Fairyhedgehog, who has some of the most adorable, humorous, and clever posts has another one: Have You Had Sex.
She links to another blog in which study results are listed. Included in those results is the statistic that 95% of respondees considered penile-vaginal intercourse sex. So what do the other 5% think of that? God knows. lol
What I find most amusing about that statistic is I have struggled with the definition of sexual intercourse myself. (Oh. In case you're wondering, this is one of the few times I go with the majority. I DO think putting a penis into a vagina is having sex.)
But then there are the cases of rape. Is that sex? Unfortunately, yes. It's just that sex has become a weapon and not a means of love making.
But enough about that.
One of the the comments to fairyhedgehog's post mentioned "phone sex" and "cyber sex". IS that sex?
And what about this scenario:
A woman goes online. She takes on a male personna. (Why doesn't matter. She just does.) She meets a female personna. They get to chatting/texting and find they are attracted to each other. So, unable (and unwilling to take the risk of) to be together physically, they begin talking about what it would be like if they could be together. IOW, they have cyber sex.
Is this woman a lesbian? Did she engage in sexual activity? I mean, she knows she's not a man. But she really doesn't know if the woman she's been pretending to have sex with is actually a woman. What if it's a man pretending to be a woman?
This whole gender/having sex thing online is very confusing to me.
No wonder I say I'm gender confused.
Showing posts with label Lesbian. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Lesbian. Show all posts
Friday, April 2, 2010
Friday, October 16, 2009
Who is It For
Just recently I finished a story and sent it to a good friend of mine. She liked it, but she pointed out a significant flaw. At the start of the story I raised a question, or perhaps a better way to put it here is, I established my main character's primary goal. So, to the reader, the resolution of that goal became the story's focal point. At the end of the story I answered the question of whether my main character would become comfortable with her sexuality, and I did it nicely. At least, that's what I gathered from her critique. However, the question I asked at the beginning was NOT about my main character's sexuality. I did raise the sexuality question, but not at the start.
So the stories biggest flaw was that it was not bookended. I told the reader that one question was most important, and then didn't treat it as important. Meanwhile, I felt the sexuality question was most important but didn't raise it at the start. This made for a nice, but unfulling, story.
To make the story right I have to stop being so coy about my main character's struggles with whether or not she is a lesbian and put it up front and in plain sight from the start. That way the reader knows what she's reading and can better appreciate the main character's conflict as she seeks to learn who she really is.
It's obvious to me that I took the back door approach to the sexuality question because I'm still embarassed to write about it. The very term 'lesbian' seems to bring up connotations of sex, and I'm still embarassed by sex. I'm sorry, but I was taught I should be, and I learned that lesson too well. You know, I still haven't written that explicit sex scene. And nobody would even know about it but me! I'm not really a prude. I just get embarassed.
That the word 'lesbian' should be a sexual word is wrong, I think. I kind of spoke about this, poorly, I know, in my previous post, where I wondered publically what constitutes being a lesbian. A comment brought up the idea that so much of lesbian fiction is very sexual in nature and is actually geared toward heterosexual men, who get off on the idea of women being together. But lesbian stories shouldn't be written for straight men. They shouldn't be written for men at all. Lesbian stories should be written for women. Lesbians in particular. If men, or straight women, enjoy reading, too, so much the better. But they should not be the target audience.
I got to thinking about that, and I wondered if that wasn't the problem I was having with my story. The idea of straight men reading lesbian stories hadn't really entered my thoughts. But in order to see how others wrote love scenes I had been reading a lot of online examples. I quit because it seemed to me so very few were well written at all that I was only filling my head with how NOT to write them. But when the idea that these stories were written to excite the imaginations of straight men, I realized that I felt the same way about them. They did not seem like stories written for women seeking commonality with someone who shared their love preference. But I think all of that reading distorted my thinking about lesbian stories in general. I think I subconsciously forgot my target audience, and I'm not comfortable writing sex stuff for straight men. Or for anybody for that matter.
My stories are supposed to be about finding acceptance, falling in love - love, not sex, and being free to be who one is. And my target audience is women. I need to remember that and forget about the stereotypes. I need to just let my characters be real people, and not animals which are slaves to passion and sexuality. While there are real people who are, they are not the subject of my writing. My writing is not supposed to be about sex, although I want sex to (sometimes) be a part of my stories.
