Sexually explicit in fantasy - yay or nay?

[CupofJoe]

Was the Colosseum games, one of the earliest documented blood sports, really influenced by Christianity or Judaism??

Actually I have read an argument that the rise of Christianity did change the games in Rome.
It was cheaper to kill Christians than hire professional performers [Gladiators] for a Games.
But unlike criminal that were also executed at the games, the Christians refused to fight and would often stand still and/or pray as the animals attacked them...
It wasn't enough of a show...
So more elaborate methods of killing/execution were devised, making the games more expensive and eventually less of a spectacle as the set pieces took time to arrange.
So there was a swing back to the more traditional gladiatorial style events...
I guess this could be reversed to say that the acts of the games was to solidify the "underdog" persecuted status of early Christianity that didn't hinder and may have helped its uptake by slaves and lower classes with a promise of a better after-life despite [or because] of the trials of their current life. But I am no theological historian...

 

[Mythopoet]

The reason is that nobody (or I think very few of us who read this genre) is put off by "violence", which is worse than sex by any stretch of the imagination, is because, religious people (of major faiths) accept violence in there stories. As the Bible is one of the most violent books ever written. Even Jesus says you can beat a slave so long as their eyes don't fall out of their socket.

I'm sorry, I'm going to have to object to this. Jesus never said any such thing. And indeed, Christianity is strongly opposed to both slavery and violence. Violence is not more accepted, it is less accepted than sex, because all violence is wrong to at least some degree. But sex is a good thing, in its proper place. The real difference between the two is that sex is intimate and personal while violence is not.

Here's a very good article by Shamus Young talking about this subject in the context of movies and video games: Why is a Bare Breast More Offensive Than a Severed Arm? | Experienced Points | The Escapist

While books are not as communal as the media he talks about, books are still meant to be experienced by wide audiences and talked about among friends. I think the principles he talks about hold true for books. People generally have the same kinds of responses to violence, which makes it much easier to share the experience with others, but responses (both mental and physical and emotional) to sex are highly varied. That's why people argue more about portrayals of sex than about violence.

From a practical standpoint, as soon as a writer includes an actual sex scene (not just sex as part of the plot or development, but actually showing it) you drastically reduce your potential audience. There are plenty of authors who find this worthwhile because showing the sex is important to the kind of story they are trying to tell (this is most valid in the erotica genre), but from my point of view, even if I wasn't the sort of person who doesn't really like spying on character's sex acts (which I don't) it wouldn't be worth it. Not when you can widen your audience so much with a simple fade to black.

Furthermore, I'm not sure I buy the argument that showing sex in detail is necessary to any story other than stories that are specifically written to arouse readers (erotica, romance that borders on erotica). As soon as anyone starts saying something like "it was necessary to write it like this" my alarm bells go off. I just don't think any story really has to be told any specific way. The whole point of being a storyteller is making choices about how to tell our stories. Sex scenes are not necessary. They are a choice.

 

[Fyle]

He sure does approve of slavery. Well, according to the Bible. Which is were his teachings are learned from. I could not find the line about the eyes, but i trust the source. Will work on that. Approving of slavery is bad enough anyway, worst than explicit sex for sure.

You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.
*
** *Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.* Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.* (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
*
* **Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.* If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. *You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.* Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. *(1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
*
*** In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.
*
*** The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.* "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.* Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."* (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

 

[Mythopoet]

He sure does approve of slavery. Well, according to the Bible. Which is were his teachings are learned from. I could not find the line about the eyes, but i trust the source. Will work on that. Approving of slavery is bad enough anyway, worst than explicit sex for sure.

You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.
*
** *Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.* Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.* (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
*
* **Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.* If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. *You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.* Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. *(1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
*
*** In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.
*
*** The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.* "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.* Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."* (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

What exactly is the source about the eyes? A google search didn't bring anything up about that specific detail for me.

As for the verses you've quoted, only one of them is Jesus' words and it's a parable. It's not meant to be taken literally. It's essentially illustrating a universal truth with a story that the audience will be able to understand. Jesus is actually talking about the punishment for willing, knowledgeable sin being death. He used the example of a master punishing a slave because it's something people living in that time and place can understand. It is NOT condoning slavery. (And if you can't understand that you shouldn't be a writer.)

