# Female voice by a male



## Ken11 (Sep 7, 2019)

I won't pretend that I understand the beautiful female soul and spirit that well, so I'll ask the following: What's the best way for describing a female's inner world? What's the starting point for a male to understand a female?
(Sorry if this turns out to be a sexistic thing. That isn't my intention at all.)


----------



## epimetheus (Sep 7, 2019)

While i don't deny there are physiological and sociological differences between the traditional sexes i think they get massively over-played. Men aren't from Mars, women aren't from Venus - we are all from Earth. Men are as much a mystery to me as women. They are humans first: there is more than enough overlap to get on with. Maybe if you're writing a romance you will need to delve a little deeper into the differences.

My most successful writing (all of it in the LM competitions) happens to be told from the perspective of female characters. No idea if it's just coincidence.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 7, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> I won't pretend that I understand the beautiful female soul and spirit that well, so I'll ask the following: What's the best way for describing a female's inner world? What's the starting point for a male to understand a female?
> (Sorry if this turns up to be a sexistic thing. That isn't my intention at all.)



For the most part, people are people and our lives are not dictated by gender in most situations. Everybody has to file taxes, poop and eat - occasionally all at the same time. 

So, we usually end up in the land of broad generalizations here: Women tend to be more analytical when it comes to other people and especially relationships. They tend to experience more dynamic emotional states, partly because of biology, mostly because of societal gender roles. They tend to be a little more image conscious, again less because of having a vagina and more because of norms. Women tend to be more expressive, tend to want to talk about things, tend to be less “closed up”. It’s not true (IMO) that women are more emotional than men but more that they process emotions differently. Women tend to have better memories and tend to recall things based on how they made them feel whereas men tend to recall things based on how they looked, sounded, etc. In sexual terms, women tend to be less visually stimulate. Women tend to be more prone to establishing bonds with sexual partners and have a harder time letting go of somebody with whom they are intimate than men. 

As mentioned, gross generalizations (I can hear the knives sharpening) and I don’t recommend basing characters around stereotypes, but if you’re looking for a starting point...


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 7, 2019)

epimetheus said:


> While i don't deny there are physiological and sociological differences between the traditional sexes i think they get massively over-played. Men aren't from Mars, women aren't from Venus - we are all from Earth. Men are as much a mystery to me as women. They are humans first: there is more than enough overlap to get on with. Maybe if you're writing a romance you will need to delve a little deeper into the differences.
> 
> My most successful writing (all of it in the LM competitions) happens to be told from the perspective of female characters. No idea if it's just coincidence.



Yes, I need this for a kind of a story the plot of which is visualized by a female.
...
Yet, I find it intriguing that almost the gross of the females love reading romance (you ask a non-bibliophile female what she reads, she'll answer: romance  I find that amusing) , they seem to love the Mars vs Venus correlation.


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 7, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> As mentioned, gross generalizations (I can hear the knives sharpening) and I don’t recommend basing characters around stereotypes, but if you’re looking for a starting point...



Is stereotyping good for a start? And, do strong women love strong men?


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 7, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> Is stereotyping good for a start?



It’s marginally better than not writing anything.


----------



## SueC (Sep 7, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> Is stereotyping good for a start? And, do strong women love strong men?



First of all, women are not clones. We do have an individuality, just like men. Having said that, however, there are some stereotypes that must have come from some truths. I think Luckyscars did a good job summing those up. 

When I was married, my husband could do an awesome job with a spur of the moment, broad-stroke cleaning. We'd have five minutes before a neighbor stopped by, and he was my go-to guy. I was amazed. But when it came down to getting into the grooves and really _cleaning_, he was not good at all. Couldn't seem to SEE anything beyond the surface.

I think that's what it's like. Women are generally more detailed, I think, more insightful. That's not to say men can't be insightful, but I think their nature tends to focus more on the big picture than women, who can be nit-picky. 

Ha ha. I don't know if this is helpful. Just my POV, you understand. And for what it's worth, I think most women love strong men. But I have also known strong women who could only survive with a spouse who was less verbal, less assertive, less almost everything - except love. I sometimes think two strong personalities would class constantly.


----------



## Bayview (Sep 7, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> Yet, I find it intriguing that almost the gross of the females love reading romance (you ask a non-bibliophile female what she reads, she'll answer: romance  I find that amusing) , they seem to love the Mars vs Venus correlation.



You may want to look at your sample size/selection - I don't think I know anyone, other than on the internet, who reads romance (which is kind of a pain, since I write it). I had a couple friends in university who would occasionally read some, but no one since then.

So, really, I agree with the approach of writing a full, rounded character who just happens to be a woman. It's not an unimportant element of characterization, but it's not far-and-away more important than others.

ETA: And I'd recommend against putting too much emphasis on generalities or stereotypes. As one example, I'm a woman but I'm horrible about cleaning - I genuinely don't see clutter or even dirt unless I really, really focus and try to make myself pay attention. It's just not an area of interest for me (and my cleaning lady has learned to deal with that). But because I'm a woman, I'm probably held to a higher societal standard than a man would be - a level of clutter or grime that might seem quirky or boys-being-boys from a man would be grounds for censure for me. (hence the cleaning lady!). And I may make more of an effort to overcome my natural lack of regard for my surroundings, knowing that I WILL be judged harshly. So the stereotypes don't have ZERO effect on my life, but they're not reflective of anything innate in my character.


