Levels of Plausibility

[AlinaX]

Even in porn, there are ones that don't follow any in-universe logic, and there are others that are logical in whatever context they are in. Imagine a porn video where a step-father fucks their daughter in the middle of a church while the rest of the congregation cheers at them. It would be very jarring for me compared to the guy being slick at home and fucking the daughter in the bedroom.

"Listen, folks, the church needs money, and I know there's one thing y'all fork out hard-earned dollars to watch and that's porn. Yes, Mrs Hollywell, even you. We all know why you bought those extra-thick curtains. So, here's what I'm proposing, neighbours. I'm going to fuck Lacie here every which way to Sunday and y'all are going watch and cheer and pay for the content like you would at home. Come here, girl. On your knees and show your daddy how a good girl prays."

 

[anthrodisiac]

All ( most of) the stories listed above are strokers. The two stories I found very plausible are strokers. In fact, I love writing strokers. The purpose of the question is to find out whether plausibility affects reader enjoyment or not. That's all. If we can tweak our strokers slightly to make them more logical and the result is more enjoyable reading, then we should be striving towards making strokers more grounded. If plausibility doesn't affect the enjoyment, then it makes the job of writing easier. Yk.

Like we mentioned, different people have different preferences. There's no one-size-fits-all approach for what works best. Some people need very robust logic and plausibility, others need none at all. Stories where kink is heavily featured tend to focus more on the sexual acts and less on building up the plot and characters.

I think most readers need at least some plausibility and motivations behind the actions. It doesn't have to be much, it can be fairly flimsy, but if the sexual act(s) feel like they're going against who the character is or are massive societal no-nos with 0 explaination as to why the characters are willing to go against those norms, then it feels flat. Whether that impacts most readers who are looking to just get off is an entirely different question. I think most readers are more interested in having their specific kinks met than having their specific kinks in a very plausible, well-explained framework, to be honest.

I wouldn't conflate plausibility with this. Even if you want to write something non-erotic, the degree of plausibility still comes into effect.

Degrees of plausibility are one of those reader preference things. My wider point is that if you're writing more for a reader's sexual gratitification, then the approach is different than if your focus is on crafting a narrative. The sexual act is primarily scene-based, and the sex is the point of the story, whereas a narrative approach the sex is part of the narrative and serves a purpose beyond titilation.

Think of it like this (this will outline the typical ways most writers write between the two approaches, but is not the only way to do so):
1. Sex-Act Approach: You have a scene, Mom/Son, and the majority of the scene is the sexual acts between Mom and Son, with a little bit before and a little bit after. You build up Mom and Son as much as you need to in order to construct minimum viable plausibility (the level of which is writer-dependent on what they feel comfortable with). Then Mom/Son engage in sexual acts. The point of the sex acts is to depict the sex acts so the reader is able to sexually gratify themselves. Crucially, you could take the sex scene and move it up and down their timeline with no impact on the story itself besides minor detail changes.
2. Narrative Approach: You have a scene, Mom/Son, and the majority of the scene is the sexual acts between Mom and Son, with a little bit before and a little bit after. Same approach, but different focus now. You build up Mom and Son, focus on their relationship, how their dynamic is, focusing on who they are, the past series of events that led to this moment. You go beyond minimal viabile plausibility and establish them as characters with depth, who exist beyond this scene. Then Mom/Son have sex. The reason for having sex, and why they're having sex isn't simply to depict them having sex, but serves a larger narrative purpose. The story doesn't work without them having sex, because then the story is something else entirely, and the sex is necessary for the telling of the story. If you were to try to move this scene up and down their timeline, it doesn't work, because the sex scene can only occur at that moment due to the character and plot forces pinning that scene down to that exact moment. It's not about the sex, it's about the plot, it's about who they are.

In the sex-act approach, your only focus is on creating enough of a scaffolding to support the story. In the narrative approach, the sex scene is a crucial lynchpin in the larger scaffolding, and its removal destroys the story because it's a key aspect of the story.

Taken another way: In the sex-act approach, you're building the story around the sex scene. In the narrative approach, you're building the sex scene into the story.

 

[anthrodisiac]

"Listen, folks, the church needs money, and I know there's one thing y'all fork out hard-earned dollars to watch and that's porn. Yes, Mrs Hollywell, even you. We all know why you bought those extra-thick curtains. So, here's what I'm proposing, neighbours. I'm going to fuck Lacie here every which way to Sunday and y'all are going watch and cheer and pay for the content like you would at home. Come here, girl. On your knees and show your daddy how a good girl prays."