The other two references are also not condoning slavery. But these books were written in a world where slavery existed and there wasn't a thing the early Christians could do about it. These verses are from books written to specific communities of believers. They are giving practical instruction. Basically, if you are a slave, you should live your life virtuously. Just because slavery is wrong doesn't mean you should stop acting virtuously toward your master because you are not responsible for his sins, only your own. The Church has never taught that slavery is ok.

But all this is besides the point and this isn't the place for a religious debate. I only argue because of your disrespect for my beliefs.

 

[ascanius]

The point I am trying to make indirectly (and this is kind of a different thread) but... I think religious beliefs have turned people off to sex more than "sex" has turned people off to sex. It is hard for me to fathom, in a world without religion, people would start calling sex offensive or be such a turn off.

First off I find it presumptious on your part to blame people being 'offended about sex,' solely on religion. It completely ignores different cultures, heredity, socioeconomic status, survival etc. Two, the three major religions don't belive sex is bad or wrong (not sure about islam to be honest) the way you seem to believe, it's the contex that is viewed as immoral not sex itself. Also these ideas also predate the three major religions. For instance sex outside of wedlock is viewed as wrong not because of the sex but because the possability of a child who is without a father and all the social and economic implications that follow, let's not forgoet the time period and the beliefs those people held. Think of heredity and how wonton sex can cause all sorts of problems. If a king has a mistress and that mistress has a child does that child have a claim on the throne?

The reason is that nobody (or I think very few of us who read this genre) is put off by "violence", which is worse than sex by any stretch of the imagination, is because, religious people (of major faiths) accept violence in there stories. As the Bible is one of the most violent books ever written. Even Jesus says you can beat a slave so long as their eyes don't fall out of their socket.

Yeah... um I've never heard that ever, nor does google apparently. However that i besides the point, slavery is viewed as wrong by almost all religions now. besides what does this have to with sex, not much. As to violence it's the context of the violence that is wrong, beating someone for no reason wrong, beating someone to save a life good. Look at a book called 120 days of sodom, it's all levels of complete f'd up sadistic terrifying crap. evrything in that book is bad, sex and violence all because of the context (don't actually read it, it's really disturbing). Context is everything, it's what make violence in books acceptable and in some cases the villian irrideamable.

Let me explain. The books we read are always about overcoming some precieved threat, in some cases violence is used, even if missguided and mistaken. However it is viewed as acceptable because the reasons behind the violence are viewed as justifiable. Like killing a person to survive, it starts to get grey when both parties have equally justifiable reasons. However on the opposite side of the spectrum is the completely depraved crap in the 120 days of sodom, there is nothing redeming or justifiable about it. It's also why it's so so offensive and.... I don't really have the words to discribe my dislike of that book, but it's not somethig you read for enjoyment unless you have serious problems.

But! Oh no! A sex scene offends me... hmmm... this seems unnatural or should I say learned logic. As an organism that reproduces through sex, you should not be turned off or offended by a short sex scene (I am talking about short inserts, not a high volume of sex, that gets disruptive to the plot)

I have a question, do you want to see your parents going at it in the bedroom, or your best friends, or some random strangers. It's not that you view sex as wrong, or anything like that, it's just not something you have an intrest in watching. The same can be said about sex scenes. It's a personal prefrence some people are ok with it while others are not. Not everyone likes chocolate, you cannot expect people to change their mind simply because you think it's illogical to not like it.

edit: I'm forgetting english so sorry about my crap spelling and grammar. Sometimes being bilingual isn't so easy.

 

[Garren Jacobsen]

Fyle I feel like we may be talking about two different things here. When you say depicting sex does that mean explicitly, like in GoT, or implicitly? Or doe you mean depicting sexuality? Which again we come to the question of how much do we depict.

The other question is what do you mean by "logic"? Because utilizing the logic of the believers not depicting explicit sex is perfectly logical. For reasons explained in my above post. But, if by logic you mean a logic that conforms to your world view it is impossible for any of us to do so.

 

[X Equestris]

He sure does approve of slavery. Well, according to the Bible. Which is were his teachings are learned from. I could not find the line about the eyes, but i trust the source. Will work on that. Approving of slavery is bad enough anyway, worst than explicit sex for sure.