----------



## seigfried007 (Sep 7, 2019)

Write it and ask a woman if it's garbage. We're pretty tolerant because we're a diverse crowd. We're all human first, after all. 

There are manly women out there just as there are effeminate men. Wide spectrum to play with. So long as you write her well, the reader will buy her--whether she's crocheting baby booties, wearing makeup and a pink polka-dotted dress, barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen or pouring beer over her cornflakes, suffering a hangover after drinking a burly dude under the table, wearing mud-splattered combat boots, and splitting logs for firewood.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Sep 7, 2019)

What everyone said -- there is no single correct way to talk as a woman, be a woman, etc. You can have your women be whatever.

On the other hand, there's something to be said for having females talk or act like females. If you choose to go that route:

Some websites will rate text for female versus male.

You can have a woman talk more. Avoid conflict. Admit vulnerability. Be more social. Fight with words. More italics.

And start paying attention. Women deserve more than being stock characters. It will be good for you.


A well-stereotyped conversation:



> Me: "Do you want to talk about anything?"
> 
> "Sure." He's agreeable.
> 
> ...


----------



## Bayview (Sep 7, 2019)

I've been thinking about this, and I think it might actually be better to frame threads like this as setting questions rather than characterization questions. That is, your character will be who s/he is based on lots of traits, but depending on your setting, conforming to gender stereotypes may be a larger or lesser issue. 

That is, the _innate _experience of being a woman has been the same throughout history. A woman may be naturally aggressive or passive, stubborn or flexible, passionate or calm, regardless of when or where she is born. These are elements of characterization that should be considered. But the way society reacts to the woman's innate characteristics will vary depending on setting. Some of these characteristics may be reinforced while others are discouraged. And the character may resist the pressure to conform, which will likely have ripple effects on her characterization. So, yes, we still have to understand our individual characters, but we can't talk about characters in a vacuum.

What is your story's setting? That's going to be the most important element in determining how a female character is likely to behave, I'd say.


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 7, 2019)

Hey I actually might be able to help out with this question! Yay. So I have several different female characters in my setting and they all come from different walks of life.

Fenrir, she's a werewolf witch that's been chained up for nearly her whole life. Now because of her upbringing she is strong both physically and mentally. She has a soft side that she show's only to those who are willing to get close to her in return. She is also however naive in the ways of humanity and thus she will need help to navigate life's more difficult challenges. Now due to her status as both a witch and a werewolf the greater world at large will not be kind to her. So she ends up having to hide who she is thanks to a magical amulet. This in turn causes her to start doubting herself and who she is.

Next example,

Rose, A.K.A My version of little red riding hood all grown up. Due to her trauma as a little kid she has grown into a spiteful, backstabbing, manipulative individual who kills others when she can't have her way. She's a serial killer. Now she uses her feminine qualities to lull people into a false sense of security and this is based off of the fact that in real life from all of the research I've done women are more likely to poison you than shoot or stab you to death. Rose however will use you until she has no more use for you and then either leave you to die or kill you herself and get rid of the evidence.

And then there is Lilith, A succubus. She's not interested in sex or sucking out people's souls. Instead she'd rather have a nice talk and sit back relaxing on a beach somewhere. She's not prone to violence and would rather talk her way out of a sticky situation. If she has to use her charms in order to get out of a situation then she will but she will never throw herself at some random stranger just to satisfy her wants & desires. She's sweet, kind to all and has enough self respect & restraint to not let her demonic heritage get the better of her.

Hope this helps when it comes to portraying women in your work. I've tried to make each of these ladies there own unique individual and give them all a complex personality and really that's the way it should be. You can use there female attributes to your advantage as a writer just temper that use with tactfulness. Try to not make every single female a cardboard cut out and you'll be good.


----------



## seigfried007 (Sep 7, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> I won't pretend that I understand the beautiful female soul and spirit that well, so I'll ask the following: What's the best way for describing a female's inner world? What's the starting point for a male to understand a female?
> (Sorry if this turns out to be a sexistic thing. That isn't my intention at all.)



Read a lot of female characters written by female authors.


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 7, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> Write it and ask a woman if it's garbage. We're pretty tolerant because we're a diverse crowd. We're all human first, after all.
> 
> There are manly women out there just as there are effeminate men. Wide spectrum to play with. So long as you write her well, the reader will buy her--whether she's crocheting baby booties, wearing makeup and a pink polka-dotted dress, barefoot, pregnant and in the kitchen or pouring beer over her cornflakes, suffering a hangover after drinking a burly dude under the table, wearing mud-splattered combat boots, and splitting logs for firewood.



I'm pretty sure that lots of people will buy your book. Let them be my guests. Nevertheless, don't advertise it by using threads that I started, ok?


