Is this universal or idiosyncratic?

[AG31]

My favorite phrase for describing a good sex scene is that it evokes for the reader what the character is sensing. I'd just sort of assumed that it was a widely shared criterion. But now I'm wondering if it points to yet another way in which we humans vary. That is, the degree to which somatic/kinaesthetic sensory modalities are important to your experience of and reading and writing about sex? Sex is inextricably associated with physical sensation, so my assumption was that it was primary. Yes? No?

I got to thinking about this when I was muddling over creating a post about little things in a story that got in my way. Examples were;

"He pulled her underwear back up," They'd just had sex while she's on her back. They couldn't have if the underwear weren't all the way off at least one leg, otherwise it would have pinned her legs together.

"She turned and saw that the bed was unmade." This is in a bedroom she hadn't seen before in an ordinary house, where the bed is the biggest thing in the room, and she's been there long enough to take off her clothes and put on a skirt, top, belt, cardigan, and stockings. How could she not have noticed the bed?

"She ate a handful of Advil." Who eats a handful of pills? I bet no one.

As I reflected about these things, I realized that I was physically feeling these things (in my imagination, not in my skin.) Like I remember the feel of my babies as I held them, or blew on the soles of their feet, rather than remembering how they looked or sounded.

So are my expectations regarding the somatic/kinaesthetic in erotica universal or idiosyncratic?

Edit:
Would you be bothered by these sentences in a story?

Can you imagine including these sentences in one of your own stories?

 

[Britva415]

are my expectations regarding the somatic/kinaesthetic in erotica universal or idiosyncratic?

Yes

Just kidding. Actually: Neither.

It isn't universal, but it isn't so rare as to be idiosyncratic either.

 

[IWroteThis]

"He pulled her underwear back up," They'd just had sex. They couldn't have if the underwear weren't all the way off at least one leg, otherwise it would have pinned her legs together.

Depends on the position. Flat on her back with her feet above her head and her panties stretched between her ankles allows access. Balasana, or really any position where her ass is thrust out enough provides access for penetration from behind.

 

[BeechLeaf]

I might notice those first two examples - a long time after I had written them - but not kinaesthetically. I wouldn't imagine the feel of panties on lower legs, because I don't explore things by feel. I would be studying my current draft and (if lucky) notice that she had just walked across the room, or that I had previously said he ripped them off her. Then I have to perform a logical or visual analysis (and partly linguistic): could 'ripped off' still allow them to be around one ankle? Do I change it to... what?

Other people here have admitted to being borderline aphantasic. I'm not; I have what I think is a fairly normal sensorium, but (for me) that does mean the visual dominates. I have to check up on whether scenes work by rolling the cine-camera over it. Did they have time to do this? What does it look like, second by second? How long did the dialogue take to say? (If in doubt, read dialogue out loud with a timer.)

 

[AG31]

I'm adding this as an edit to the OP. Heads up to @IWroteThis and @Britva415

Would you be bothered by these sentences in a story?

Can you imagine including these sentences in one of your own stories?

 

[AG31]

I might notice those first two examples - a long time after I had written them - but not kinaesthetically. I wouldn't imagine the feel of panties on lower legs, because I don't explore things by feel. I would be studying my current draft and (if lucky) notice that she had just walked across the room, or that I had previously said he ripped them off her. Then I have to perform a logical or visual analysis (and partly linguistic): could 'ripped off' still allow them to be around one ankle? Do I change it to... what?

Other people here have admitted to being borderline aphantasic. I'm not; I have what I think is a fairly normal sensorium, but (for me) that does mean the visual dominates. I have to check up on whether scenes work by rolling the cine-camera over it. Did they have time to do this? What does it look like, second by second? How long did the dialogue take to say? (If in doubt, read dialogue out loud with a timer.)

So does this mean you don't have a problem imagining consuming a handful of pills?

 

[BeechLeaf]

Oh, did I not mention that? I began writing about 'a handful of Advil' but must have deleted it as irrelevant. That's just a gross error, it's not a failure to imagine or envision clearly enough.

 

[AG31]

Depends on the position. Flat on her back with her feet above her head and her panties stretched between her ankles allows access. Balasana, or really any position where her ass is thrust out enough provides access for penetration from behind.

I edited the OP.

 

[AG31]

Oh, did I not mention that? I began writing about 'a handful of Advil' but must have deleted it as irrelevant. That's just a gross error, it's not a failure to imagine or envision clearly enough.

I'm reassured to hear you say that. (Metaphorically hear.) I've bumped into this, eating a "handful" of Advil or aspirin or whatever, more than a few times.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Underwear can be pretty stretchy. And if it were below her knees, it wouldn't have been an impediment to sex. She might even have taken it off and then started putting it back on when he pulled it up. Wouldn't have a problem with that one.