You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.
*
** *Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.* Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.* (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
*
* **Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.* If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. *You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.* Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. *(1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
*
*** In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.
*
*** The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.* "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.* Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."* (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

The Bible takes slavery for granted as a social institution. Because it was a fact of life in the ancient world, rules of conduct are provided. You also, conveniently, left out the verses about how masters are supposed to treat their slaves. All of this of course, leaves aside the fact that Christianity was one of the driving forces, alongside Stoicism, that eventually ended slavery in the empire.

 

[Devor]

I could not find the line about the eyes, but i trust the source. Will work on that.

The source would be the Talmud, which is not a Christian book. Beyond that, out of respect for the Jewish faith, I'll refrain from comment.

As for the Bible's references to slavery, they lived in a time where slavery was common, so of course there are references to how slaves and masters should behave morally. It advises slaves to obey, but also to take up any offer of freedom. And it advises slave masters to remember that God is their master in heaven whenever they deal with their slaves. But the thrust of the teaching is this:

For by one Spirit we were all baptized into one body, whether Jews or Greeks, whether slaves or free, and we were all made to drink of one Spirit.

The Bible puts out a call for unity between slaves and masters. That's far from the wholesale support of slavery you make it out to be.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

Let's bear in mind that picking sentences out of the bible isn't going to change the fact that some people have different views on writing sex into their own stories, and religious beliefs may influence an author's decision.

I think we can all agree that personal beliefs, religious or otherwise, influence what you write.

I think we can also agree that these bible quotes, whether taken out of context or not, are irrelevant to the topic. Rather, they are an attack on religious beliefs intended to put the religious people in this debate on the defensive.

Going forward, please save the attack tactics of debate for politicians, and please stick to the topic of yaying and/or naying explicit fantasy sex.

 

[Devor]

Religious beliefs are not a logical reason to not include sex in a story. That is a hard to swallow pill that most people are not ready to talk about - especially not ready to talk about in a civilized manner.

Saying it is illogical does not make it so.

Religious belief is also why violence is so widely accepted and not shunned on in fantasy (especially in the States) when something like sex is. I cannot say sex is "harmless" due to the possible spread of STDs, but it doesn't take a biologist to tell you sex is A LOT less harmful than violence.

In the course of my day to day activities, I find very few temptations to rip somebody's heart out and chew it raw. How often am I tempted to commit adultery? That depends on what you mean by temptation, but I appreciate as few shoves in that direction as possible.

Sex is pushed aside because in our society it tempts most regular people. Violence doesn't tempt most people in anywhere near the same way.

So, without getting into religious beliefs, can holding sex sacred be explained ?

Absolutely. It's an occassion of two people expressing a near-total physical and often deeply emotional vulnerability towards one another. If somebody intrudes on that act, aren't they intruding on somebody's vulnerabilities?

How much that should play out for an author or a reader is a separate question. But yes, sex is sacred, in that it is rightfully set apart for the good of those involved.

Ideas should have no limits - especially with something like writing where there are little to no budget restrictions in world creation and cast of characters!

Ideas have limits. What is an audience if not a limit? Some ideas are unappealing to some people. Get over it.

 

[Legendary Sidekick]

I didn't lock the thread (and hope not to) because I like the topic. I wanna play too, so here's my two cents:

I steer clear of writing sex mostly because I like to focus on the adventure. How characters relate while out battling demons or whatever... that's all good. And, yeah, these relationships can (and maybe should, in the opinions of some) lead to sex.

But questions I ask:
* if I'm writing about a monster hunt, does sex fit my story?
* should my character have a soul mate, or does she have little flings here and there?
* does the sex scene make my character look human, desirable, or cheap?
* does the scene come off as character-defining or gratuitous?
* she's a lesbian and I'm a guy... so if I throw women on top of each other, does that pull readers out of the story and have them start questioning ME?
* by NOT having a sex scene because my lesbian Huntress is pining for a friend of hers who loves her like a sister, but isn't a lesbian so the love won't ever be what the Huntress wants... well, does that make my character look like an unbelievable sap?
* can I give the Huntress some flirting and romance, and leave the reader wondering exactly what happened during the part of the night not narrated? Is that a fun way to write, or am I cheating the reader?