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 7, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> I'm pretty sure that lots of people will buy your book you're so passionate about. Let them be my guests! Nevertheless, don't advertise it by using threads that I started, ok?



1) Seigfried isn't even advertising her book here. She's just letting you know how to depict women of various kinds as per your fist post.

2) Her book is on Writing forums for all to read. She's letting you know about it so you can read it and get a feel for how to portray women, which is what you asked for to begin with. She doesn't need to "advertise" seeing as we all know where to find her story and once more even if she is it's only to let you know where to find it seeing as you may or may not know your way around here like everyone else.


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 7, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> 1) Seigfried isn't even advertising her book here. She's just letting you know how to depict women of various kinds as per your fist post.
> 
> 2) Her book is on Writing forums for all to read. She's letting you know about it so you can read it and get a feel for how to portray women, which is what you asked for to begin with. She doesn't need to "advertise" seeing as we all know where to find her story and once more even if she is it's only to let you know where to find it seeing as you may or may not know your way around here like everyone else.



She's/you're advertising it around here, advertising it big time. Let the people be my guest and buy her book.


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 8, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> Oh, she's/you're advertising it around here...advertising it big time!



The only other post she has on this thread is about the characters in her book and how you can read it to get a better idea of how to portray women. You asked for help with this subject and she's giving it to you. That's not advertising her book. As for me I don't go around advertising other peoples products. Now when i read her book and see that it is good then yeah I'll give other authors a shout out. However I've not done that here. I know what its like to put your all and more into a great story for others to read. And if by around here you mean the forums then stop whining about it. This is website for writer's. Meaning that they are going to advertise there writing were others can see it A.K.A all over the site.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 8, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> She's/you're advertising it around here, advertising it big time. Let the people be my guest and buy her book.



Because talking about and being proud of our work is clearly advertising? Hell, that makes me Saatchi & Saatchi...

That's all for me. You have consistently acted with disregard to the people who have generously tried to help you. Count me out of your myopic self-indulgences forthwith.


----------



## seigfried007 (Sep 8, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> She's/you're advertising it around here, advertising it big time. Let the people be my guest and buy her book.




Because I couldn't possibly just be trying to help you out--since you've admitted some difficulty in writing women. No, couldn't possibly be trying to help you. Why give anyone the benefit of the doubt when you take everything they say in the worst possible ways and malign their good intentions? 

You don't want to read the book; you don't have to. I can't and wouldn't force anyone to read it. 

It's an ongoing, intensely complicated work of long fiction, so it's going to be on my mind a lot. If something is relevant in it to a topic at hand, I might just bring it up in a thread. A lot of topics lately do relate to the book (because the book is 109K so far and is both super complicated and complex). I'm not trying to advertise--I'm just doing my best to be helpful. That's what I do here. 

Elena is the most versatile and complicated female character I have posted on these boards--hence I offered her up for critique and study. It puts me in a vulnerable position to offer up a character like that--especially with how antagonistic you've been to my viewpoints elsewhere--and yet, I still tried to help you. I might be proud of how the character is turning out in the book, but that doesn't mean I expect you to read the book or not shred it to pieces, if you did choose to read it. You've never given me any reason to suspect you'd be kind or gentle with a critique--and I still offered the work up for your dissection. Because I'm trying to help you and care more about helping you than about my own feelings. It's why I feel compelled to help even when people are assholes to me. 

Slandering people who are trying to help you isn't a good way of making friends and getting help.


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 8, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> Because I couldn't possibly just be trying to help you out--since you've admitted some difficulty in writing women. No, couldn't possibly be trying to help you. Why give anyone the benefit of the doubt when you take everything they say in the worst possible ways and malign their good intentions?
> 
> You don't want to read the book; you don't have to. I can't and wouldn't force anyone to read it.
> 
> ...



First, I am sure you're advertassing your novel here; it's on almost every thread. It won't be on my threads. Capisce?

Second, I have done nothing here to be called an as*hole. So it's you slandering me, this speaks more of you.

Third, I did expect you to be defended by your write mates here on WF with who you frequent a lot, it's a simple I'll-scratch-yours-if-you-scratch-mine thing.

Hopefully, I've made myself clear now.


----------



## ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord (Sep 8, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> I won't pretend that I understand the beautiful female soul and spirit that well,



Just from this statement I'd say one thing--treat your characters with respect, but with an equal amount of respect. One of my favorite authors, G. K. Chesterton, has one problem--he can't write female characters nearly as well as male characters. It's not because he disrespects women, but almost because he respects them _too_ much ... while his male characters are hilarious, bombastic extremes (his "normal" characters make normal seem like insanity), his female characters are gentle, sensible, and rational. _All of them. _So don't take the female soul and spirit _too _seriously. Don't over-mystify womanhood. Just write them as people. Anyone who knows me knows that women can be just as strange and insane as men. :icon_cyclops_ani:


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 8, 2019)

ArrowInTheBowOfTheLord said:


> Just from this statement I'd say one thing--treat your characters with respect, but with an equal amount of respect. One of my favorite authors, G. K. Chesterton, has one problem--he can't write female characters nearly as well as male characters. It's not because he disrespects women, but almost because he respects them _too_ much ... while his male characters are hilarious, bombastic extremes (his "normal" characters make normal seem like insanity), his female characters are gentle, sensible, and rational. _All of them. _So don't take the female soul and spirit _too _seriously. Don't over-mystify womanhood. Just write them as people. Anyone who knows me knows that women can be just as strange and insane as men. :icon_cyclops_ani:



I'm an ateist, sorry to tell you. So it pains me when I realize terms like soul and spirit are being hijacked by sly theists of any kind.

