"Soooo sad and yet so sexy."

[MrHereWriting]

Nope. Wrong-o! Very few readers are actively looking to cry, although they may not mind if it happens. A minority of the readers here want something with more emotional depth than kinky stroke porn and the tragedy seekers are a micro subset of even that. Further still, it is more difficult to pull tears out of someone who actually wants despair, hardship and grief than it is to get wankers to wank. It is FAR more difficult, because in order to make someone feel that depth, the emotion has to first be genuine, and then on top of that, the writer must do the groundwork of connecting the reader to the character(s) enough so that the reader actually cares about them. One can't simply present a person in distress. One needs to plot the person INTO distress (or at least deliver a convincing backstory without a wall of boring exposition). In stroke sheets nothing has to be set up (it CAN be but it's entirely unnecessary) - just get Mom in son's lap and start riding and the wankers will wank. Job done. It's a cakewalk compared to writing emotional depth.

Enjoy your opinion on a different topic than what we were talking about. I'm sure it makes you happy.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Enjoy your opinion. I'm sure it makes you happy.

Gee, that didn't sound offended either.

Sooo, I checked out your submission profile and if I am to judge by the taglines it's all kinky smut, but I won;t be so judgmental. I looked up about 200 comments on three or four of your titles and not one mention of loss or emotions or tragedy or 'you had me in tears'. In fact not even close. On the other hand there were several 'love all the mom/son incest" and "best mom in lap story".

So, if you want to assert that making readers cry is easy, perhaps you could actually try to do it once yourself maybe?

 

[MrHereWriting]

Gee, that didn't sound offended either.

Sooo, I checked out your submission profile and if I am to judge by the taglines it's all kinky smut, but I won;t be so judgmental. I looked up about 200 comments on three or four of your titles and not one mention of loss or emotions or tragedy or 'you had me in tears'. In fact not even close. On the other hand there were several 'love all the mom/son incest" and "best mom in lap story".

So, if you want to assert that making readers cry is easy, perhaps you could actually try to do it once yourself maybe?

You're in your own world, aren't you?

So, if you want to assert that making readers cry is easy, perhaps you could actually try to do it once yourself maybe?

I already made some readers cry; I stopped posting incest stories, plus, I'm not a child to be goaded by someone who can't follow a conversation, or anyone, for that matter.

 

[Lifestyle66]

Last year, I tried writing an emotional story "Aftermath, Just Loving You".

The comments range from:
************
by Anonymous user on 08/02/2024

This reads like the story written by someone under the effects of untreated syphilis that has started going through the brain.
************
by Anonymous user on 08/01/2024

Well just another weak story about a selfish woman
************
by payenbrant  on 08/01/2024

A well written tragedy. 5 stars for the writing, but in no way a feel good story. Just exceptionally sad. Thank you for writing .

Sincerely,
Payenbrant
************
by Julie1972  on 10/21/2024

A much better ending than the first version of the story. Sad but wonderful as the two lovers join each other in death. I have to admit I cried.
************

So, (just in my opinion), I think people get out of a story some of what they take with them when reading it. If they're looking to hate the story, then they'll find reasons to hate it. If they're feeling sad and looking for sexy romance, then a story such as "Romeo & Juliett" might catch their attention and make them cry.

This is why I write to the Loving Wives category; I get a wider range of reactions in comments from the audience. But I get reactions!

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

Part of the problem with this thread is that the OP has two conflicting statements in his post.
1. Women love tearjerkers, and
2. sad songs are sexy.

One is true. In my opinion, two isn't. I cried my eyes out when they put Old Yeller down, but there was nothing sexy about it. The tearjerkers that have me coming back are the happy endings, not the sad ones. I noted above somewhere that science shows strong emotions, good or bad, positive or negative, cause dopamine to be released in the brain which makes us feel good. This probably has something to do with why we(not just women) like tearjerkers, happy or sad.

Somewhere along the line a third theme got interjected; writing tearjerkers is easy. Total BS.