So, between my friend's critique, and the comment on my post, I think I have what I need to fix up my story and make it something people want to and enjoy reading. Any people.
So the stories biggest flaw was that it was not bookended. I told the reader that one question was most important, and then didn't treat it as important. Meanwhile, I felt the sexuality question was most important but didn't raise it at the start. This made for a nice, but unfulling, story.
To make the story right I have to stop being so coy about my main character's struggles with whether or not she is a lesbian and put it up front and in plain sight from the start. That way the reader knows what she's reading and can better appreciate the main character's conflict as she seeks to learn who she really is.
It's obvious to me that I took the back door approach to the sexuality question because I'm still embarassed to write about it. The very term 'lesbian' seems to bring up connotations of sex, and I'm still embarassed by sex. I'm sorry, but I was taught I should be, and I learned that lesson too well. You know, I still haven't written that explicit sex scene. And nobody would even know about it but me! I'm not really a prude. I just get embarassed.
That the word 'lesbian' should be a sexual word is wrong, I think. I kind of spoke about this, poorly, I know, in my previous post, where I wondered publically what constitutes being a lesbian. A comment brought up the idea that so much of lesbian fiction is very sexual in nature and is actually geared toward heterosexual men, who get off on the idea of women being together. But lesbian stories shouldn't be written for straight men. They shouldn't be written for men at all. Lesbian stories should be written for women. Lesbians in particular. If men, or straight women, enjoy reading, too, so much the better. But they should not be the target audience.
I got to thinking about that, and I wondered if that wasn't the problem I was having with my story. The idea of straight men reading lesbian stories hadn't really entered my thoughts. But in order to see how others wrote love scenes I had been reading a lot of online examples. I quit because it seemed to me so very few were well written at all that I was only filling my head with how NOT to write them. But when the idea that these stories were written to excite the imaginations of straight men, I realized that I felt the same way about them. They did not seem like stories written for women seeking commonality with someone who shared their love preference. But I think all of that reading distorted my thinking about lesbian stories in general. I think I subconsciously forgot my target audience, and I'm not comfortable writing sex stuff for straight men. Or for anybody for that matter.
My stories are supposed to be about finding acceptance, falling in love - love, not sex, and being free to be who one is. And my target audience is women. I need to remember that and forget about the stereotypes. I need to just let my characters be real people, and not animals which are slaves to passion and sexuality. While there are real people who are, they are not the subject of my writing. My writing is not supposed to be about sex, although I want sex to (sometimes) be a part of my stories.
So, between my friend's critique, and the comment on my post, I think I have what I need to fix up my story and make it something people want to and enjoy reading. Any people.
Thursday, October 15, 2009
What are the Requirements
The first I remember being aware of there being anything other than female-male relationships I was in junior high. Whenever anyone was to be severely criticized, or made fun of, inevitiably they were accusing of being queer. I had to ask what this meant and was told it was a girl-girl or boy-boy relationship, depending on what they were. For some, this tag remained with them all the time. For others, it was only while they were in disfavor.
I was some place in between. The only time the derogatory remarks were directed at me was when I was in disfavor (which, I confess, was often). But I learned through the grapevine that should I ever come up as a topic for discussion (not real often) the talk was that I was also queer.
This confused me because I didn't understand why. True, I didn't date. And equally true, I was often friends with others were 'known' to be queer. There were no labels of gay, or lesbian, back then, although the terms were known. The slang at the time was queer. It was always used in a negative sense.
The whole thing confused me because I was the only one not being called it to my face, except in cases of angry disfavor. I didn't understand it then and I'm not sure I understand now. Unless, just being in love can define someone as lesbian (or gay).
I don't mean platonic love, as between relatives or good friends. I mean real love. Romantic love. Just without the sex.
