A Question for the Men...

[RailRoader]

If you don't have 'attractive' characters you loose readers, is the conventional wisdom.

If you focus on the 'inner' character and don't buff them up so much it is hard to get people excited.

Everybody seems to love Drama.

Is there an "Ugly" category?
Nah. Too subjective, I guess. Maybe in "Fetish."

 

[LoveMenLoveSex]

If you don't have 'attractive' characters you loose readers, is the conventional wisdom.

If you focus on the 'inner' character and don't buff them up so much it is hard to get people excited.

Everybody seems to love Drama.

Is it? That's pretty sad.

No. Everyone loves MELODRAMA. Few people even recognise drama.

Railroader, that sure pertains to the short stories I was talking about and why not? It's understandable. But my questions relate to the stories that someone has spent some time on, that readers commit to and spend time on, not the quickies.

You're right ... some of the people some of the time ...

 

[LoveMenLoveSex]

So, if I always name my protagonist Drama, I'll always win with the readers(?)

LOL ... just include in a tag

 

[LoveMenLoveSex]

As someone who tries to write interesting female characters with realistic personalities, I can tell you why writing real and complex female characters is unusual - it's damn hard. With a man you can fall back on a few stereotypes and it mostly works - men are simply simpler creatures in many ways; the stereotypes tend to be *accurate*, and hence believable. But even in the narrow band of female characters I write about - 20's and interested in submission - personalities rapidly get intricate. I'm told I've done well at it (or at least, women who self-identify as submissive generally say so) but it's never a trivial effort.

Sure, it is hard. It makes your time and effort worthwhile too, doesn't it? Adding a slice of your own experiences? Allowing others to live them vicariously? A drop more of personal knowledge into the collective experience?

Is thinking about why people do what they do such an effort? Isn't it a part and parcel of the point of writing, sharing thoughts and insights with others?

Am I naive? Looking for pearls in the mudbanks, or what? Nothing that's easy is worthwhile - oh, except winning the lottery, THAT'S worthwhile, that 30 seconds madly scratching away the foil to reveal the numbers underneath. But ... ahem ... nothing else easy is worthwhile.

How many writers here read back over what they've written before posting and make changes, not just fixing the obvious errors but picking up characterisation problems, plot problems, making changes to phrases when a better one occurs etc? How many draughts get done before the piece is considered good enough to be seen by the public? Isn't that hard work? Isn't it worth it?

Bummed out now.

 

[Sammael Bard]

Seven wasn't a bad film, it's just the writer was too enamoured with his deadly sins and didn't put a great deal of thought into the psychology of the killer. Kevin Spacey's absent smiles did more for the character than the script did.

Alien, directed by Ridley Scott, was a classic horror film that was treated partly as a character study and psychological thriller. Seven people in a location that could not be escaped, couldn't be brightly lit and a monster they knew nothing about, although the real monster was waiting for them back home. Cameron's sequel was a great shoot-'em-up action film but what followed that were ludicrous disasters. If you haven't seen it, you should. The monster never utters a word

I thought the movie, Se7en, had a great potential though. It remained unexploited throughout.

It's okay if a monster speaks, but to me, action speak louder than words. If you can nail that part, you get a direct 5/5 from me. I never watched the sequels of the series, but heard that they're horrible.


BTW, I read your story. Mine is still "gorier" than yours.

 

[sr71plt]

How many writers here read back over what they've written before posting and make changes, not just fixing the obvious errors but picking up characterisation problems, plot problems, making changes to phrases when a better one occurs etc? How many draughts get done before the piece is considered good enough to be seen by the public? Isn't that hard work? Isn't it worth it?

I write once, review twice, send it for editing, clean it up when it returns, review it once, run a last spellcheck on it (I run a spellcheck behind every review), run a "find" on quote marks to ensure openers have closers and vice versa, and that's it.

 

[RailRoader]

Sure, it is hard. It makes your time and effort worthwhile too, doesn't it? Adding a slice of your own experiences? Allowing others to live them vicariously? A drop more of personal knowledge into the collective experience?