Writing stories that develop characters well enough to evoke emotion, especially emotions strong enough to elicit tears, is not easy. It takes work and planning and a little luck. I've done it a few times, probably my best or worse(depending on how you feel about crying) is Living up to the Legacy. Over a third of the comments(some self admittedly from men) either thank me or curse me for making the reader at least tear up. I worked on the ending for months to get it to stick. To be honest, I still tear up when I read the story.

I guess our challenge is to somehow continue this conversation about three different topics in one thread and keep it civil.(too late, I know, but I thought I'd try)

 

[SimonDoom]

2. sad songs are sexy.

One is true. In my opinion, two isn't. I cried my eyes out when they put Old Yeller down, but there was nothing sexy about it.

Yes, I agree. The OP invites some confusion because it raises different issues. A reader may like a sexy story that is also sad, but that doesn't mean the sad part is what makes it sexy.

Somewhere along the line a third theme got interjected; writing tearjerkers is easy. Total BS.

I agree. Nothing is easy. I object to that generalization about other stories. The people who claim something is easy are usually the people who aren't doing it or aren't doing it well. They're sitting on the sidelines taking pot shots at those who put in the effort. With any kind of genre fiction -- erotica, mystery, horror, romance--you can push buttons and with modest skill get some response. But to do a story in any genre well takes more skill and effort. I think this is equally true about almost any type of story.

I guess our challenge is to somehow continue this conversation about three different topics in one thread and keep it civil.(too late, I know, but I thought I'd try)

This is the perennial challenge here (and everywhere else on the Internet). Keep an open mind and avoid taking things personally, or getting personally rude or nasty to others. You can do that and still stick to your guns on the merits of issues that are important to you.

 

[MrHereWriting]

Part of the problem with this thread is that the OP has two conflicting statements in his post.
1. Women love tearjerkers, and
2. sad songs are sexy.

Let's look at what the OP actually said.

I've learned something about stories, late in life. Many women are drawn to stories that make them cry. Maybe a few guys, in the quiet of their boudoirs, like these too. I think I understand the draw of tragedy. I'm less clear about the sexiness of sadness. So, authors and readers who dig a good sob story, light this dim bulb with why a three hanky tale is a turnon.

1. Many women are drawn to stories that make them cry. Maybe a few guys, in the quiet of their boudoirs, like these too. I think I understand the draw of tragedy.
2. I'm less clear about the sexiness of sadness. So, authors and readers who dig a good sob story, light this dim bulb with why a three hanky tale is a turnon.

He's not saying sadness is sexy.

Somewhere along the line a third theme got interjected; writing tearjerkers is easy. Total BS.

That topic was interjected by someone who (from the comments of their readers) writes a good emotional story, but it was interjected because of a perceived insult, not because it was actually said that writing tearjerkers was easy; that was never said.

I agree. Nothing is easy. I object to that generalization about other stories.

That was perceived, never stated, and so that topic should be removed from this thread and if someone wants to start that riot in a separate thread, I'll keep my distance.

Edit: And with that, I'm going to step away from this dead horse.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

sexiness of sadness -vs- sadness is sexy.

Both phrases connect sadness to an idea of allure. One is more analytical or introspective, while the other is more declarative and straightforward. Since I was paraphrasing and not quoting, I think I was close enough...

So, authors and readers who dig a good sob story, light this dim bulb with why a three hanky tale is a turnon.

I think I addressed that pretty well:

I noted above somewhere that science shows strong emotions, good or bad, positive or negative, cause dopamine to be released in the brain which makes us feel good. This probably has something to do with why we(not just women) like tearjerkers, happy or sad.

 

[LargoKitt]

"To really appreciate what we have, we must also understand what it is to be without it." I really get this. OTOH, for example, when I had my very first love, and then my dad decided a few weeks later to pull up roots, and I left town singing 'I saw those Harbor Lights. They only told me we were parting.' never to see her again. I'm not tempted to go back and relive that 'delicious sadness' of a broken heart. But I guess I can see it. Just as some people want to play Warcraft who would never want to go to war.