What if two women are deeply in love with each other, but never engage in lovemaking? I remember reading about two such women from the late 1800s or early 1900s. The story is vague in my memory and I don't recall their names. It seems to me that one became a famous author, or poet. The girls had grown up together and everyone knew they were very close friends. But then questions began to be raised about how close their friendship was. There didn't seem to have been any bedroom scenes, but the deepness of their love came under question. People wondered about them. Eventually they were split up, even to the point of living in separate countries. I'm thinking one lived in Australia and the other in England.
These women would have been called lesbians had they shared their bodies with each other. But they only shared their spirits. Their love. Their love was so deep that at least one of them pined away for the rest of her life. But I think they were both very lonely.
But were they lesbians? Does being a lesbian require sexual acts?
And the pining away brings up another point. Why is it that lesbians are viewed as promiscuous? Why is it that only heterosexuals can be viewed as monogomous? I think this is another form of harrassment, sterotyping. It just isn't true. Monogomy is a commitment of will. Why can't lesbians have that?
I remembered reading a long time ago that studies showed each of us meets someone we could fall in love with every four to seven years. It doesn't mean we will fall in love, but we could. But does this deep kind of love require sex? What about people who physically cannot have sex? Does this mean they are incapable of deep, romantic love?
Most of the gay and lesbian friends I have had in my life were unknown to me as gay or lesbian until after we had gone our separate ways. The topic of sex seldom came up in our conversations, I guess. Certainly, I never felt like anyone was coming on to me. Of course, my idea of someone coming on to me is they kiss me like a lover. Subtle things I tend to pass off as my imagination. But I learned of my friends' sexual preferences through other friends afterward. I guess I don't pay close enough attention to the sexual things.
Or maybe I'm just dense.
I was some place in between. The only time the derogatory remarks were directed at me was when I was in disfavor (which, I confess, was often). But I learned through the grapevine that should I ever come up as a topic for discussion (not real often) the talk was that I was also queer.
This confused me because I didn't understand why. True, I didn't date. And equally true, I was often friends with others were 'known' to be queer. There were no labels of gay, or lesbian, back then, although the terms were known. The slang at the time was queer. It was always used in a negative sense.
The whole thing confused me because I was the only one not being called it to my face, except in cases of angry disfavor. I didn't understand it then and I'm not sure I understand now. Unless, just being in love can define someone as lesbian (or gay).
I don't mean platonic love, as between relatives or good friends. I mean real love. Romantic love. Just without the sex.
What if two women are deeply in love with each other, but never engage in lovemaking? I remember reading about two such women from the late 1800s or early 1900s. The story is vague in my memory and I don't recall their names. It seems to me that one became a famous author, or poet. The girls had grown up together and everyone knew they were very close friends. But then questions began to be raised about how close their friendship was. There didn't seem to have been any bedroom scenes, but the deepness of their love came under question. People wondered about them. Eventually they were split up, even to the point of living in separate countries. I'm thinking one lived in Australia and the other in England.
These women would have been called lesbians had they shared their bodies with each other. But they only shared their spirits. Their love. Their love was so deep that at least one of them pined away for the rest of her life. But I think they were both very lonely.
But were they lesbians? Does being a lesbian require sexual acts?
And the pining away brings up another point. Why is it that lesbians are viewed as promiscuous? Why is it that only heterosexuals can be viewed as monogomous? I think this is another form of harrassment, sterotyping. It just isn't true. Monogomy is a commitment of will. Why can't lesbians have that?
I remembered reading a long time ago that studies showed each of us meets someone we could fall in love with every four to seven years. It doesn't mean we will fall in love, but we could. But does this deep kind of love require sex? What about people who physically cannot have sex? Does this mean they are incapable of deep, romantic love?
Most of the gay and lesbian friends I have had in my life were unknown to me as gay or lesbian until after we had gone our separate ways. The topic of sex seldom came up in our conversations, I guess. Certainly, I never felt like anyone was coming on to me. Of course, my idea of someone coming on to me is they kiss me like a lover. Subtle things I tend to pass off as my imagination. But I learned of my friends' sexual preferences through other friends afterward. I guess I don't pay close enough attention to the sexual things.
Or maybe I'm just dense.