PS. Thanks for the tip though.


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 8, 2019)

Bayview said:


> I've been thinking about this, and I think it might actually be better to frame threads like this as setting questions rather than characterization questions. That is, your character will be who s/he is based on lots of traits, but depending on your setting, conforming to gender stereotypes may be a larger or lesser issue.
> 
> That is, the _innate _experience of being a woman has been the same throughout history. A woman may be naturally aggressive or passive, stubborn or flexible, passionate or calm, regardless of when or where she is born. These are elements of characterization that should be considered. But the way society reacts to the woman's innate characteristics will vary depending on setting. Some of these characteristics may be reinforced while others are discouraged. And the character may resist the pressure to conform, which will likely have ripple effects on her characterization. So, yes, we still have to understand our individual characters, but we can't talk about characters in a vacuum.
> 
> What is your story's setting? That's going to be the most important element in determining how a female character is likely to behave, I'd say.


What is the best setting for a bit "stupid" and naive woman in her twenties, in this day and age?


----------



## Bayview (Sep 8, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> What is the best setting for a bit "stupid" and naive woman in her twenties, in this day and age?



If you've already established "in this day and age" I feel like you've already established your setting? I suppose the location could still be determined, but I think possibly you're misunderstanding what I'm saying.

If your setting is the modern western world, then that's your setting. If your character is naive and stupid, then that's your character. Just think about how the character and the setting will interact. I think you'd want to determine social status for your character - a very wealthy naive woman is likely to have a much easier life than a very poor naive woman. I think you'd want to look at her background to see how she's managed to remain naive - is she just too stupid to wise up, or has she had the protection of a paternalistic family structure, or something else? How has the world reacted to her being stupid? Is she pretty? There's definitely a niche for stupid, pretty women in our world, with people who seem to actually _like_ the stupidity because it keeps the woman from being in any way threatening. Was she born into that niche, and/or has she found her way into it? How does she react to that protectiveness? Does she _know _she's stupid? Does she care? etc.

It's all interactive. Her characteristics, her milieu, the larger culture... they're all a big loop.


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 8, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> First, I am sure you're advertassing your novel here; it's on almost every thread. It won't be on my threads. Capisce?
> 
> Second, I have done nothing here to be called an as*hole. So it's you slandering me, this speaks more of you.
> 
> ...



Now, admit it very publicly, luckyscars, the above post WAS funny... 

Let's be pals again?


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 8, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> Now, admit it very publicly, luckyscars, the above post WAS funny...
> 
> Let's be pals again?



I'm pretty curtain that laugh is sarcastic. Look if all's your going to do is nit pic and harass those that try to help you, your not going to get day on here. I'd you take your overloaded who and throw it out the top story window of a ten story high rise. You aren't going to start out penning the next great Stephen King novel. 

With that being said you can make a great effort and come out with something decent, something that will still sell and attract a big audience. But you have to be receptive to those that are trying to help you. I'm gladdly taking a leaf from Lucky and just going to be blunt.

Being an ass will only get you so far in life and if your not carefull you'll run into a bigger ass and then you'll end up in ruins or worse because you decided that you like the taste of your leather shoe's way to much.


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 8, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> First, I am sure you're advertassing your novel here; it's on almost every thread. It won't be on my threads. Capisce?


once again she's not advertising,  she's giving you a free resource to help you become a better writer.


Ken11 said:


> I have done nothing here to be called an as*hole. So it's you slandering me, this speaks more of you.


No you've been pretty assholeish to everyone who's tried to help and the fact that you won't admit it speaks more of you than anyone else.


Ken11 said:


> I did expect you to be defended by your write mates here on WF with who you frequent a lot, it's a simple I'll-scratch-yours-if-you-scratch-mine thing.


First off that was me defending Seig Lucky was just in agreement so don't go and attack him for nothing.


Ken11 said:


> Hopefully, I've made myself clear now.



oh yes. Yes you have. You don't want help from more experienced writers but then you want to complain about how your being "ridiculed". Do yourself a favor and grow up. 

We here at Writing Forums are here to help. If you go around trying to start fights or slander other members then of course were going to defend one another. Hell I've been called a "white knight" due to all I the defending I do. I wear that title with honour because that is just who I am. Now to the mods who read this, because I'm not going to budge or change my little rant here, if this comes off as antagonistic or baiting then I really apologize for breaking any rules but sometimes people need to be told the cold hard truth.


----------



## Aquilo (Sep 8, 2019)

Back on topic, please, guys.  

Try not to think male v female as others have said. Looking at dialect, age, class, location, schooling, you'll find no one speaks exactly the same, no matter their gender or sex.


