ElectricBlue
Joined 10 Years Ago
- Joined
- May 10, 2014
- Posts
- 16,363
Other than the absence of sex and nudity, and taking the sensibility out of the knickers, I think you just tripped over my story file there, stickygirl
.The Female Gaze
- Thread starter stickygirl
- Start date
.
ElectricBlue
Joined 10 Years Ago
- Joined
- May 10, 2014
- Posts
- 16,363
This isn't my original reply (which was lost in timing out) but my thoughts on the discussion after pondering about it some more: how does it apply to writing, and specifically, writing erotica.
I didn't contribute to the discussion earlier because, having been a film buff since I was fifteen, growing up the son of a Marxist historian, having an English/History degree from a left-leaning Oz university, and being the younger brother of a feminist activist, the ideological constructs are well known to me.
Other than the drive-through train-wreck (setting a new record of "shortest time to Ig") this has been one of the most interesting threads for quite some time, and cudos to the main contributors.
But what does "gaze" mean to me (and God knows, my stories are chock full of it)? I sum it up with two nineteenth century portraits (which engendered essentially the same discussion for the same reasons 150 years ago, so nothing is new if you know a bit of social history):
Éduoard Manet's Olympia http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Olympia_(Manet) - a painting of a without doubt sexual woman who holds her gaze right back at you, looks you the viewer in the eye, thus laying down a challenge. She is the subject of the painting but no object.
Ingres' Grande Odalisque https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gra...e_Ingres_-_The_Grand_Odalisque_-_WGA11841.jpg - which is also a depiction of a sexual woman (from roughly the same era), who looks away. She is objectified.
For me, Olympia is female gaze because she is woman on her own terms, her place in society, withholding direct display (note the placement of the hand, hinting but hiding, revealing power by denying). She'd celebrate her cunt, and she would have hair. (I'm setting aside the whole discussion of artists and their models, coz that's a whole 'nother can of worms.)
La Grande Odalisque, on the other hand, while also demi-monde, is an object of male gaze. She's still sexual, but she's on display, looking away, looking down. She'd have a pussy, no doubt hairless. (She also has several extra vertebrae, anywhere between two and five, and impossible contortions of her spine.)
But what does this mean for writing erotica? For me, writing female / feminine characters who are sexual, powerful, empowered, unafraid, but still exquisite to the eye (because hey, EB, right?) and writing partners who are willing and able to engage them on their terms, and want to do so. Writing characters with emotions, empathy, humanity. For me, being willing to engage both my masculine and feminine side (and to try to figure out the whole spectrum in between). I have no real idea how I go with all that, really, but on the whole, okay, I think. My readers say so, anyway, and their gaze is what matters.
Two bob, ta
.
Last edited:
Omenainen
Finnishing
- Joined
- May 5, 2020
- Posts
- 1,435
Now this is about me and not general in any way, but I’ve been thinking about my feminine/masculine side lately. My first ten stories that I’ve spontaneously spewed out have been about half and half following a male/female protagonist. It’s enough of a sample size that I’ve realized that I have definitely certain types for my male and female characters. It seems my feminine side is stubborn, edgy, a little selfish and kind of annoying. And my masculine side is so nice it’s nearly nauseating. Gentle, patient, and sweet. I’m thinking I’ll have to try and write a nice lesbian story at some point, just to force myself to write a nice female character. Maybe I’ll learn something about myself. I feel like I’ve stumbled upon something here. Hooray for self discovery.
stickygirl
All the witches
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2012
- Posts
- 22,168
Thanks EB66 for taking time to re-submit your thoughts and as Melissa said, worth waiting for. I'm grateful you posted examples of fine art, which do sum up the subtlety of m/f subject/objectivity. Too often a brief read or look will record 'posh naked tart' but good books, films, art, deserve more of our consideration to reap the rewards.
In the very little I've written on Lit, I went from ticking content boxes, because I naively thought there ought to be one fuck per chapter, to realising I was writing for my own pleasure. I gave myself permission to explore characters the way they existed in my head and let them play out. I never had any concept of gaze, but I wanted them to breathe.