Wednesday, October 14, 2009
When It's Safe to Be Counted
We like to talk about getting along. We like to believe we can. But it's hard, isn't it? And what's so odd about it being so hard is that most of us belong to many different 'groups'. And some of these groups are in conflict with each other. Most of us can be associated with some sort of political affiliation: Democrat; Republican; Green; Other (where Other means you're not specifically identified with any known party, but you are politically aware). We have some sort of connection to relgion: Christian, Muslim, Jew, Buddist, Native American, Agnostic, Athiest, Other (where Other represents some sort of conscious religious attitude - or lack thereof). And of course we have sexuality: straight, bi-sexual, gay, lesbian, transgender, a-sexual, Other (where Other is some new label with which I am unfamiliar).
Belonging to so many groups means we have to decide which group we will align ourselves with when the two groups come into conflict. This can be costly. It can be dangerous. People have been beaten, even killed, for admitting they also belonged to an opposing group. Areas of religion and sex can be the most risky of all.
Of all the groups which fight there are two I feel especially bad about because I have strong personal connections to both: Christians and Lesbians. (Lesbians can be expanded to include all non-traditional sexual types, but this blog is more about women and those who identify themselves with women.)
I would think of all the warring groups these would be the two most likely to come to peace with each other. In most cultures, it is women who are taught from birth to be loving, nurturing, accepting, and helpful. Well isn't that the message of Christians? Aren't Christians constantly talking about God's love - for everyone? So if Christians want to be loving and caring, and women are taught to be loving and caring, why don't they get along?
Well, for one thing, it's a stereotype to say ALL women are loving and caring. I've known plenty in my life who would fail that test miserably. And I've known men who would qualify.
As to Christians, I have known Christians who qualify in the loving and caring category. I have also known plenty who are intolerant, unforgiving, and downright mean.
It seems to me the greater burden is on the Christians. They are playing for what they believe are higher stakes (eternity). Lesbians are just trying to mold the world into a place where they (and their progeny) can live in peace and not be harassed, threatened, beaten, and denied basic rights and priviledges which others enjoy with impunity. Also, and this is the biggie, right now Christians seem to have the greater (political) power by means of the Religious Right (which I do NOT believe is Christian at all). The problem is, the Religous Right is using its power to hurt. This tells me that the wrong Christians are in charge. It can be the same within the Lesbian political structure. Sometimes the wrong Lesbians are in charge.
What I'm trying to say is that I don't think there's anything inheritly wrong with either group. What it comes down to is leadership and followers. We who are not leaders, and perhaps especially those of us who are connected to both groups, need to examine our leaders to make sure they actually represent our group and not just their own idealogy. I think too often we give our leaders free reign. People don't handle that well. Without accountability they usually wander away from their original purpose. And we who let them wander wind up suffering because the rest of the world begins to look at us though we are carbon copies of those leaders who have long since ceased to represent the group and what it really stands for. And why shouldn't they? After all, do we not allow these leaders to continue to lead?
I think we need to quit fighting and hating each other. That does none of us any good and hurts us all. Some physically.
Personally, I think Lesbians (as a group) tend to do a better job of this, although I have met some who are quite mean in their own right. Still, it doesn't hurt to be reminded that accepting Lesbians doesn't mean rejecting other ways of life. Let's not make the pendulum swing to the other side. Let's try and stop it in the middle. Maybe then we can have balance and we can all just be who we are.
As for Christians, I think arguing rights and such with them is a complete waste of time. When Christians are Lesbian-bashing they are feeling very self-righteous and superior. They do not hear contrary arguments. You may as well argue in a foreign language. So there is really only one way to reach Christians - if they can be reached at all. They must be returned to their basic message, which centers around Jesus.
Christians love the phrase, "What would Jesus do?" So when you're being bashed by a Christian, challenge them with Jesus. Not God. Even for Christians I think God can be a lofty concept which allows for all sorts of cruelty and intolerance. But Jesus is specific. He is the foundation for the Christian faith. And from what I've read, Jesus never condemned anyone for anything - except religious people for being hypocrites. So, when Christians behave poorly, bring them to Jesus. No need to be mean. Be to them what they're supposed to be to you. Point out that they aren't acting much like Jesus. If they don't listen to him I guess they're not Christians then. That being said, if you live in a place where doing this puts you in physical jeopardy then I do NOT advocate this. Don't get yourself hurt. People can be crazy. Especially over matters of religion and sex.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't think we can best solve this problem legislatively. Not that I'm against legislation. People need to be protected, and that is best done through legislation. The marriage ban, work benefit packages, inheritance, hospital and nursing home rights, are all things which need to be addressed so nobody in this country is denied simply because of who they are. That means legislation. But to solve things socially is going to require grass roots effort. Individuals have to stand up and behave correctly. This may encourage others in their group to stand up and do the same.