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 8, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> Back on topic, please, guys.
> 
> Try not to think male v female as others have said. Looking at dialect, age, class, location, schooling, you'll find no one speaks exactly the same, no matter their gender or sex.



Thanks, Aquilo. I guess you're right.


----------



## BornForBurning (Sep 8, 2019)

> I'm an ateist, sorry to tell you. So it pains me when I realize terms like soul and spirit are being hijacked by sly theists of any kind.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 8, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> I won't pretend that I understand the beautiful female soul and spirit that well, so I'll ask the following: What's the best way for describing a female's inner world? What's the starting point for a male to understand a female?
> (Sorry if this turns out to be a sexistic thing. That isn't my intention at all.)



I'm a male. Can you describe my inner world in an accurate way? Unless you're telepathic, I doubt you can—not until you know me better.

My point is that my gender isn't really the issue. Knowing the person (or the character) is what matters.

Male, female, robot, alien ... Get to know the character as an _individual_, then you can write them well. :encouragement:


----------



## ironpony (Sep 8, 2019)

Kyle R said:


> I'm a male. Can you describe my inner world in an accurate way? Unless you're telepathic, I doubt you can—not until you know me better.
> 
> My point is that my gender isn't really the issue. Knowing the person (or the character) is what matters.
> 
> Male, female, robot, alien ... Get to know the character as an _individual_, then you can write them well. :encouragement:



I also was told I have a problem writing female characters.  I thought it was best to write the character, without gender in mind so much, and just have the character be an individual, without thinking of gender so much.  But then when readers read it, some tell me that the female characters don't seem female like enough, and I need to have gender in mind when writing them, and I should ask myself what would women do in such a situation.  So is that true, that I should ask myself what would a woman or man do in this situation, and not so much, what would this character do?


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 8, 2019)

ironpony said:


> I also was told I have a problem writing female characters.  I thought it was best to write the character, without gender in mind so much, and just have the character be an individual, without thinking of gender so much.  But then when readers read it, some tell me that the female characters don't seem female like enough, and I need to have gender in mind when writing them, and I should ask myself what would women do in such a situation.  So is that true, that I should ask myself what would a woman or man do in this situation, and not so much, what would this character do?


First it would be best to think about what gender the character is. Then you would want to ask what would this character do regardless of their gender. There gender will nine times out of then not effect what they would do in a given situation. That's up to their character or rather how you portray their character.


----------



## EmmaSohan (Sep 8, 2019)

Kyle R said:


> I'm a male. Can you describe my inner world in an accurate way? Unless you're telepathic, I doubt you can—not until you know me better.
> 
> My point is that my gender isn't really the issue. Knowing the person (or the character) is what matters.
> 
> Male, female, robot, alien ... Get to know the character as an _individual_, then you can write them well. :encouragement:



All good advice, of course. But . . . if, for example, your story has a principal, do you try to have the principal act like a principal? Your advice still applies -- all principles are different, get to know them as a person, etc. No cliches, bring them to life, etc.

But then . . . do you want them to act like principals? _How _is the usual question, but I am asking _why_?

I think, it tends to be a better story, more enoyable to read, if the principals act like principals. If your principal has to act different, you have a plot problem. And if you don't want your character to act like a principal -- why is there a principal in your story?

And we want James Bond to act like James Bond, and if your character is shy your character should act shy and that should be integrated into the story. And on and on. Male and female

So, I don't know. I think there's currently a push towards realism and having characters be complicated and unpredictable. I'm trying to work out how much that advice is useful.


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 8, 2019)

Let's give an example.

Rose is a complex character. At her core she's a damaged human being that turned to killing other's in order to cope with her pain. So simply you can say that she's a serial killer but complexly she has her own reason's and motivations for killing even if they don't make sense to the average individual like you and me.


----------



## Dluuni (Sep 8, 2019)

ironpony said:


> I thought it was best to write the character, without gender in mind so much, and just have the character be an individual, without thinking of gender so much.  But then when readers read it, some tell me that the female characters don't seem female like enough, and I need to have gender in mind when writing them..


Don't think of it as "How would a woman act". That's a recipe for stereotypes. Instead, actively try to learn how the world treats women differently than it treats men, and think about how that would shape a character.
I use all of the "feminine" soft and circuitous language with guys. That's not "because I'm a woman" (though I am, and that's where I learned it), it's because I have learned from experience that having people who from my perspective are superhumanly strong and endowed with endless public trust threaten plausibly to break or kill me is not fun, and experience has shown that direct answers to questions are far more likely to inspire murderous screaming rages from them. It's not the only thing I do to avoid such things. That's not something men usually have to worry about as much.


----------



## ironpony (Sep 8, 2019)

Oh okay.  It was for a story I was developing before where a main female character was very sexually liberated I guess you could say, but was told by some that that she was too much so, and that women are not as sexually liberated compared to men, and it was too much of a male trait that I was trying to force onto her I was told, if that's true.