This is giving me mid-century musical vibes Very Music Man, and the person talking has a slight auctioneer voice, high, a smidge rapid, commanding, bit of twang, slight drawl.

 

[TheNovelist2000]

Like we mentioned, different people have different preferences. There's no one-size-fits-all approach for what works best. Some people need very robust logic and plausibility, others need none at all. Stories where kink is heavily featured tend to focus more on the sexual acts and less on building up the plot and characters.

I think most readers need at least some plausibility and motivations behind the actions. It doesn't have to be much, it can be fairly flimsy, but if the sexual act(s) feel like they're going against who the character is or are massive societal no-nos with 0 explaination as to why the characters are willing to go against those norms, then it feels flat. Whether that impacts most readers who are looking to just get off is an entirely different question. I think most readers are more interested in having their specific kinks met than having their specific kinks in a very plausible, well-explained framework, to be honest.


Degrees of plausibility are one of those reader preference things. My wider point is that if you're writing more for a reader's sexual gratitification, then the approach is different than if your focus is on crafting a narrative. The sexual act is primarily scene-based, and the sex is the point of the story, whereas a narrative approach the sex is part of the narrative and serves a purpose beyond titilation.

Think of it like this (this will outline the typical ways most writers write between the two approaches, but is not the only way to do so):
1. Sex-Act Approach: You have a scene, Mom/Son, and the majority of the scene is the sexual acts between Mom and Son, with a little bit before and a little bit after. You build up Mom and Son as much as you need to in order to construct minimum viable plausibility (the level of which is writer-dependent on what they feel comfortable with). Then Mom/Son engage in sexual acts. The point of the sex acts is to depict the sex acts so the reader is able to sexually gratify themselves. Crucially, you could take the sex scene and move it up and down their timeline with no impact on the story itself besides minor detail changes.
2. Narrative Approach: You have a scene, Mom/Son, and the majority of the scene is the sexual acts between Mom and Son, with a little bit before and a little bit after. Same approach, but different focus now. You build up Mom and Son, focus on their relationship, how their dynamic is, focusing on who they are, the past series of events that led to this moment. You go beyond minimal viabile plausibility and establish them as characters with depth, who exist beyond this scene. Then Mom/Son have sex. The reason for having sex, and why they're having sex isn't simply to depict them having sex, but serves a larger narrative purpose. The story doesn't work without them having sex, because then the story is something else entirely, and the sex is necessary for the telling of the story. If you were to try to move this scene up and down their timeline, it doesn't work, because the sex scene can only occur at that moment due to the character and plot forces pinning that scene down to that exact moment. It's not about the sex, it's about the plot, it's about who they are.

In the sex-act approach, your only focus is on creating enough of a scaffolding to support the story. In the narrative approach, the sex scene is a crucial lynchpin in the larger scaffolding, and its removal destroys the story because it's a key aspect of the story.

Taken another way: In the sex-act approach, you're building around the sex scene. In the narrative approach, you're building the sex scene into the story.

I agree. Stroker Vs Non-strokers. That would be a good topic for another time.

 

[big_cane_sugar]

A billionaire who gets away with treating you and your family like shit?

Did you mean to suggest this is implausible? IDK if you've seen any news in the past few months but a billionaire NOT getting away with it seems implausible to me. Unless "you and your family" are also astonishingly rich.

 

[AlinaX]

Did you mean to suggest this is implausible? IDK if you've seen any news in the past few months but a billionaire NOT getting away with it seems implausible to me. Unless "you and your family" are also astonishingly rich.

Did you not read the next sentence?

ETA: Sometimes I suffer from Britishness.

 

[TheNovelist2000]

Would your examples still work if there are many instances of 'no explanation'? I haven't watched A Space Odyssey beyond the first five minutes. I would have appreciated it way more if they'd cared to explain what the fuck the monkeys were doing.

Another thing to add is that characters' speculations about something mysterious can still be an explanation, even if it isn't verified as a fact. Even in fantasy series like Harry Potter, not everything is stated as facts. We were never told in earlier movies that Harry was dreaming about Voldemort because he was his horcrux, but it was alluded to the idea that he was dreaming about the guy because he was probably traumatised by him

 

[Andreas_Kreuz]

I think there are 2 types of pausbilty:
1: external plausibility - Could this story happen in our reality, or if people had the mindset of people in the 21st century?
2: Internal plausibility, aka verisimilitude. That is, if a story follows the logic it has set up in the background, in its scenario, or backstory. If this is missing, then the story is lacking for me.