I've learned something about stories, late in life. Many women are drawn to stories that make them cry. Maybe a few guys, in the quiet of their boudoirs, like these too. I think I understand the draw of tragedy. I'm less clear about the sexiness of sadness. So, authors and readers who dig a good sob story, light this dim bulb with why a three hanky tale is a turnon.

Yes, I agree. The OP invites some confusion because it raises different issues. A reader may like a sexy story that is also sad, but that doesn't mean the sad part is what makes it sexy.





I agree. Nothing is easy. I object to that generalization about other stories. The people who claim something is easy are usually the people who aren't doing it or aren't doing it well. They're sitting on the sidelines taking pot shots at those who put in the effort. With any kind of genre fiction -- erotica, mystery, horror, romance--you can push buttons and with modest skill get some response. But to do a story in any genre well takes more skill and effort. I think this is equally true about almost any type of story.




This is the perennial challenge here (and everywhere else on the Internet). Keep an open mind and avoid taking things personally, or getting personally rude or nasty to others. You can do that and still stick to your guns on the merits of issues that are important to you.

As the OP maaaaybe I can clarify what I was seeking. Put, admittedly, oversimply a lot of stories on Lit feature some kind of sex that gets the reader sexually aroused. Butts, hucows, tentacles... Other stories build on the emotional relationship between the characters. Some of these latter stories lead with a 'cautionary note' about a 'slow build'. 'Slow build' often seems to mean reversals, or delays, or doubts about the relationship (rather than physical events that separate the characters.) 'He could never love a woman like me with no dowry.' Misunderstandings are huge plot elements. And it's important that for a long time the principals never actually talk to each other about the misunderstanding. So it's not so much about tragic sadness, although that can happen...
(For instance, why is the trope that a couple who loses a child is driven apart, even if one or both are not to blame? Logically, you would cling to each other and take hope in starting over. But then there's no story.).
..it's about unhappiness. ("I love him/her/it SO much but he/she/it doesn't even notice." Even though we have effectively told each other to take a hike.)

So a 'guys story' is basically 'Here's this incredible banquet I never imagined and I have the guts to eat everything on the table (even though some are bad for me.)' A 'gals story' seems to be, 'Here's this incredible banquet I never imagined I was good enough to be served, but no, instead I have to eat this tiny salad in the corner watching until almost all the food is gone. But at the last minute the person who made the banquet, changes their mind and really sees me and comes over and feeds me the most delectable items one by one. (Or runs off with the cook, flipping me the bird.)
(And I didn't post anything about sad songs, even if they 'say so much'. And yes, good stories have relatable characters, convincing dialog, and believable 'arcs.')

 

[LargoKitt]

I've learned something about stories, late in life. Many women are drawn to stories that make them cry. Maybe a few guys, in the quiet of their boudoirs, like these too. I think I understand the draw of tragedy. I'm less clear about the sexiness of sadness. So, authors and readers who dig a good sob story, light this dim bulb with why a three hanky tale is a turnon.

To oversimplify: For a lot of men the fantasy of what they could have under certain circumstances get them aroused. For a lot of women a fantasy of what they want but can't have gets them aroused. (Guys story: Old gambler is 'forced' to share a room with a Vegas showgirl. Gals story: New croupier at blackjack table gets a $1k chip from a gorgeous Hollywood 'whale' with his room # on it. She goes home to sick mom.)

 

[MelissaBaby]

That was perceived, never stated, and so that topic should be removed from this thread and if someone wants to start that riot in a separate thread, I'll keep my distance.

Edit: And with that, I'm going to step away from this dead horse.

The statement was: "So, it may be that tearjerker stories are just more popular because that mood is more easily drawn out."

Perhaps there is some other way that an author can "draw out" a mood from a reader other than by writing, but I don't know what that would be. So, it seems reasonable to me to interpret it to mean that "tearjerkers" are easier to write than other types of stories.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Wow.

It has been an absolute pleasure reading this topic. I suggest the mod to pin this gem.
Before anyone else interprets my post in some ridiculous way, I meant that it does a marvelous job of painting the mentality of AH people. People are reading what they want to read in almost every post, misinterpreting the words, mostly unintentionally, then building a strawman and of course, generalizing left and right. The irony is that only a few people seem to have read the OP's post properly.