All this goes through my head when contemplating a sex scene.


And I haven't even gone into any religious reason to hold back, or how being a father of daughters holds me back.

I do enjoy GRRM's work, and am not opposed to reading something that I may be iffy about writing.

 

[AnxietyDragon]

as long as it is well written and relevant to the story i'm all for it!

 

[droiditbook303]

It really does friend on what the story is and who the characters are. In fantasy writing, I like to read more about the world building and how events change the world and the characters. Sex can be an important aspect to that. If I'm reading a primarily adventure story where the characters go out to seek a hidden treasure or hunt a legendary monster, it may not fit to have sexual interactions. I certainly won't say all (or even most) stories should have sex, but I think automatically excluding sex from all stories is limiting.

Moral of the post: keep an open mind when writing (but know what works for the tone)

 

[Tom]

He sure does approve of slavery. Well, according to the Bible. Which is were his teachings are learned from. I could not find the line about the eyes, but i trust the source. Will work on that. Approving of slavery is bad enough anyway, worst than explicit sex for sure.

You would think that Jesus and the New Testament would have a different view of slavery, but slavery is still approved of in the New Testament, as the following passages show.
*
** *Slaves, obey your earthly masters with deep respect and fear.* Serve them sincerely as you would serve Christ.* (Ephesians 6:5 NLT)
*
* **Christians who are slaves should give their masters full respect so that the name of God and his teaching will not be shamed.* If your master is a Christian, that is no excuse for being disrespectful. *You should work all the harder because you are helping another believer by your efforts.* Teach these truths, Timothy, and encourage everyone to obey them. *(1 Timothy 6:1-2 NLT)
*
*** In the following parable, Jesus clearly approves of beating slaves even if they didn't know they were doing anything wrong.
*
*** The servant will be severely punished, for though he knew his duty, he refused to do it.* "But people who are not aware that they are doing wrong will be punished only lightly.* Much is required from those to whom much is given, and much more is required from those to whom much more is given."* (Luke 12:47-48 NLT)

Fyle, please refrain from attacking other religions. You are straying into offensive territory here, especially for Christians. Religion is not exactly a rage-button trigger for me, but I cannot stand Christianity being vilified with no consideration of context.

Okay, so, I can't say that the Bible was all right on the issue of slavery, but you have to understand the context there. Slavery was widespread throughout the ancient world, and the way the Bible dealt with such status quo issues was to try to change the system from the inside out. Ideal strategy? No. But it did work in the ancient world, where a sudden outcry for massive social change was often met with hatred and violence. (Just think of the thousands of Christians martyred by the Romans.)

Masters were to treat their slaves as brothers; slaves were to respect their masters. Plus, you appear to be cherry-picking--lifting only the quotes that will support your point. Paul and many other New Testament writers expressed displeasure at the fact that slavery existed, but encouraged Christian slaveholders to treat their slaves well and slaves to respect and obey their masters. The point of this was to change the system from the inside out, so that eventually it could be done away with.

I noticed that you also seem to have forgotten to mention the story of the slave Onesimus, owned by Philemon, a Christian and a member of the Church of Colosse. Onesimus ran away and eventually came to Rome, where he met Paul and was converted to Christianity. Paul reluctantly sent Onesimus back to Philemon, but sent with him the letter that we now know as the Book of Philemon to persuade Philemon to accept Onesimus as a Christian brother and a freeman.

In short, please restrain yourself, and know that I will not tolerate an attack on my--and many other people's--religion.

Thanks.

 

[Reilith]

Can we just refrain from the religion talk now, since we long ago left the point of it connected to sex - which is the topic of this thread. As the OP I am kindly asking, no matter what I think about religion. It is exhausting. There are writing things that can be mentioned instead in relation to the thread.

 

[Mythopoet]

I'm going to repost something I said earlier that is relevant to writing and publishing but got lost amidst the hubub:

From a practical standpoint, as soon as a writer includes an actual sex scene (not just sex as part of the plot or development, but actually showing it) you drastically reduce your potential audience. There are plenty of authors who find this worthwhile because showing the sex is important to the kind of story they are trying to tell (this is most valid in the erotica genre), but from my point of view, even if I wasn't the sort of person who doesn't really like spying on character's sex acts (which I don't) it wouldn't be worth it. Not when you can widen your audience so much with a simple fade to black.