----------



## Trollheart (Sep 8, 2019)

Again, while advice and critique is good and should not be ignored, I get the impression you're relying too much on other people's views, letting them skew and change and influence yours, which, sorry, again makes me feel you don't have faith either in your story or in yourself as a writer. You can take all the advice and editorial edits you want, but in the end it's YOUR story. YOU'RE writing it so take on board all the advice you want to, by all means, but don't take it blindly as being right and don't let it always change your way of working. Every thread you've made here (and I've not even been here a fortnight) seems to have the same theme running through it, which is, or could be, sadly, interpreted as "please write my story for me". 

Take a tip from Nike, is my advice.


----------



## Bayview (Sep 8, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay.  It was for a story I was developing before where a main female character was very sexually liberated I guess you could say, but was told by some that that she was too much so, and that women are not as sexually liberated compared to men, and it was too much of a male trait that I was trying to force onto her I was told, if that's true.



This could be another "setting" issue. I don't think there's anything inherent in women that makes it impossible for us to enjoy casual sexual encounters, but there are often significant societal repercussions for women who indulge. If your story acknowledges these consequences, if your characterization makes it clear that your character is strong enough (or desperate enough, or whatever) to act as she does despite the censure, then I don't think there's a problem. But if your female character is sexually promiscuous and doesn't take some shit for it? I'd say you may have a problem with your setting, and the way your setting impacts your character.


----------



## Sir-KP (Sep 8, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> What's the best way for describing a female's inner world?


Bruh. If there's one thing I can say to generalize women from my experience is that they are more of a dreamer and more sensitive than men.




Ken11 said:


> What's the starting point for a male to understand a female?


It may be harder for us men understand women. At the same time, sometimes even to our more-logical nature, we men still have disagreements and misunderstandings.

I don't believe we can absolutely understand everyone.




Ken11 said:


> Is stereotyping good for a start?



Flip the question. Let's admit first, we men we like sex and all the dirty stuff. But do we want to get treated as 'men are pigs' stereotype?




Ken11 said:


> And, do strong women love strong men?



Interesting question. Though yet again, we can't generalize. Everyone has different background. But it's normal for a woman to like someone who is better than them.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 9, 2019)

Bayview said:


> I don't think there's anything inherent in women that makes it impossible for us to enjoy casual sexual encounters, but there are often significant societal repercussions for women who indulge. .



I'm wondering about this. Is it really as simple (not that it's all that simple, I guess!) as being the old 'society judges' thing? Like, do you really think there's not any difference in programming?

I realize since we're talking comparing the mentality of genders which are not our own, and as we all live under these 'societal repercussions' it's fairly difficult to test theories, but even so I don't think I have ever met many women who have mentioned casual sex as being something desirable - never mind actionable. When they do mention a desire to sleep around, it usually seems to be a reaction to something. Often negative experiences regarding relationships and men generally. Or perhaps another underlying reason: A midlife crisis, teenage hormones, a lot of alcohol, curiosity, YOLO, whatever. But there's usually a 'reason' for the behavior that I don't see in men so much - I don't see a whole lot of reasoning in male sexuality. It doesn't seem to typically be an interest in sex-for-sex's-sake, made in complete absence of external influences and considerations, as it often seems to be with men. Perhaps I wouldn't know, being male myself, but I don't think I've ever heard about any adult women who would have loved to sleep around 'if only they wouldn't be judged', you know? 

Please correct me if I am wrong, but it seems like the main focus of feminist movements regarding sexuality through the years has revolved about sexual equality in the context of relationships rather than sex-for-sex's sake? I don't hear about many women campaigning for greater access to male prostitutes, for instance. Even in countries where prostitution is fully legal, there's a tiny percentage of women who use them and I suspect that isn't just about the way they would be judged but rather that simply the notion of a prostitute or 'easy sex' generally doesn't appeal to women much. Even in lesbianism, an identity for which no established, widely held view of sexual dynamics seems to exist, most don't _appear _to be into the idea of partner-bouncing a whole lot...at least not compared to gay men. 

It seems like female sexuality generally revolves around the idea of relationships. Not necessarily marriage, not necessarily formal forever-couplings, but some notion of a partnership that goes beyond boning-some-stranger-in-the-bar-bathroom or whatnot. I have never known a single woman of otherwise sound-mind and high self-esteem who did that or even mentioned wanting to. Not saying they don't exist, I'm sure they do, only that they seem waaay fewer than men - many of whom, lets be honest, would probably partake in that sort of thing at least once, at least if they were extremely attracted to the person and there were no 'repercussions'.

I'm not trying to dismiss anybody here or pretending like I know how everybody thinks, but simply describing what usually seems the case: Usually married men who have illicit affairs do so with no intention of initiating a relationship, usually it's something they actively want to avoid. On the other hand, most women who have affairs seem to harbor some desire for one, or at least a 'feeling' of one, circumstances permitting of course. Or put it this way, I don't hear of many men uttering statements like 'You promised you'd leave your husband for me!' Given these relationships are secret and already taboo, I'm not sure how much relevance the issue of societal repercussions would even have? 