So can we write with gaze in mind? That would surely be a conjuring trick and beyond me. Writers can devise a plot that is empathetic, but in the end, we should write and be damned: gaze box-ticking can't be by rote and is something for our readers to bring.
In the very little I've written on Lit, I went from ticking content boxes, because I naively thought there ought to be one fuck per chapter, to realising I was writing for my own pleasure. I gave myself permission to explore characters the way they existed in my head and let them play out. I never had any concept of gaze, but I wanted them to breathe.
So can we write with gaze in mind? That would surely be a conjuring trick and beyond me. Writers can devise a plot that is empathetic, but in the end, we should write and be damned: gaze box-ticking can't be by rote and is something for our readers to bring.
SimonDoom
Kink Lord
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2015
- Posts
- 17,213
I think so, and I'll elaborate on what I've said earlier.
I believe "gaze" can influence, and be an element of, the ways characters look at one another in stories, and also the way the author/narrator looks at a character.
Many of my stories center on voyeurism/exhibitionism, which is all about one or more people looking at another person, and usually the other person showing off in some way. So far the exhibitionists in all my stories are women. So my stories are not projections of my own fantasies as a man about being an exhibitionist, but instead on a woman as an exhibitionist. I find the idea of an attractive woman exposing or exhibiting herself to be sexy and erotic, and I write about that. This is a popular theme in Literotica stories, so I'm obviously not the only one who finds these stories titillating.
Sometimes the POV in my stories is that of the man looking at the woman, and sometimes it is that of the woman exposing herself. In the latter type of story, although I often come up with outlandish scenarios for exposure, I try to get inside the woman's head and treat her feelings with at least a modicum of seriousness to give the story some verisimilitude. But even in that type of story I'm aware of my gaze as the narrator/author. As the narrator I spend time describing her in a way that she, the character, might not herself. I'm aware that I write my woman character into doing acts of exposure that turn me on as an observer, whether or not they realistically would for a woman in her place.
I think this is a way that "male gaze" can permeate a story. My stories are full of this type of gaze.
I could be wrong, but I think there are far fewer stories of this type about male characters being exposed or exhibited. And I imagine many of THOSE stories are gay male stories, written by men. So one sees the converse type of gaze far less often in erotic stories.
As a creative exercise I'm writing a CFNM story where a man is naked in front of a group of women. The story will be from his point of view, so it will be about his feelings about exhibiting himself and being objectified and looked at. But in response to this thread I'm going to add another element: his observations about the different ways that each of the women in the group looks at him. So the theme of "gaze" will loom large. It will be interesting to see how it goes.
ElectricBlue
Joined 10 Years Ago
- Joined
- May 10, 2014
- Posts
- 16,363
Like Simon, I think so.
I write, let's call it 'mutual gaze', constantly. This encompasses a visual image which pleases my male eye, and awareness from my female character of the (deliberate) effect she is having. For example:
or this:
or this (made absolutely explicit):
If these examples were pure male gaze, each vignette would have been an eye candy scene where the woman was objectified only. But the way I've written it (I hope) gives the woman agency, self-awareness - she knows exactly the effect she has on men - and there's some internalising content. The women are enjoying the encounter as much as the man, indeed, steering it.
Is this both male and female gaze, combined? It might be, but I'm a male, and need a woman to confirm it. Or to say, "Don't be bloody silly. THIS is female gaze!" With examples
.
MelissaBaby
Wordy Bitch
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2017
- Posts
- 7,155
This isn't my original reply (which was lost in timing out) but my thoughts on the discussion after pondering about it some more: how does it apply to writing, and specifically, writing erotica.
I didn't contribute to the discussion earlier because, having been a film buff since I was fifteen, growing up the son of a Marxist historian, having an English/History degree from a left-leaning Oz university, and being the younger brother of a feminist activist, the ideological constructs are well known to me.
Other than the drive-through train-wreck (setting a new record of "shortest time to Ig") this has been one of the most interesting threads for quite some time, and cudos to the main contributors.