I think what @TheNovelist2000 was complaining about is that the fantasy setting resulted in poor character development, when it should have been stronger, because of the unusual setting.

 

[TheNovelist2000]

I think there are 2 types of pausbilty:
1: external plausibility - Could this story happen in our reality, or if people had the mindset of people in the 21st century?
2: Internal plausibility, aka verisimilitude. That is, if a story follows the logic it has set up in the background, in its scenario, or backstory. If this is missing, then the story is lacking for me.

I think what @TheNovelist2000 was complaining about is that the fantasy setting resulted in poor character development, when it should have been stronger, because of the unusual setting.

Yes, the first story is sort of logical within its own universe, so it is not the worst of the four. But the universe is doing the heavy lifting for the plot. It is like reading about the daily lives of ordinary people in the the LOTR series. It is awesome to read about the magic and the new landscapes, but my God. Don’t we need Frodo Baggins and his unique kindness, the camaraderie between the members of the The Fellowship, the battles, the sorrows, and so on to truly be entertained?

 

[TheNovelist2000]

Yes, the first story is sort of logical within its own universe, so it is not the worst of the four. But the universe is doing the heavy lifting for the plot. It is like reading about the daily lives of ordinary people in the the LOTR series. It is awesome to read about the magic and the new landscapes, but my God. Don’t we need Frodo Baggins and his unique kindness, the camaraderie between the members of the The Fellowship, the battles, the sorrows, and so on to truly be entertained?

Characters' reaction to their fantastical universe alone has never been enough for any fantasy series to do well.

 

[MrHereWriting]

Would your examples still work if there are many instances of 'no explanation'? I haven't watched A Space Odyssey beyond the first five minutes. I would have appreciated it way more if they'd cared to explain what the fuck the monkeys were doing.

You need the hows and the whys, other people don't.

That's as simple as it gets.

 

[big_cane_sugar]

Did you not read the next sentence?

ETA: Sometimes I suffer from Britishness.

Sometimes I suffer from cynicism... I really cannot tell what is plausible anymore LOL

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I wasn't implying that I thought you were snobbish or that you thought you were better than anyone else.

Indeed, but you have to be careful because most stroke writers get extremely butthurt the moment that they get the slightest perception that someone might be looking down upon their stroke because that ruins their fantasy that they are the god-fucking-hemingway of erotica.

 

[TheWritingGroup]

For some people, one thing that makes porn exciting is that it is transgressive. The stories @TheNovelist2000 mentions in the threadstarter might be successful because they let the male reader "sin" against current cultural values in a safe (and non-harmful-to-actual-people) environment.

(Says the frequent publisher in Reluctance/Nonconsent.)

 

[dirk2024]

I'm having a hard time judging the plausibility of the original stories without reading them. Since they aren't set in our contemporary world, did the authors do enough world building to establish those systems? This is where I find most strokers fall short...for me as a reader.

What was described in the OP, were misogynistic worlds. My personal view is I don't like misogyny. It turns me off. So I don't read it nor do I write it.

But depending on how the author wrote it, how they crafted those worlds, it could still be plausible. Especially in a dystopian/sci-fi genre.

 

[TheNovelist2000]

For some people, one thing that makes porn exciting is that it is transgressive. The stories @TheNovelist2000 mentions in the threadstarter might be successful because they let the male reader "sin" against current cultural values in a safe (and non-harmful-to-actual-people) environment.

(Says the frequent publisher in Reluctance/Nonconsent.)

Definitely with the first story.

Here is a quote:

I don’t know where this is coming from; it should be fairly obvious that men are the ones who govern and run things. There are no women principals, presidents, or CEOs, just like there are no male mothers or maids. It’s the natural order of things. Men have invented every technology because they are better at engineering and science.

 

[TheNovelist2000]

it could still be plausible.

The first one was quite plausible. The world building was very thorough, but it felt strange reading about women who would be that compliant, even in a misogynistic world. They were compliant to the point that they felt robotic.