That is the key: Write what you know. If it's difficult to conjure someone up, draw from the people you've known. I was married for almost thirty years and recently ended a two year live-in relationship, plus I successfully raised three daughters.
None of that makes me an expert but it sure gave me a lot to work with.

 

[legerdemer]

Not to be overly pointed, but if you're leading Literotica to find out how to attract the opposite sex, you're likely to go far, far astray. Or get very depressed.

By way of simplification, to attract a man as a woman:
1. Be gorgeous. If you can manage this the rest of the list is optional.
2. Be horny and accomplished in bed. It doesn't replace beauty, but it helps.
You can add things about personality and accomplishments here as you like, but a lot of guys find that optional if you have 1 and/or 2.

To attract a woman as a man:
1. Be rich. If you have this, the rest of the list is optional.
2. Pay attention to her like nothing else exists. No woman will resist this.
3. Be extremely social and outgoing.
4. Get good at making women laugh.
5. Be faithful to her alone, so far as she knows.
6. Be arrogant and adorable by turns.
If you don't have 1, 2-6 are all essential.

Literotica will teach you the first list, but you won't learn much about the second list.

Re the second list: I'll agree with #s 2, 4 and 5 on your second list, Hands. #1 comes with way too much baggage (see #6). #3 sounds like a lot of hard work - can't relax around that kind of a social Energizer bunny. And #6 - sorry: no amount of adorable can make up for even a smidgen of the arrogant bit. Just in the humble opinion of this particular female.

To the OP - I've often wondered about the answer to your question - long before coming on Lit - because men who at least on the face of it seem to prefer a type females appear to far outnumber those who prefer the b type. How nice to know we have a skew in the male population here on Lit. Perhaps I can use that as an excuse to explain why I waste so much time here, all you awesome males, you!

(So glad you asked, even though I don't think you're getting a representative answer.)

 

[LoveMenLoveSex]

I thought the movie, Se7en, had a great potential though. It remained unexploited throughout.

It's okay if a monster speaks, but to me, action speak louder than words. If you can nail that part, you get a direct 5/5 from me. I never watched the sequels of the series, but heard that they're horrible.


BTW, I read your story. Mine is still "gorier" than yours.

'Course it is, dear.

 

[LoveMenLoveSex]

That is the key: Write what you know. If it's difficult to conjure someone up, draw from the people you've known. I was married for almost thirty years and recently ended a two year live-in relationship, plus I successfully raised three daughters.
None of that makes me an expert but it sure gave me a lot to work with.

It's more than that. Write about what you're passionate about, what you believe to be the truth (for yourself, if no one else). That's interesting. Everything else is filler.

I don't know that a woman writing a man's point of view is any easier than a man attempting to write a woman's point of view. Men are as complex as women, maybe more so in the last 30 years where society's expectations have changed and keep changing. Surely it's harder for a man now to be both masculine and sensitive, ready for a fight but always a diplomat, able to mind-read thoughts and emotions and earn a high income, enough to support a family whether his partner works or not - daycare costs more than car travel, after all. People's motivations and desires haven't changed all that much in all their short history. They might tell themselves they've evolved, become more spiritual or whatever, but that is another psychological edge for a writer to dig under and explore for truth or rationalisation. Take away electricity and I suspect that things would revert faster than you could say 'Jack Robinson' (should you, for any reason, feel like saying that).

 

[LoveMenLoveSex]

Re the second list: I'll agree with #s 2, 4 and 5 on your second list, Hands. #1 comes with way too much baggage (see #6). #3 sounds like a lot of hard work - can't relax around that kind of a social Energizer bunny. And #6 - sorry: no amount of adorable can make up for even a smidgen of the arrogant bit. Just in the humble opinion of this particular female.

I don't mind a bit of arrogance when it's justified. I'm not so fond of it when it's used to mask insecurity. I do agree about the social Energiser bunny bit.

To the OP - I've often wondered about the answer to your question - long before coming on Lit - because men who at least on the face of it seem to prefer a type females appear to far outnumber those who prefer the b type. How nice to know we have a skew in the male population here on Lit. Perhaps I can use that as an excuse to explain why I waste so much time here, all you awesome males, you!