Hard-man characters in American media seem to neck painkillers. No idea if that's plausible, though it certainly isn't (and is annoying) when it happens in Britain - where all such meds come in blister packs to reduce overdose.

The second one, I could believe if there was some text describing her entering the room in the arms of her partner, only looking at him and seeing only the small area of wall behind him, and only after getting naked did she turn round and actually notice the rest of the room at all. Without that kind of scaffolding, it doesn't work.

I'm possibly similar in that I feel stories as I write them and ideally as I read them, so some authors' dry style of just listing what he did to her, she did to him, etc, I don't find erotic without a lot more detail.

 

[ElectricBlue]

My favorite phrase for describing a good sex scene is that it evokes for the reader what the character is sensing. I'd just sort of assumed that it was a widely shared criterion. But now I'm wondering if it points to yet another way in which we humans vary. That is, the degree to which somatic/kinaesthetic sensory modalities are important to your experience of and reading and writing about sex? Sex is inextricably associated with physical sensation, so my assumption was that it was primary. Yes? No?

Where's emotion in this schema? For me, physicality is one element, certainly, but it's not there by itself.

"He pulled her underwear back up," They'd just had sex while she's on her back. They couldn't have if the underwear weren't all the way off at least one leg, otherwise it would have pinned her legs together.

The sentence doesn't go into that level of detail, so that's layering on something that might not be there. The underwear might have been pulled down one leg completely, and he just pops her foot into the leg hole, pulls it back up.

"She turned and saw that the bed was unmade." This is in a bedroom she hadn't seen before in an ordinary house, where the bed is the biggest thing in the room, and she's been there long enough to take off her clothes and put on a skirt, top, belt, cardigan, and stockings. How could she not have noticed the bed?

Agree this. It's like, "Suddenly I noticed blah blah blah" - as if they've only just opened their eyes. "Suddenly" might even be a tell-tale sign of a beginner, given the amount of overuse it gets.

"She ate a handful of Advil." Who eats a handful of pills? I bet no one.

In normal circumstances, probably not, in suicidal circumstances, possibly.

As I reflected about these things, I realized that I was physically feeling these things (in my imagination, not in my skin.) Like I remember the feel of my babies as I held them, or blew on the soles of their feet, rather than remembering how they looked or sounded.

So are my expectations regarding the somatic/kinaesthetic in erotica universal or idiosyncratic?

Idiosyncratic, I think. You've often commented how you deconstruct every movement implied in a sentence, whereas many (most?) writers just haven't thought about it much.

Edit:
Would you be bothered by these sentences in a story?

I wouldn't be bothered, as such, but if the writer went on with that sort of clunkiness, I'd probably back-click and go.

Can you imagine including these sentences in one of your own stories?

I'd possibly pull her underwear up, but I think I'd have noticed the bed!

 

[Merrygold]

"She ate a handful of Advil." Who eats a handful of pills? I bet no one.

Is that not an idiom where you are? It's not supposed to be a literal handful.

 

[Britva415]

Would you be bothered by these sentences in a story?

Not very much, unless there was other information actively contradicting them.

Pulling underwear back up doesn't have to mean it wasn't also pulled back on at the same time (or, first).

I can easily interpret a "handful of Advil" as figurative and not literal. The normal two or three tablet dose isn't necessarily incompatible with "handful." Neither is an excessive but still countable-on-one-hand amount like four tablets, or five. The phrasing conveys less about exactly how many it was and more how she took it: She ate it out of the palm of her hand, maybe not from her fingertips or maybe not with a water chaser.

Can you imagine including these sentences in one of your own stories?

I'd probably write the first one less ambiguously and the second one less figuratively.

 

[anthrodisiac]

I think physicality is one aspect of erotica, but certainly emotion/thoughts is a very large part of it as well. If you're just focusing on the physical, how is that any different from watching porn? You're just constructing the visual medium in your head instead of watching it on a screen. What makes writing and erotica special is the fact we can explore characters on a much deeper level than surface physicality. For me, that's what adds vibrancy to it. It's not just, "He inserted his penis into her vagina," it's the thought about how full she is, or loving how velvety her walls feel on his dick, or the joy of finally having the man she loves in her arms, all of that. Yes, I know the first two examples touch on physicality, but they're blending descriptive with internalization. External/internal combo is what elevates smut from mental porn to immersive experience.

As for:

"She ate a handful of Advil." Who eats a handful of pills? I bet no one.