So, is this argument essentially a nurture argument - the claim more that a woman who spends her formative years in sexual repression will lose the desire for casual sex she might have otherwise have had, if she wasn't raised to believe it was taboo? Would that same woman's later reluctance to pursue a casual sex event be pinned on that formative repression? Do we want to say that the sexual behavior, actually never mind behavior but _thoughts_, of a woman for her entire lifetime is governed by societal repercussions, regardless of whether she might find herself in a situation where those repercussions don't exist or aren't relevant? I honestly don't know - Would love to learn!


----------



## Aquilo (Sep 9, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I'm wondering about this. Is it really as simple (not that it's all that simple, I guess!) as being the old 'society judges' thing?



It can be, yes, I think. :smile: Mostly because of perceptions like this:



> It seems like female sexuality *generally revolves around the idea of relationships.* Not necessarily marriage, not necessarily formal forever-couplings, but some notion of a partnership that goes beyond boning-some-stranger-in-the-bar-bathroom or whatnot.* I have never known* *a single woman of otherwise sound-mind and high self-esteem who did that or even mentioned wanting to*



If we're caught lusting after sex, we've possibly got low self-esteem and aren't sound-minded, even in today's society, so what do we do? The majority just won't... talk about it like men do. Not to men anyway, because we're still judged negatively. A guy has casual sex, one guy will say to another: get in there, my son. When did you last hear a guy say that to a woman? They didn't, because we're ladies, right?

The reality of it: I'm one of three sisters. My eldest sister, she's worked in journalism, owns her home and a few horses. My other sister, she sets the award criteria for collages in the UK when it comes to her profession, owns her own home etc. Me? I've been with my husband for twenty years. I'm an editor, author, have been to university to study linguistics. When it comes to us three, can you tell who out of the three of us have had casual sex, who condones it, who doesn't?

This point is, you can't. And we're not going to tell you. Why? Because we're ladies, right? :wink: And if we do, it's there as judgment, how: 



> I have never known a single woman of otherwise sound-mind and high self-esteem who did that or even mentioned wanting to



I'm pretty open on the subject, though, so I can say my one eldest sister hasn't been in a relationship for years, preferring casual hookups with no attachments: she's happy doing that. My other? She only settled down a few years ago and got married. Me? I've been with my hubby for twenty years, but before that? The point is, none of us have had casual sex because we're low on self-esteem or because we base it on relationships: like guys, it's just been about sex for us too, definitely no attachment. But if we're seen to take that approach, oh boy...

Could it be that men just 'need' us to be about relationships, do you think, when in reality we're not?


----------



## Bayview (Sep 9, 2019)

I'm a woman and honestly, if I didn't know how I'd be judged, and if I had the nerve to initiate things, and if I weren't worried about my safety while being alone with men I don't know well, I'd be quite interested in casual sex (with men I found attractive). I have NO interest in a relationship (I'm financially independent and really don't want the headache of having to worry about someone else all the time) but, yeah, sex is good. I don't think I'm damaged or immature (possibly a little selfish on the relationship front, but maybe just a realist?).

In my circle of friends at university (probably the time when casual sex is most socially acceptable from both genders) there were lots of times when my girl friends hooked up with guys and wanted more than the guy wanted, relationship-wise, but there were also plenty of times when my guy friends hooked up with girls and wanted more than the girl wanted. And times when my girl friends were annoyed by guys who were trying to turn casual sex into something more when the girl had just wanted it to be casual. My university friends have gone on to be socially and professionally successful, and I'm not aware of any deep-seated mental health issues. I think we were fairly typical.

In terms of male prostitutes, I think we may be looking at a few things. One is definitely physical safety, and another would be the HUGE stigma if the exchange were ever made public. And there's also the fact that if a woman is looking for casual sex, in our society, it's not too difficult for her to get it without paying for it. We've set up a system in which men are the predators and women the prey--if a prey animals walks into a pack of predators (ie a bar) and makes it clear she's open to being devoured, she'll be devoured (unless she's extremely unattractive, I guess). No need for money to change hands.

It's obviously impossible to ever fully separate the nature from the nurture, and I've hardly made a scientific study of the topic. But anecdotally I think there's more than enough support for the idea that AT LEAST SOME WOMEN can be mentally healthy and still interested in casual sex, and when we're writing an individual character, that's all we need.


----------



## Ma'am (Sep 9, 2019)

If women didn't like casual sex, then I'd be interested to know who (hetero) men are having all these casual sexual encounters with.


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 9, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Oh okay.  It was for a story I was developing before where a main female character was very sexually liberated I guess you could say, but was told by some that that she was too much so, and that women are not as sexually liberated compared to men, and it was too much of a male trait that I was trying to force onto her I was told, if that's true.



Again, it depends entirely upon the individual. You can have a woman who wants (and tries) to screw anything that moves, and it'd feel completely within her character to be this way—_if_ you write her convincingly.

Victoria Schwab's _This Savage Song_ opens with a Catholic schoolgirl dousing a cathedral in alcohol and setting it on fire. Then she sits down with a smirk on a bench nearby to enjoy the mayhem that follows. One could argue that "Hey! Catholic schoolgirls don't do things like that!" But hey—this particular girl _does_.