But what does "gaze" mean to me (and God knows, my stories are chock full of it)? I sum it up with two nineteenth century portraits (which engendered essentially the same discussion for the same reasons 150 years ago, so nothing is new if you know a bit of social history):
Éduoard Manet's Olympia http://www.wikiwand.com/en/Olympia_(Manet) - a painting of a without doubt sexual woman who holds her gaze right back at you, looks you the viewer in the eye, thus laying down a challenge. She is the subject of the painting but no object.
Ingres' Grande Odalisque https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gra...e_Ingres_-_The_Grand_Odalisque_-_WGA11841.jpg - which is also a depiction of a sexual woman (from roughly the same era), who looks away. She is objectified.
For me, Olympia is female gaze because she is woman on her own terms, her place in society, withholding direct display (note the placement of the hand, hinting but hiding, revealing power by denying). She'd celebrate her cunt, and she would have hair. (I'm setting aside the whole discussion of artists and their models, coz that's a whole 'nother can of worms.)
La Grande Odalisque, on the other hand, while also demi-monde, is an object of male gaze. She's still sexual, but she's on display, looking away, looking down. She'd have a pussy, no doubt hairless. (She also has several extra vertebrae, anywhere between two and five, and impossible contortions of her spine.)
But what does this mean for writing erotica? For me, writing female / feminine characters who are sexual, powerful, empowered, unafraid, but still exquisite to the eye (because hey, EB, right?) and writing partners who are willing and able to engage them on their terms, and want to do so. Writing characters with emotions, empathy, humanity. For me, being willing to engage both my masculine and feminine side (and to try to figure out the whole spectrum in between). I have no real idea how I go with all that, really, but on the whole, okay, I think. My readers say so, anyway, and their gaze is what matters.
Two bob, ta
Excellent post, EB. Now do Courbet's L'Origine du Monde.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/L%27Origine_du_monde#/media/File:Origin-of-the-World.jpg
ElectricBlue
Joined 10 Years Ago
- Joined
- May 10, 2014
- Posts
- 16,363
Pure magnificence!
Can you imagine the impact of that painting the first time it was displayed? I love this painting - but then, I'm a fan of Bob Guccione's equally luscious women from Penthouse back in the late seventies/eighties**, too. In terms of gaze, it's both male (to look upon) and female (to be looked upon), but to be honest, by negating the face, it's a celebration of cunt over sensibility.
I'd display it on my wall.
** an Oz girl, Karen Pini was always a favourite, because of the Australian bush. Not a latter day Karen, I hasten to add.
https://retroperversium.blogspot.co...0s-australian-beauty.html?zx=e58db4aa2a80668f
MelissaBaby
Wordy Bitch
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2017
- Posts
- 7,155
As a loyal reader, you may remember that I titled the chapter in which Mary and Alvin go on their honeymoon, "The Hub of the Universe", from something Alvin says:
Someone, I'm sorry to say I don't recall who, sent me a link to the Courbet painting, saying that Alvin's remarks made him think of it.
Anyway, I thought it presented an interesting twist on the subject of gaze. It seems to me to be objectifying, but in a way that is...worshipful?
MelissaBaby
Wordy Bitch
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2017
- Posts
- 7,155
Actually, I think I may have made my definitive statement on the question of writing gaze in that same scene.
I agree with this. I'd also note a nuance that sometimes gets missed in these discussions. Illustration:
As the signature suggests, that image was drawn by a woman: Olivia de Berardinis, usually just known as "Olivia". She's a very successful pinup artist who's had a long career drawing for outlets like Playboy. Some men aren't into that style of art. Some women appreciate it very much. But it's not a secret that Playboy's target demographic is primarily male - it's right there in the name!
The "male" in "male gaze" refers to who the art is made for, not who it's made by.
Obviously the "for" and the "by" are related, because a lot of artists create for people like themselves as the target audience. But thinking of "male gaze" solely as "stuff made by men" misses the point.
.
Very true.
Roger Corman hired plenty of female directors back in the day to do exploitation films for him. He was notorious for having a certain system: Every ten minutes there had to be a pair of breasts or a murder. Or both. That system applied just as much to the female directors as it did the male filmmakers. And so you had women directors who were hired to create product that was designed specifically for the male gaze.