 

[SimonDoom]

As I've said in previous, similar threads, the guiding principle for me isn't realism or plausibility, but verisimilitude. It's the appearance of enough reality to hold the story together. It doesn't have to be much; I can handle fantastic premises. What I don't like is what I call "too much magic" -- where the author keeps piling on one bit of magic after another to propel the story forward.

In a story that is, say, 3000 to 5000 words long, which is short by Lit standards but normal by published short story standards, there's plenty of time and space to add details that lend a story plausibility, that give characters a semblance of motivation, and that create a sufficiently realistic scene. It doesn't take that much.

 

[dirk2024]

The first one was quite plausible. The world building was very thorough, but it felt strange reading about women who would be that compliant, even in a misogynistic world. They were compliant to the point that they felt robotic.

Was there something there that gave it a Stepford Wives vibe and reasoning?

 

[TheNovelist2000]

As I've said in previous, similar threads, the guiding principle for me isn't realism or plausibility, but verisimilitude. It's the appearance of enough reality to hold the story together. It doesn't have to be much; I can handle fantastic premises. What I don't like is what I call "too much magic" -- where the author keeps piling on one bit of magic after another to propel the story forward.

In a story that is, say, 3000 to 5000 words long, which is short by Lit standards but normal by published short story standards, there's plenty of time and space to add details that lend a story plausibility, that give characters a semblance of motivation, and that create a sufficiently realistic scene. It doesn't take that much.

I know it's hard to say without reading the actual stories, but in your opinion, do stories 2 and 3 appear to possess verisimilitude?

 

[TheNovelist2000]

Was there something there that gave it a Stepford Wives vibe and reasoning?

I would say there was too much reinforcement from the author. (It was like too much magic.) The same point was made again and again in different contexts. And the women didn't really have any reasons to be alive except for their servitude towards men. In fact, that changed my views on cuckold humiliation stories a bit. Cucks in my stories tend to only want one thing; humiliation. They don't really have a life outside of that. That has to change, I guess.

 

[SimonDoom]

I know it's hard to say without reading the actual stories, but in your opinion, do stories 2 and 3 appear to possess verisimilitude?

I'd have to read the stories themselves, but probably not.

I enjoy many "over the top" erotic stories based on far-fetched premises, but if they go too far they lose me. I don't like feeling like the characters in the story are just puppets on the author's strings and the author is having the characters do one crazy thing after another with no explanation or attempt at plausibility.

It's mostly a matter of personal taste. To me, a story is much more erotic if, before a character does something sexually outrageous, there is some resistance, reluctance, delay, barrier. It makes it that much more arousing when the barrier is crossed. I don't find a universe where "everything goes" to be as erotically stimulating.

 

[alohadave]

What I have encountered was many of the stories that achieved a high score did not make any efforts in establishing a plausible plot. That is to say, everyone who the main character(s) tries to make a move on is as eager for intimacy as them.

It's called a stroke story. There are stories just like it here.

 

[SimonDoom]

@TheNovelist2000 , you're not wrong, and my response on a story by story basis might be similar to yours, but this is very much a matter of personal taste.

Some readers like a story where two people start having sex under outrageous circumstances with no explanation. I don't. I like at least some set-up.

For example:

Version 1: Mom and son sit down on a sofa to watch TV, and they immediately begin making out and then have sex, with Dad cheering them on. This would bore me.

Version 2 (my version): Mom and son sit down on a sofa, and mom sits on son's lap because of a stain on part of the sofa, and things slowly begin to happen, with a lot of reluctance and tentativeness. Dad sits unaware of what's going on nearby. He's drunk. It's still an implausible story, but most readers seemed to feel that enough was added to make it work.

I think even a simple stroke story is better with a few elements of plausibility. Obviously, though, not everybody agrees with me.

 

[TheNovelist2000]

It's called a stroke story. There are stories just like it here.

No...no...You don't get it. There are plausible stroke stories and stroke stories where characters behave like mindless puppets controlled by the author. Imagine a story where a rich billionaire takes his girlfriend to another city on his private jet. He makes her blow him topless amidst the crew, and the crew reacts nothing. The gf reacts nothing. "Yes, dear. I am your property," she says. "Of course, I'll blow you." Then, the guy points to an airhostess to come and blow him, and she says. "It'd be an honour, Sir." Then, he lands. And steps onto a yacht. Another bitch with skimpy clothes comes in. Then, he fucks her, and she says. "Oh, this is so good."