to read my mind. It is not productive. You don’t stand a chance of understanding anyone if you are always assuming that they think only what you think they think. Thanks.

 

[LdyHoneybee]

You seem to have us all figued out. The only correct opinions being those that allign with your own. Best of luck to you in your writing.

I think i might have mispaged. Was that for me?

 

[Maxiine]

True, but I was speaking in context. Kind gestures. I wouldn't accept a jerk coffee.

• 6 teaspoons onion powder
• 6 teaspoons garlic powder
• 2 teaspoons cayenne pepper
• 2 teaspoons salt
• 2 teaspoons ground black pepper
• 2 teaspoons dried thyme
• 2 teaspoons brown sugar
• 1 teaspoon ground allspice
• 1 teaspoon dried parsley
• 1 teaspoon paprika
• 1/2 teaspoon hot pepper flakes
• 1/2 teaspoon ground cinnamon
• 1/2 teaspoon ground nutmeg
• 1/2 teaspoon ground clove
• 1/4 teaspoon ground cumin

That's the recipe I have for Jerk...love it on chicken, but you are right...it would stink in coffee.

 

[jehoram]

I found the movie "Flesh + Blood" on IMDB, and it sounds like that's the one you're referring to. Let's see... directed by a man, screenplay by that man and another man, from the other man's story. While I haven't seen the film and therefore shouldn't judge it, my initial impression is that it's basically a male fantasy based on a "Stockholm Syndrome" plot device. Did any of those men ever actually talk to women who had been serially raped? I can't believe that after being brutally gang-raped, the next time that the woman had intercourse with one of the rapists would be a positive, life-affirming experience.

I haven't seen the movie, either, but your post got me curious about it, so I checked the IMDB site for their write-up. The creators wanted to show how brutal that time period was, contrasting it with fantasies like "Camelot," and I guess they succeeded in conveying the reality of barbarianism. But when they got to that bath scene, reality left the building.

 

[stickygirl]

tldr so forgive me if this has already been covered. Gender is a spectrum, so some guys will never get it, just as some women won't. In between, how men and women write is likely to be influenced by their own sense of self, of gender-self and then how they then express that in a story based on their life's experience.
There are a few guys who write laughably bad female characters, but there are people who don't understand the need for lane discipline when they drive. "It's a mixed up, muddled up, shook up world..." and that's the joy of writing and reading - it's voluntary after all.

 

[jsmiam]

tldr…

Amen!!!!

whole lotta tldr going on

 

[MsNatalie99]

• 6 teaspoons onion powder
• 6 teaspoons garlic powder
• 2 teaspoons cayenne pepper
• 2 teaspoons salt
• 2 teaspoons ground black pepper
• 2 teaspoons dried thyme
• 2 teaspoons brown sugar
• 1 teaspoon ground allspice
• 1 teaspoon dried parsley
• 1 teaspoon paprika
• 1/2 teaspoon hot pepper flakes
• 1/2 teaspoon ground cinnamon
• 1/2 teaspoon ground nutmeg
• 1/2 teaspoon ground clove
• 1/4 teaspoon ground cumin

That's the recipe I have for Jerk...love it on chicken, but you are right...it would stink in coffee.

Ha, walked into that one.

 

[Seadog777]

• 6 teaspoons onion powder
• 6 teaspoons garlic powder
• 2 teaspoons cayenne pepper
• 2 teaspoons salt
• 2 teaspoons ground black pepper
• 2 teaspoons dried thyme
• 2 teaspoons brown sugar
• 1 teaspoon ground allspice
• 1 teaspoon dried parsley
• 1 teaspoon paprika
• 1/2 teaspoon hot pepper flakes
• 1/2 teaspoon ground cinnamon
• 1/2 teaspoon ground nutmeg
• 1/2 teaspoon ground clove
• 1/4 teaspoon ground cumin

That's the recipe I have for Jerk...love it on chicken, but you are right...it would stink in coffee.

I have Crohn's Disease and that recipe would land me in the hospital.

Sounds good though.

 

[lovecraft68]

I haven't seen the movie, either, but your post got me curious about it, so I checked the IMDB site for their write-up. The creators wanted to show how brutal that time period was, contrasting it with fantasies like "Camelot," and I guess they succeeded in conveying the reality of barbarianism. But when they got to that bath scene, reality left the building.

No, it was them getting off on gang rape while pretending to show something about a time period.
Men can only glorify rape, because its all they want to do, and they wish they could bring those days back
Oh, wait, they are coming back.