What is especially interesting about this is that some of these directors were feminists. Feminist directors who found a way to have their cake and eat it too. They did this by not-so-subtly weaving feminist messaging or moments of female empowerment into these films in between the senseless tits and violence.
Slumber Party Massacre is pretty much the definition of low budget slasher trash. You have all the tropes. A gratuitous shower sequence after gym class that makes Palma's sequence at the beginning of Carrie look tasteful by comparison. A random, naked, pillow fight and strip competition with zero context (college girls do this all the time, apparently). Girls stripping out of their clothes to switch into something else for no reason. etc. However, feminist writer Amy Holden Jones decided to use her position as director of the film to throw in stuff for the ladies. For one, she had several women survive the film (which is more than these films allow). She went out of her way in establishing that one of the girls is sexually active - which is kind of big since these movies were synonymous with punishing sexually active or "slutty" female characters by having them die first. She has several sequences where women establish that they are aware of potential dangers by having one of the ladies carry pepper spray, having them hold their keys in their fist like a potential weapon, and even having one of them take karate classes. There's even a scene where one of the girls hip-tosses her boyfriend after he sneaks up behind her in an attempt to surprise her. And, most notably, the film ends with the symbolic castration of the killer when one of the girls breaks his "weapon" with a machete. The entire film is littered with these moments of female empowerment that show what has the potential to happen when a women is controlling the narrative. Even if the narrative is created with the male gaze as a priority.
Last edited:
Enchantment_of_Nyx
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2020
- Posts
- 1,427
I view it as objectifying. An objectifying gaze is an objectifying gaze, regardless of whether the artist is looking at the subject with admiration or prurient interest. The woman in this painting, or the portion of the woman in the painting, tells us nothing about her. There's not even a suggestion of how she feels or what she thinks. We can't even tell if she's awake. She's not posed proudly, brazenly, shyly, coquettishly, etc. She's just lying there, one leg straight, one leg to the side. It's revealing without anything to suggest an active effort to display herself. She's utterly passive.
What, beyond her physical characteristics, do we know of the woman in the painting? I don't see any clues. I do not see this capturing any aspect of the female gaze (or whatever we're calling it.)
Enchantment_of_Nyx
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2020
- Posts
- 1,427
Exactly.
Bramblethorn
Sleep-deprived
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2012
- Posts
- 17,545
Do you think the title is part of that impression?
My reaction is a mix of yours and EoN's. I agree with EoN that we don't get any impression of the specific woman who is attached to the... anatomy... depicted therein, as a person, and the title suggests that this is intentional. It's not "Portrait of A Young Lady", it's "The Origin of the World" - i.e. where we all came from - so I'd take it as being intended to be universal.
Or, alternately, it's intended to be wank material, and the grandiose title is attached as a joke, or as a fig-leaf for respectability. It's hard to tell sometimes.
This is one I referenced in my "Riddle of the Copper Coin", St. George Hare's "The Victory of Faith":
If you look reeeeeally closely, this is ostensibly religious art. The two ladies are Christian martyrs awaiting execution - see the cross scratched on the wall in the background? See the rather half-assed lions in the shadows?
St. George Hare painted religious scenes, Greek myths, etc. etc. and a suspiciously high percentage of them involved naked ladies, often in chains. But as long as it's "religious" or "classical", a respectable gentleman could hang it on his walls, nudge nudge, wink wink.
Getting back to the Courbet, the line between "universal" and "generic, erasing individuality" is fuzzy, as indeed is the line between "I worship feminine power as symbolised by the vulva" and "I am a massive fuckboy who likes porn". Sometimes it's really hard to tell the balance of those ingredients.
NightSailor
Experienced
- Joined
- Jun 29, 2019
- Posts
- 46
Coming into this a tad late and I apologize for that.
I also apologize in advance for my thoughts on this matter. The female gaze? Concocted tripe written by an author that cannot dig deep enough to touch, feel, even smell within the core of the character and the story running in the mind of the woman they imagine or see. As authors we are in total control. There are no excuses for lame story lines or shallow and cheap dialog. Be creative. Dig deeper.