Look at me. I have been quietly reading poems by Sarah L. This encouraged me to not only start up a blog, but to write some poems about my own life. True, this is hardly on the scale of what I've been writing about, but the principle is basically the same. We can inspire others to be better people. So, people like me, who believe they are affiliated with two groups, need to refuse to choose sides when confronted with the choice. We need to stand up and bring the two groups together. But don't put your life at risk. If you don't have the liberty to stand up without being physically hurt, then I think maybe you should stay seated. I would hate for you to be hurt.
But I have this liberty. I will not be beaten. I will not be killed. But I may find members of one (or both) groups rejecting me. Generally, the extremists do this first. Then, if the others become intimidated, they follow. But I can't inspire if I don't at least try.
So I will stand for both. I don't think the two groups are really that incompatible. I really don't.
I think they're just afraid of each other. So if I can help ease fears, maybe they will start liking each other as they should.
I'm a dreamer. No wonder I'm lonely.
Belonging to so many groups means we have to decide which group we will align ourselves with when the two groups come into conflict. This can be costly. It can be dangerous. People have been beaten, even killed, for admitting they also belonged to an opposing group. Areas of religion and sex can be the most risky of all.
Of all the groups which fight there are two I feel especially bad about because I have strong personal connections to both: Christians and Lesbians. (Lesbians can be expanded to include all non-traditional sexual types, but this blog is more about women and those who identify themselves with women.)
I would think of all the warring groups these would be the two most likely to come to peace with each other. In most cultures, it is women who are taught from birth to be loving, nurturing, accepting, and helpful. Well isn't that the message of Christians? Aren't Christians constantly talking about God's love - for everyone? So if Christians want to be loving and caring, and women are taught to be loving and caring, why don't they get along?
Well, for one thing, it's a stereotype to say ALL women are loving and caring. I've known plenty in my life who would fail that test miserably. And I've known men who would qualify.
As to Christians, I have known Christians who qualify in the loving and caring category. I have also known plenty who are intolerant, unforgiving, and downright mean.
It seems to me the greater burden is on the Christians. They are playing for what they believe are higher stakes (eternity). Lesbians are just trying to mold the world into a place where they (and their progeny) can live in peace and not be harassed, threatened, beaten, and denied basic rights and priviledges which others enjoy with impunity. Also, and this is the biggie, right now Christians seem to have the greater (political) power by means of the Religious Right (which I do NOT believe is Christian at all). The problem is, the Religous Right is using its power to hurt. This tells me that the wrong Christians are in charge. It can be the same within the Lesbian political structure. Sometimes the wrong Lesbians are in charge.
What I'm trying to say is that I don't think there's anything inheritly wrong with either group. What it comes down to is leadership and followers. We who are not leaders, and perhaps especially those of us who are connected to both groups, need to examine our leaders to make sure they actually represent our group and not just their own idealogy. I think too often we give our leaders free reign. People don't handle that well. Without accountability they usually wander away from their original purpose. And we who let them wander wind up suffering because the rest of the world begins to look at us though we are carbon copies of those leaders who have long since ceased to represent the group and what it really stands for. And why shouldn't they? After all, do we not allow these leaders to continue to lead?
I think we need to quit fighting and hating each other. That does none of us any good and hurts us all. Some physically.
Personally, I think Lesbians (as a group) tend to do a better job of this, although I have met some who are quite mean in their own right. Still, it doesn't hurt to be reminded that accepting Lesbians doesn't mean rejecting other ways of life. Let's not make the pendulum swing to the other side. Let's try and stop it in the middle. Maybe then we can have balance and we can all just be who we are.