(So glad you asked, even though I don't think you're getting a representative answer.)

Not enough data to predict a skew Self-confident enough to be vocal is a skewing factor in itself. Maybe it's just easier?

My partner's parents always make me wonder about it. One date and he asked her to marry him, 1962 or thereabouts. They've been married, with their ups and downs and four children not counting miscarriages but seemingly happily, ever since. Was it that times were clearer or choices were less invasive? Was it that no one's heads had been filled with rights and must-haves and me-me-me, and personal responsibility wasn't such a dirty concept? I don't know. Maybe it was settling for what was there or maybe it was recognition between two decent people that mutual respect would be the most important foundation stone. I've had a few relationships and fallen in love just once. That one time was enough to realise that the previous 'ideas' of being in love were no more than crushes - powerful, often melodramatic but not the genuine article.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

sorry: no amount of adorable can make up for even a smidgen of the arrogant bit. Just in the humble opinion of this particular female.

Women who don't lean that way might be surprised how many women do fall for the hard, arrogant, demanding sort. Many (not all) of my male characters tend that way, and I've gotten plenty of email from women swooning over them.

To the OP - I've often wondered about the answer to your question - long before coming on Lit - because men who at least on the face of it seem to prefer a type females appear to far outnumber those who prefer the b type.

The way the OP worded (a) was a trainwreck; just try living with someone who is ALWAYS needy and fragile. Of course men like to be the hero occasionally, especially when it gets us extra sex. But come on, it's not a constant preference; I'd rather live eternally with a three year old.

The OP was obviously a proponent of (b), perhaps unaware that (b) can get pretty irritating too, for many men at least. (Any man that says he wants someone to 'share his life fully in every aspect' is full of shit; sometimes we want to be alone or at least silent, sometimes we want to triumph over everyone and everything, including you; and sometimes we want you to open your legs and provide a service in a fashion that has little to do with "sharing fully." In fact, "sharing fully" sounds too much like every man's nightmare, a woman who won't STOP sharing, not for a second, not even to breathe, and can't you see I'm trying to watch the game/build a business/fix my car here?)

Anyway, appearances are deceiving. Even if you accept the false dichotomy of the question, no one wants the same thing all the time. I'm egotistical and arrogant and the thin shell of my politeness poorly masks a My Way or the Highway attitude that those who love me best assure me is slightly less endearing than I imagine; but don't I just love it when someone comes along, and let it be a female, and tries to give me a comeuppance. I might even enjoy it if I lost; hard to say.

Variety is the spice of life.

 

[sr71plt]

Well, sure, if you insist on getting real.

 

[legerdemer]

Women who don't lean that way might be surprised how many women do fall for the hard, arrogant, demanding sort. Many (not all) of my male characters tend that way, and I've gotten plenty of email from women swooning over them.



The way the OP worded (a) was a trainwreck; just try living with someone who is ALWAYS needy and fragile. Of course men like to be the hero occasionally, especially when it gets us extra sex. But come on, it's not a constant preference; I'd rather live eternally with a three year old.

The OP was obviously a proponent of (b), perhaps unaware that (b) can get pretty irritating too, for many men at least. (Any man that says he wants someone to 'share his life fully in every aspect' is full of shit; sometimes we want to be alone or at least silent, sometimes we want to triumph over everyone and everything, including you; and sometimes we want you to open your legs and provide a service in a fashion that has little to do with "sharing fully." In fact, "sharing fully" sounds too much like every man's nightmare, a woman who won't STOP sharing, not for a second, not even to breathe, and can't you see I'm trying to watch the game/build a business/fix my car here?)

Anyway, appearances are deceiving. Even if you accept the false dichotomy of the question, no one wants the same thing all the time. I'm egotistical and arrogant and the thin shell of my politeness poorly masks a My Way or the Highway attitude that those who love me best assure me is slightly less endearing than I imagine; but don't I just love it when someone comes along, and let it be a female, and tries to give me a comeuppance. I might even enjoy it if I lost; hard to say.