I also apologize in advance for my thoughts on this matter. The female gaze? Concocted tripe written by an author that cannot dig deep enough to touch, feel, even smell within the core of the character and the story running in the mind of the woman they imagine or see. As authors we are in total control. There are no excuses for lame story lines or shallow and cheap dialog. Be creative. Dig deeper.
Enchantment_of_Nyx
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2020
- Posts
- 1,427
The term was coined and the concept described with specific application to cinema, and it wasn't written by an author writing about other authors. It was about who is behind the camera and who is making the decisions. In some way, that's the equivalent of an author and in some ways it's not. An author has ultimate control over their product, and an author doesn't have to depend on massive financial backing of Hollywood Executives. There was more of a filter in the past because of the barriers to women getting published, but that's not the case today.
It was only toward the tail end of the discussion that we turned to a writing application of the concept. I think it's worth exploring.
I'm not sure why you labeled the concept, "concocted tripe," or why you think the woman who wrote the article had an inability to dig deep enough into a female character's mind. I did read your stories here, looking for that grasp on the core of the female character. How do you feel it's demonstrated in your work?
Last edited:
Careful dissent is not allowed here.
AlinaX
Asymmetric Snowflake
- Joined
- Feb 1, 2014
- Posts
- 4,507
Sure it is. Behave.
ElectricBlue
Joined 10 Years Ago
- Joined
- May 10, 2014
- Posts
- 16,363
NightSailor's contribution wasn't dissent, it was slam-dunk dismissal. One doesn't have to agree, but "concocted tripe... lame story lines... shallow or cheap dialogue..." adds nothing to a worthwhile discussion.
No it's not and I'm not your dog.
MelissaBaby
Wordy Bitch
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2017
- Posts
- 7,155
I do think my impression is colored by the title, which I knew before I saw the image. Perhaps I'd think differently if I had seen the painting cold, without any preconceptions.
I'm also prejudiced by the fact that my discovery of the painting came from a reader pointing it out as making a similar point to something I wrote, so there is that. As to whether Courbet was trying to make a point about feminine power or titillate an audience, I suspect it was both at once.
MelissaBaby
Wordy Bitch
- Joined
- Jun 8, 2017
- Posts
- 7,155
This is one I referenced in my "Riddle of the Copper Coin", St. George Hare's "The Victory of Faith":
If you look reeeeeally closely, this is ostensibly religious art. The two ladies are Christian martyrs awaiting execution - see the cross scratched on the wall in the background? See the rather half-assed lions in the shadows?
St. George Hare painted religious scenes, Greek myths, etc. etc. and a suspiciously high percentage of them involved naked ladies, often in chains. But as long as it's "religious" or "classical", a respectable gentleman could hang it on his walls, nudge nudge, wink wink.
And for those who like to look at male bodies, there is always St. Sebastian.
Bramblethorn
Sleep-deprived
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2012
- Posts
- 17,545
Can't believe I forgot him! Interesting article here on how Sebastian transformed from a burly middle-aged soldier to a handsome young twink.
SimonDoom
Kink Lord
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2015
- Posts
- 17,213
And for those who like to look at male bodies, there is always St. Sebastian.
Or pick anything that Michaelangelo ever did. There's a strong homoerotic element in the way he presents male figures in paintings and statues. It doesn't matter whether the subject is religious or not.
I subscribe 100% to Bramblethorn's insight. It may sound cynical but I think there's no question that for centuries artists have used the "it's religion" and "it's art" rationales as ways to convince women to be naked in front of them and to paint them. I'm not one of those people who spends any time trying to figure out "is it art or is it porn"? If you have to ask, it's probably both. It depends on how you look at. I'm sure men have masturbated to Manet's painting. So it's porn. It's objectifying, at least for some.
And there's nothing wrong with that.
Enchantment_of_Nyx
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 22, 2020
- Posts
- 1,427
And for those who like to look at male bodies, there is always St. Sebastian.
He's a bit perforated, though.