For the love of god, the OP doesn't really think sadness is sexy. He wants us to elaborate on the topic because he himself doesn't see sexiness in sadness. And all of it of course because he likely wrongfully concluded that the allure of emotional stories here on Lit, and maybe elsewhere too, comes from people finding them erotic and sexy due to the sadness they evoke.
I believe most of us agree that a sad, emotional story can be sexy too but not because of those exact emotions but because a story can be about more than just one thing. I might be out of my mind here but an author could actually weave moments and scenes of joy, sadness, loss, eroticism, arousal, laughter, happiness, anger... and that doesn't mean that the reader should deduce that all those emotions stem from one another.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

The statement was: "So, it may be that tearjerker stories are just more popular because that mood is more easily drawn out."

Perhaps there is some other way that an author can "draw out" a mood from a reader other than by writing, but I don't know whjat they would be. So, it seems reasonable to me to interpret it to mean that "tearjerkers" are easier to write than other types of stories.

That's a bit taken out of context because the OP and then Lifestyle as well have been talking about "women who like emotional stories." I must assume he meant the popularity of such stories with that particular group of readers.
If he meant in general, then yeah, his statement is just a silly and somewhat offensive generalization. To be fair, PSG stated her own generalization and in her case, it's clear she belittles stroke stories in comparison to emotional ones. It's easy to disprove both of them.

 

[MrHereWriting]

Both phrases connect sadness to an idea of allure. One is more analytical or introspective, while the other is more declarative and straightforward. Since I was paraphrasing and not quoting, I think I was close enough...

I didn't want to come back here, but you left me no choice. I read an alert that you quoted me, but you didn't actually quote me.

You quoted my text, then REWROTE my text so that it was no longer what I wrote so you could address whatever it was you wanted to address to make a point. Don't do that, it makes you untrustworthy.

Edit: It was a quote box mistake; my words were not intentionally rewritten.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

I didn't want to come back here, but you left me no choice. I read an alert that you quoted me, but you didn't actually quote me.

You quoted my text, then REWROTE my text so that it was no longer what I wrote so you could address whatever it was you wanted to address to make a point. Don't do that, it makes you untrustworthy.

Well, damn. So I did. Didn’t even realize the grey box came over into my message. Fixed it.

 

[MrHereWriting]

Well, damn. So I did. Didn’t even realize the grey box came over into my message. Fixed it.

Thank you, it's appreciated.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

not because it was actually said that writing tearjerkers was easy; that was never said.

But you said it. In not so many words, your assertion is that it's easier to make a reader cry than to get a reader off.

To be fair, PSG stated her own generalization and in her case, it's clear she belittles stroke stories in comparison to emotional ones.

Not true at all. Just because my personal tastes are not very stroke-y does not mean that I look down my nose at it. The facts are that it's much easier to please the audience with stroke than it is with characterization, plot/motive and emotional depth. Just look at all the badly written stroke out there that pleases the audience pretty much the same as the well-written stroke, but if you want to score well/please the audience with something deep you have to write at a higher level.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Not true at all. Just because my personal tastes are not very stroke-y does not mean that I look down my nose at it. The facts are that it's much easier to please the audience with stroke than it is with characterization, plot/motive and emotional depth. Just look at all the badly written stroke out there that pleases the audience pretty much the same as the well-written stroke, but if you want to score well/please the audience with something deep you have to write at a higher level.

There is truth in what you are saying, but let's be thorough. Take a stroker story and take an emotional one. Both are stories, which means that both can be well or badly written. In an emotional story, you have to set up the characters, get the reader to connect to them, and then the reader can sympathize with the loss and the pain and feel the happiness at the eventual healing and the finding of love.
In a stroker story, you have to set up characters as well, build the attraction and the erotic tension between them, and then release it at the right moment with just the right amount of build-up. A stroker doesn't even need to end after the climax, the story could go on and progress, even if its primary focus is on the sex. Sex and what leads to sexual acts doesn't have to be simple, although I do find both of these two types of stories somewhat formulaic.
What I am saying is that there is nothing that makes a stroker inherently easier to write than an emotional story. Both can be good or bad.