Variety is the spice of life.

To your first few lines - yes, I am surprised, but then I don't lean to the submissive side. Quite the opposite.

Regarding the false dichotomy of the OP's question: it's very hard to ask questions without setting up dichotomies. They get full of caveats and dead ends, and become incomprehensible. They can't be either asked or answered. Even a (false) dichotomy can yield insights. You just have to parse the answers more carefully.

Non-stop talking annoys me no end, and I find most relaxing sitting and reading or writing next to my male partner, both of us doing our own thing. That is, when we're not fucking like bunnies, but for longer and with many fewer consequences.

And I entirely agree with you about variety being the spice of life. It's that which is pulling me in all sorts of naughty directions, making me realize that I agree with Oscar Wilde: "I can resist everything except temptation."

 

[Learin]

Women who don't lean that way might be surprised how many women do fall for the hard, arrogant, demanding sort. Many (not all) of my male characters tend that way, and I've gotten plenty of email from women swooning over them.

That's quite a statement you've made.

It's probably true for fiction, which is mostly male-dominated BTW. But IRL, I didn't see many women commit themselves to such men for long-term. Perhaps it's a United States thing.

 

[LoveMenLoveSex]

The way the OP worded (a) was a trainwreck; just try living with someone who is ALWAYS needy and fragile. Of course men like to be the hero occasionally, especially when it gets us extra sex. But come on, it's not a constant preference; I'd rather live eternally with a three year old.

To throw in my three cents here ... yeah, I probably couldn't have made the question clunkier if I'd thought about it all day ... but the question arose from the experience and the experience showed that in the romance and one-on-one coupling stories here, the object of male desire was preponderantly Option (A) in all its clunkiness. Needy. Without an opinion or a token one if thrown in at all. Illogical. Over-emotional. It wouldn't be like living with a three year old. It would be like living with an android pre-programmed with a teenager's emotional and mental level.

The OP was obviously a proponent of (b), perhaps unaware that (b) can get pretty irritating too, for many men at least. (Any man that says he wants someone to 'share his life fully in every aspect' is full of shit; sometimes we want to be alone or at least silent, sometimes we want to triumph over everyone and everything, including you; and sometimes we want you to open your legs and provide a service in a fashion that has little to do with "sharing fully." In fact, "sharing fully" sounds too much like every man's nightmare, a woman who won't STOP sharing, not for a second, not even to breathe, and can't you see I'm trying to watch the game/build a business/fix my car here?)

I'm certainly glad you took the general concept all the way to the bitter end. It did illustrate clearly how foolish it is to leave a simple concept (partnership) open to any interpretation, especially the most draconic one. The intent wasn't to suggest a relationship joined at the hip, any more than the first option suggested a continually whining toddler.

You could further categorise them as The Uncomplaining Wife and The Controlling Bitch, if you like. Or whatever pigeon-hole fits more neatly into your life experiences. It's always interesting to see something exaggerated so much and for so little obvious reason.

It may come as a surprise but I have no stone to grind here and I'm a little surprised to find that some posters believe I'm trying to hammer a point across. It doesn't matter in the slightest if the men and women authors on this site, or any other, prefer to write stories for surface level enjoyment without considering anything more. There's an entire world of published books out there that explore and analyse more thoroughly and more interestingly the complexities of people and relationships. Simple curiosity is all that drove these questions, just a plain wondering about the authors here, and as noted somewhere above, the answers have been fascinating.

Thanks for all the input, perspective and thoughts.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Not to be overly pointed, but if you're leading Literotica to find out how to attract the opposite sex, you're likely to go far, far astray. Or get very depressed.

By way of simplification, to attract a man as a woman:
1. Be gorgeous. If you can manage this the rest of the list is optional.
2. Be horny and accomplished in bed. It doesn't replace beauty, but it helps.
You can add things about personality and accomplishments here as you like, but a lot of guys find that optional if you have 1 and/or 2.