Zero problems. As someone who used to take over 100 pills a day, I'd go with multiple handfuls of pills and would down 10+ at a time (not even a bunch of tiny ones either, like, 10 mid-sized pills) because taking 50 pills one at a time is such a fucking pain in the ass (hell, I currently take six pills daily in one go; again, not all tiny ones), it indicates to me someone who takes a lot of pills fairly regularly. Most people who don't take pills struggle with more than one or two, but if you're popping 4, 5, 6, 10 daily, you can gulp down those suckers no problem. Advils are pretty small unless they're the big gel capsules, and even then, someone with experience could down four of those no problem.

Now, whether or not that's actually a good idea is another story. You shouldn't take more than the recommended dose. Some OTC painkillers will wreck your intestines or kidneys or liver like nobody's business.

 

[AG31]

I think physicality is one aspect of erotica, but certainly emotion/thoughts is a very large part of it as well.

The stories I like and write often have only one emotional focus. That's surrender. It's hard to draw a line between physicality and emotion, as the sense of surrender is so visceral.

If you're just focusing on the physical, how is that any different from watching porn?

Is porn (if defined as visual rather than written) so intrinsically bad? I don't consume visual erotica, but I'm guessing it can be done all along the spectrum of art and quality.

 

[Britva415]

Is porn (if defined as visual rather than written) so intrinsically bad? I don't consume visual erotica, but I'm guessing it can be done all along the spectrum of art and quality.

I’m not sure anthy was saying it’s bad, I think they might have been saying it can’t (or, as a practical matter, simply doesn’t) convey the emotion.

 

[AG31]

I’m not sure anthy was saying it’s bad, I think they might have been saying it can’t (or, as a practical matter, simply doesn’t) convey the emotion.

Right. "Bad" isn't a moral statement. It's a relative artistic one, that I'm suggesting may not always hold.

 

[Britva415]

Right. "Bad" isn't a moral statement. It's a relative artistic one, that I'm suggesting may not always hold.

Well, I’m still saying, it might not have been intended to be a comment about about relative artistic merit, but simply about whether it provides what you say you want.

I’m also still saying, as a real-world matter of pragmatism, even if porn can achieve certain levels of artistic merit and certain levels of evocation of somatic and emotional experience, is anybody really creating porn which actually does? If not, then, the point is entirely moot.

 

[anthrodisiac]

Is porn (if defined as visual rather than written) so intrinsically bad? I don't consume visual erotica, but I'm guessing it can be done all along the spectrum of art and quality.

Porn isn't bad, let me clarify that. Reading porn is rarely going to get you the same bang for your buck as watching porn. A picture is worth a thousand words, a video gets you way more than that, so for the paragraph you talk about sucking his dick, you could watch 15 seconds of that instead. If there's no emotional connection or you aren't touching on internality, it's just people fucking, and video tends to win out on that (not always, mind you, but generally speaking). It's difficult to compete with that unless you're writing things that aren't possible, have very little visual media portraying it, or are really, really fucking good. It's why I think leaning into aspects that move outside the visual/auditory medium in which porn exists is how erotica distinguishes itself and provides a different type of experience for those who read it vs. those who watch it.

That's not to say porn can't bring that same experience, it can, but it tends not to because most people are watching porn for the same reason most people are reading erotica: to get off, not to ooh and aah at the artistic merit. It's why I think it's not all that useful to try to compete with porn by emulating it, unless, like I said, you're writing things that has very little coverage in the porn space and serving a kink/niche community that doesn't have a lot of content. Better to lean into what distinguishes writing from film.

I watch and look at porn for different reasons than I read erotica. If I'm in one mood, I'm clocking in on visuals, if I'm in another, I'm reading erotica. There's some overlap, but there's enough of a difference that each one gives me different payoffs even if the ultimate conclusion is more or less the same. I will say that erotica tends to stick in my brain much longer than porn, because while porn is visually visceral, erotica tends to be more emotionally resonant, richer, and more diverse. There are only a set number of positions, and even if my porn isn't necessarily the type most people watch or look at, there's still a finite set of angles and acts and bodies, and they can get repetitive and blend into each other after a while. Erotica can have that same effect if you're pornifying it, so if you want successful erotica that resonates better, you're better off focusing on things besides just the physicality. The physicality is important, but by itself, it rarely lends to anything memorable.

 

[AG31]

is anybody really creating porn which actually does?

I don't know, but I'd like to think so.

 

[AG31]

Porn isn't bad, let me clarify that. Reading porn is rarely going to get you the same bang for your buck as watching porn.

As I said to @Britva415, I was talking about art, not morals.

It's difficult to compete with that unless you're writing things that aren't possible, have very little visual media portraying it, or are really, really fucking good.

I'm always on the lookout for really, really fucking good stories. It's why I actually read so few.

 

[Britva415]

I'm always on the lookout for really, really fucking good stories. It's why I actually read so few.

Same!