So when you say it's easy to write strokers, I always think that you have a specific kind of reader in your mind, the Horny Joe, who is ready to shoot after 750 words of tits, asses, and cocks flying all over the story. But just as the site has its Horny Joes, there are also Sappy Sues of Literotica, who are ready to shed their tears of sadness and joy at the badly written romance. Due to the nature of the site, I'd guess that there are far more Joes than Sues here but still, my point is that strokers are not easier to write, it's just that the easy-to-please crowd in that case is far larger so such stories get more views.

To sum it up, (good) strokers or emotional stories are equally easy/hard to write, although they can be quite formulaic.
In my opinion, the toughest stories to write are those with more complex plots that combine both the emotional and the erotic, while still telling an intriguing story. An order of magnitude tougher to write.

 

[MrHereWriting]

But you said it. In not so many words, your assertion is that it's easier to make a reader cry than to get a reader off.

You're either a good troll or a really special child. (Do yourself a favor and claim to be a good troll.)

He's not stating a 'rule of writing' and the ease of which some stories are written compared to others. When people want to cry, it doesn't take much to make them cry, that's what he's saying.

When people want to cum, it doesn't take much to make them cum.

I nearly typed that as a secondary example that there's no need to be offended by what they said.

A smoker will bum a smoke from anyone.
A drinker will take any beer offered.
A starving person will eat from the trash.

How many analogies do you need? (Or maybe just...follow the conversation.)

 

[pink_silk_glove]

In a stroker story, you have to set up characters as well, build the attraction and the erotic tension between them, and then release it at the right moment with just the right amount of build-up. A stroker doesn't even need to end after the climax, the story could go on and progress, even if its primary focus is on the sex. Sex and what leads to sexual acts doesn't have to be simple, although I do find both of these two types of stories somewhat formulaic.
What I am saying is that there is nothing that makes a stroker inherently easier to write than an emotional story. Both can be good or bad.

Sure, but the vast majority of the audience doesn't care about the depth. The original argument was that it was easy to draw out the emotion with a story of emotional depth and characterization. My argument is that it is not, and in fact it is far easier to draw out the wank-factor from the stroke audience, generally speaking far easier. I back this up with the countless stroke stories that are badly written that usually still score as well as the well-written ones. That is not true with a plot and character emotional story.

So when you say it's easy to write strokers,

Stop right there. I never said that. Not once. Ever.

You're either a good troll or a really special child. (Do yourself a favor and claim to be a good troll.)

Fuck off.

 

[MelissaBaby]

A smoker will bum a smoke from anyone.
A drinker will take any beer offered.
A starving person will eat from the trash.

How many analogies do you need? (Or maybe just...follow the conversation.)

You may regard your readers as consumers of trash, and they would appear to be, but I have a higher opinion of mine.

 

[MrHereWriting]

You may regard your readers as consumers of trash, and they would appear to be, but I have a higher opinion of mine.

"Hello, I'm MelissaBaby, and I will purposely misinterpret and skew the meaning of anything I read, see, or hear, as long as it makes me happy!"


Now, let's do something crazy and look at what I actually said (these posts are easy to follow, you just have to pay a little attention to them).

He's not stating a 'rule of writing' and the ease of which some stories are written compared to others. When people want to cry, it doesn't take much to make them cry, that's what he's saying.

A smoker will bum a smoke from anyone.
A drinker will take any beer offered.
A starving person will eat from the trash.

What is being compared is the desire and or craving for something.

Have a good day.

 

[MelissaBaby]

I'm not a child to be goaded by someone who can't follow a conversation, or anyone, for that matter.

This part just gets funnier and funnier.

 

[MrHereWriting]

This part just gets funnier and funnier.

A conversation isn't goading, but it looks like you don't like to be proven wrong while being characterized correctly.

 

[ShelbyDawn57]

A conversation isn't goading, but it looks like you don't like to be proven wrong while being characterized correctly.

pot, meet kettle...