To attract a woman as a man:
1. Be rich. If you have this, the rest of the list is optional.
2. Pay attention to her like nothing else exists. No woman will resist this.
3. Be extremely social and outgoing.
4. Get good at making women laugh.
5. Be faithful to her alone, so far as she knows.
6. Be arrogant and adorable by turns.
If you don't have 1, 2-6 are all essential.

Literotica will teach you the first list, but you won't learn much about the second list.

Your 2nd list is bull shit.

Nothing stimulates appetite like need. Go without food or water or cock and you want it. Go for the girls who getting meat in their diet. You may get tossed out the door after she's had her fill, it happens, but youre mighty welcome in her bed till she is. I don't waste my time trying to impress any woman. And my 42nd wedding anniversary is days away. I'm still around for a couple of reasons. My peepee is bigger than some (and likes pussy) and I got plenty of money for what she wants. I get told off all the time, there's plenty she don't like about me (I taught Donald Trump all he knows about winning friends). But I got what she needs, and I'm generous with both.

I learned something about women from a prostitute I dated long ago. About once a week she invited me to spend the night. What she told was this, she fucked plenty of men all week, and none of them long enough for her to get off. All night with me did it. Now I'm not the bestest lover but I last forever. What goes up don't come down for a few hours.

Being nice to a woman is the same as confessing to her you got shit. Offer what she needs.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

I was right. The OP is SAFEBET flying a false flag.

 

[LoveMenLoveSex]

I was right. The OP is SAFEBET flying a false flag.

Am I missing something here? Who or what is SAFEBET?

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Am I missing something here? Who or what is SAFEBET?

Welcome back.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

yeah, I probably couldn't have made the question clunkier if I'd thought about it all day ... but the question arose from the experience and the experience showed that in the romance and one-on-one coupling stories here, the object of male desire was preponderantly Option (A) in all its clunkiness. Needy. Without an opinion or a token one if thrown in at all. Illogical. Over-emotional.

It's the survey taker's dilemma. To get differences between A and B, a survey question often has to exaggerate the differences between A and B or set up false dichotomies, to make the question clear. But then the answers target the question as worded, reacting to the exaggerated differences and polluting the data. The effect is actually "useful", since most professional surveys are designed to get the answers the surveyor wants to get; wording the question to bias answers that way is a valued skill.

As for the rest... I've done a lot of thinking about male and female roles in relationships; studying it became a hobby of mine. I could write pages on why, in a fantasy story, a typical male writer will cast a female into a subordinate role, where in real life a fully subordinate female has more limited fascination.

My stories won't much appeal to you, I think; but as an exercise, take a look at My I Love My Job. In it, an 18 year old girl who is somewhat submissive is suddenly swept into a situation where she's required to be quite fully submissive, in excess of her nature. She's not your (b) type because at 18, virtually no one is. But I had a great deal of fun making her Not (a). This isn't to say that she triumphs over the Male Patriarchy and ends up fully sharing anything. That wasn't possible in the culture and setting I put her in. But I gave her a brain and a backbone and in her circumstances she ultimately does better than you'd expect. I'm sure you'll grit your teeth over the first two chapters but I *think* you'll enjoy the ongoing character development thereafter.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Humans havent changed in 10,000 years, what changed was technology. So what we think is modern equality is bull shit, and most gals are antithetical to their natural condition BUT like it in spite of their lies.

 

[sr71plt]

Am I missing something here? Who or what is SAFEBET?

Someone whose posting style and content were totally different from yours. Don't sweat it.

 

[RailRoader]

Take away electricity and I suspect that things would revert faster than you could say 'Jack Robinson' (should you, for any reason, feel like saying that).

Not if it leads to the collapse of civilization as we know it. I don't want to be responsible for that…!

 

[RailRoader]

That's quite a statement you've made.

It's probably true for fiction, which is mostly male-dominated BTW. But IRL, I didn't see many women commit themselves to such men for long-term. Perhaps it's a United States thing.

Women who commit to arrogant, demanding men are often to submissive for my taste. I've known them but can't muster up any real interest in them.