As for Christians, I think arguing rights and such with them is a complete waste of time. When Christians are Lesbian-bashing they are feeling very self-righteous and superior. They do not hear contrary arguments. You may as well argue in a foreign language. So there is really only one way to reach Christians - if they can be reached at all. They must be returned to their basic message, which centers around Jesus.
Christians love the phrase, "What would Jesus do?" So when you're being bashed by a Christian, challenge them with Jesus. Not God. Even for Christians I think God can be a lofty concept which allows for all sorts of cruelty and intolerance. But Jesus is specific. He is the foundation for the Christian faith. And from what I've read, Jesus never condemned anyone for anything - except religious people for being hypocrites. So, when Christians behave poorly, bring them to Jesus. No need to be mean. Be to them what they're supposed to be to you. Point out that they aren't acting much like Jesus. If they don't listen to him I guess they're not Christians then. That being said, if you live in a place where doing this puts you in physical jeopardy then I do NOT advocate this. Don't get yourself hurt. People can be crazy. Especially over matters of religion and sex.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I just don't think we can best solve this problem legislatively. Not that I'm against legislation. People need to be protected, and that is best done through legislation. The marriage ban, work benefit packages, inheritance, hospital and nursing home rights, are all things which need to be addressed so nobody in this country is denied simply because of who they are. That means legislation. But to solve things socially is going to require grass roots effort. Individuals have to stand up and behave correctly. This may encourage others in their group to stand up and do the same.
Look at me. I have been quietly reading poems by Sarah L. This encouraged me to not only start up a blog, but to write some poems about my own life. True, this is hardly on the scale of what I've been writing about, but the principle is basically the same. We can inspire others to be better people. So, people like me, who believe they are affiliated with two groups, need to refuse to choose sides when confronted with the choice. We need to stand up and bring the two groups together. But don't put your life at risk. If you don't have the liberty to stand up without being physically hurt, then I think maybe you should stay seated. I would hate for you to be hurt.
But I have this liberty. I will not be beaten. I will not be killed. But I may find members of one (or both) groups rejecting me. Generally, the extremists do this first. Then, if the others become intimidated, they follow. But I can't inspire if I don't at least try.
So I will stand for both. I don't think the two groups are really that incompatible. I really don't.
I think they're just afraid of each other. So if I can help ease fears, maybe they will start liking each other as they should.
I'm a dreamer. No wonder I'm lonely.
Friday, October 9, 2009
Don't Make Normal Unusual
I've read a lot of books, short stories, and such, and I've watched a lot of movies and television shows. And do you know what just irks me to no end? It when the writer of said book, short story, movie, television show, or such, wishes to show us how normal their lesbian women are by "telling us they're normal". Maybe it's just me, but if the writer feels she needs to go out of her way to tell us something, then it seems pretty clear to me that she doesn't think it's normal.
To me, if a writer is going to write a story (screenplay) about lesbian women, and she wants it to be natural, then don't tell people it's natural, just treat it as natural. If we, as writers, don't make a big deal out of something, our readers should grasp fairly early on it isn't a big deal.
That's the way I want some of my stories to be. That the women are in love, or even married, is not integral to the story. It's just a part of it, like having a heterosexual main character. Maybe she's married. Maybe she has a boyfriend. As a writer we would never think about making a big deal that she's married to a man, would we? Then, if the story doesn't call for it, don't make a big deal that she's married to a woman.
At the same time, I angst about things a lot, and so for a good many of the stories I have been writing the fact that my main character is in love with a woman is important to the story. I recently wrote one in which my main character had to flee her village because she had been discovered with her lover. A friend arrived in the night and helped her escape before the lynch mob arrived. The story followed her flight to a new village, where she had to begin her life anew, only to find a new partner and be caught again.
I suppose there are those who would criticise my main character for becoming involved with another woman so soon after being separated from her previous lover. But the truth was there was no reason for her to believe she would ever see her previous lover again. The friend who helped her escape could not even guarantee her lover got away. Besides, one thing I know for certain from personal experience is this: lonely people are incredibly susceptible to love. We are not promiscuous people. We just want to be loved. And depending on the level of loneliness, and the number of hurts inflicted, we can do a lot of things if we even slightly believe we are loved. And so I felt my character was in character. For who is lonelier than the person whom no one accepts?