 

[Reilith]

I'm going to repost something I said earlier that is relevant to writing and publishing but got lost amidst the hubub:

From a practical standpoint, as soon as a writer includes an actual sex scene (not just sex as part of the plot or development, but actually showing it) you drastically reduce your potential audience. There are plenty of authors who find this worthwhile because showing the sex is important to the kind of story they are trying to tell (this is most valid in the erotica genre), but from my point of view, even if I wasn't the sort of person who doesn't really like spying on character's sex acts (which I don't) it wouldn't be worth it. Not when you can widen your audience so much with a simple fade to black.

I appreciate your point of view, and I believe it is true for most of people, but I know I've read more than a few works that had tasteful portrayal of sex, without really showing much, instead of focusing on the feelings or vague explanations of what is going on and it was completely fit to the occasion.

I am probably of the opposite category from you as I believe that if done well it will enhance the story, even though from the publicity point of view it may lower the reading ratings.

 

[droiditbook303]

I'm going to repost something I said earlier that is relevant to writing and publishing but got lost amidst the hubub:

From a practical standpoint, as soon as a writer includes an actual sex scene (not just sex as part of the plot or development, but actually showing it) you drastically reduce your potential audience. There are plenty of authors who find this worthwhile because showing the sex is important to the kind of story they are trying to tell (this is most valid in the erotica genre), but from my point of view, even if I wasn't the sort of person who doesn't really like spying on character's sex acts (which I don't) it wouldn't be worth it. Not when you can widen your audience so much with a simple fade to black.

That is a really good point from the practical standpoint. You would certainly turn off young people along with many of the folks on this board with an aversion to explicit sex.

That said, do you want to constrain your art to the lowest common denominator?

To digress, and I know I've touched on this before, but I find it insane that we (generally speaking, of course) love our explicit violence, but get embarrassingly uncomfortable when it comes to even hints of sex or sensuality. For example, I saw the latest Hobbit film in theater and there were outbursts of laughter and whoops whenever a character was beheaded. Yet, can you show even non-exclusive nudity in a PG-13 film? It is still symptom of our (USA) sex negative (and violence worshipping) culture that drives me bananas.

Sorry for the rant, but I think those who say sex can't or shouldn't be a useful story telling tool are being a little narrow. Again, depending on the type of story.

 

[X Equestris]

That is a really good point from the practical standpoint. You would certainly turn off young people along with many of the folks on this board with an aversion to explicit sex.

That said, do you want to constrain your art to the lowest common denominator?

To digress, and I know I've touched on this before, but I find it insane that we (generally speaking, of course) love our explicit violence, but get embarrassingly uncomfortable when it comes to even hints of sex or sensuality. For example, I saw the latest Hobbit film in theater and there were outbursts of laughter and whoops whenever a character was beheaded. Yet, can you show even non-exclusive nudity in a PG-13 film? It is still symptom of our (USA) sex negative (and violence worshipping) culture that drives me bananas.

Sorry for the rant, but I think those who say sex can't or shouldn't be a useful story telling tool are being a little narrow. Again, depending on the type of story.

I don't think anyone was saying it can't or shouldn't be a story telling tool. There are just some things that might make it much more useful for some authors to imply sex rather than explicitly show it.

 

[T.Allen.Smith]

I don't think anyone was saying it can't or shouldn't be a story telling tool. There are just some things that might make it much more useful for some authors to imply sex rather than explicitly show it.

I agree. I haven't seen anyone say sex can't or shouldn't be used as a storytelling device. Rather, writers may have stated their personal reluctance. It's merely a matter of choice and style.

Like any aspect of writing, use whatever tools you feel appropriate. Some readers will like it, some readers won't. That's the way it always is.

I also don't think Mythopoet was saying writers should water down their work to the lowest common denominator. That would only be the case if the writer were intentionally avoiding writing about something needed in their story because of fear regarding what another person might think. That's not what she's doing. She's making conscious choices on what tools to use to convey her story in the style she wants. That's a big distinction, in my opinion.