I guess I kind of strayed from my original point. Now I'm writing about angst. But angst is important to me right now.
While searching for a place where I might be able to submit some of my work for possible publication I came across something a man wrote about coming out stories. He said he was sick of them. He was tired of the angst and all that went with it. He wanted stories about gay people who were already comfortable with themselves. I understand his point. But at the same time there are a lot of people who are still struggling with who they are. Angst is very much a part of our lives. So I don't think there is no longer any need for such stories. I mean, old-fashioned romance novels are still selling like hot cakes after one hundred years. Right?
To me, if a writer is going to write a story (screenplay) about lesbian women, and she wants it to be natural, then don't tell people it's natural, just treat it as natural. If we, as writers, don't make a big deal out of something, our readers should grasp fairly early on it isn't a big deal.
That's the way I want some of my stories to be. That the women are in love, or even married, is not integral to the story. It's just a part of it, like having a heterosexual main character. Maybe she's married. Maybe she has a boyfriend. As a writer we would never think about making a big deal that she's married to a man, would we? Then, if the story doesn't call for it, don't make a big deal that she's married to a woman.
At the same time, I angst about things a lot, and so for a good many of the stories I have been writing the fact that my main character is in love with a woman is important to the story. I recently wrote one in which my main character had to flee her village because she had been discovered with her lover. A friend arrived in the night and helped her escape before the lynch mob arrived. The story followed her flight to a new village, where she had to begin her life anew, only to find a new partner and be caught again.
I suppose there are those who would criticise my main character for becoming involved with another woman so soon after being separated from her previous lover. But the truth was there was no reason for her to believe she would ever see her previous lover again. The friend who helped her escape could not even guarantee her lover got away. Besides, one thing I know for certain from personal experience is this: lonely people are incredibly susceptible to love. We are not promiscuous people. We just want to be loved. And depending on the level of loneliness, and the number of hurts inflicted, we can do a lot of things if we even slightly believe we are loved. And so I felt my character was in character. For who is lonelier than the person whom no one accepts?
I guess I kind of strayed from my original point. Now I'm writing about angst. But angst is important to me right now.
While searching for a place where I might be able to submit some of my work for possible publication I came across something a man wrote about coming out stories. He said he was sick of them. He was tired of the angst and all that went with it. He wanted stories about gay people who were already comfortable with themselves. I understand his point. But at the same time there are a lot of people who are still struggling with who they are. Angst is very much a part of our lives. So I don't think there is no longer any need for such stories. I mean, old-fashioned romance novels are still selling like hot cakes after one hundred years. Right?
Monday, October 5, 2009
Can You Write a Love Scene
I'm up during the night a lot. It's when I do some of my best writing.
Lately I have been exploring new relationships in my writing; mainly, lesbian and bi-sexual characters. I have never written about sexual things before. In fact, I have been quite conservative in my stories until the last couple of years. But this year I seem to have awakened a creative area I never knew I had, and I find it most exciting. Even exhilirating.
Don't get me wrong. I don't want to write pornography, and I don't think I can write erotica. But loving relationships. That I think I can do. But love scenes are part of loving relationships - or can be. I've been struggling with those a bit. To be honest: I haven't been all that successful.
If anyone has any thoughts, I am more than willing to hear them. How does one write an arousing love scene without becoming pornographic? I don't want to abandon my new world of creativity. I want my women to love each other. But I want them to be real about it.
Lately I have been exploring new relationships in my writing; mainly, lesbian and bi-sexual characters. I have never written about sexual things before. In fact, I have been quite conservative in my stories until the last couple of years. But this year I seem to have awakened a creative area I never knew I had, and I find it most exciting. Even exhilirating.
Don't get me wrong. I don't want to write pornography, and I don't think I can write erotica. But loving relationships. That I think I can do. But love scenes are part of loving relationships - or can be. I've been struggling with those a bit. To be honest: I haven't been all that successful.
If anyone has any thoughts, I am more than willing to hear them. How does one write an arousing love scene without becoming pornographic? I don't want to abandon my new world of creativity. I want my women to love each other. But I want them to be real about it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