P.S. Anytime someone says "Men don't do that" or "Women don't behave this way", I inevitably find myself rolling my eyes. There's no such thing as a universal "male" or "female" behavior type. Every individual acts differently.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 9, 2019)

Kyle R said:


> Again, it depends entirely upon the individual. You can have a woman who wants (and tries) to screw anything that moves, and it'd feel completely within her character to be this way—_if_ you write her convincingly.
> 
> Victoria Schwab's _This Savage Song_ opens with a Catholic schoolgirl dousing a cathedral in alcohol and setting it on fire. Then she sits down with a smirk on a bench nearby to enjoy the mayhem that follows. One could argue that "Hey! Catholic schoolgirls don't do things like that!" But hey—this particular girl _does_.
> 
> ...



I think there’s a happy medium. Ultimately you can’t totally ignore reader’s expectations regarding gender or it may not totally resonate as being authentic. It doesn’t necessarily matter if gender norms are actually valid or not, what matters is if a reader perceives them as being real and expects them to be recognized in the characters behavior. Basically, I am saying that it’s not sufficient to simply label a character as “she” and give her a female name to make her “seem female”. There’s a little more to it. To me anyway.

But it otherwise I agree. A good example of this is a character like King’s Carrie who doesn’t exactly act like a “typical” female, however he is able to balance certain aspects of expected and easily recognizable “standard teenage girl” behavior (anxiety, low self esteem, body dysmorphia) with aspects that are totally unexpected - murdering schoolmates for instance. I think that’s quite difficult to do well, especially if it’s a gender that isn’t your own.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 9, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> A guy has casual sex, one guy will say to another: get in there, my son. When did you last hear a guy say that to a woman? They didn't, because we're ladies, right?
> 
> Could it be that men just 'need' us to be about relationships, do you think, when in reality we're not?



Regarding the first question: For me, personally, I wouldn't say that to a woman (I probably wouldn't say it to a man either, honestly, but let's put that aside) because I would genuinely expect her response to be that she isn't ordinarily into 'sleeping around'. I would generally assume (of course it would depend on her personality more broadly...) that even if she has indulged it's a one time thing, or at least not a common thing, for her because [reason(s)]. 

That's not because I cannot compute women being sexually liberated or anything. It's actually the opposite: that _tends _to be the kind of response I hear coming from women themselves, whereas it's almost never the response I hear coming from men. Of course that doesn't PROVE anything conclusively, but I think we're kind of limited to taking people at face value on explaining their sexuality aren't we? If virtually every woman I have ever talked to has expressed a preference for relationships then, yeah, I will tend to assume that as being a sort of norm for Woman X, at least until I come to understand her better. And I don't think that's unreasonable.

Regarding the second question: I don't know if I buy that. I think its simplistic. I think most men these days are broadly indifferent to whether women want relationships or not. I will agree there are still a depressingly large percentage of (usually older) men who feel threatened by women behaving "like men" when it comes to sexual choice, but I also suspect there are just as many men who actually really like the idea of women being sexually empowered, dominant even. For one thing, it's a lot easier if you're a man who wants a casual encounter if the woman is too. Less complicated, etc.

 I imagine from a lot of men's standpoint a bigger complaint would be that too many women want/expect relationships. This inevitably ends with somebody getting strung along and possibly hurt. I don't think most people, male or female, _want_ to cause hurt. No man is going to want to invite a 'bunny boiler' type situation.

I suppose I just don't really like the claim of there being no difference in attitudes towards sex between men and women besides what society prescribes...notwithstanding that I definitely accept society is definitely _a big part _of the blame for...well, everything really. I don't claim to know for sure, but to ascribe women's sexual conservatism (not sure if that's totally the right word, but hopefully you know what I mean) solely to society seems to suggest that women are somewhat paralyzed when it comes to acting according to their desires. Which might well be true, but I don't like to believe it, mainly because I've known an awful lot of women who have been strong individuals with no shortage of a sex drive and I just find it hard to believe their disinterest in casual sex was anything other than a freely-made choice made on their own terms. 



Bayview said:


> I'm a woman and honestly, if I didn't know how I'd be judged, and if I had the nerve to initiate things, and if I weren't worried about my safety while being alone with men I don't know well, I'd be quite interested in casual sex (with men I found attractive). I have NO interest in a relationship (I'm financially independent and really don't want the headache of having to worry about someone else all the time) but, yeah, sex is good. I don't think I'm damaged or immature (possibly a little selfish on the relationship front, but maybe just a realist?).
> 
> In my circle of friends at university (probably the time when casual sex is most socially acceptable from both genders) there were lots of times when my girl friends hooked up with guys and wanted more than the guy wanted, relationship-wise, but there were also plenty of times when my guy friends hooked up with girls and wanted more than the girl wanted. And times when my girl friends were annoyed by guys who were trying to turn casual sex into something more when the girl had just wanted it to be casual. My university friends have gone on to be socially and professionally successful, and I'm not aware of any deep-seated mental health issues. I think we were fairly typical.



I wasn't intentionally implying all women who have casual sex are damaged or unhinged or anything like that. 

What I meant  was simply that it seems that a woman who engages in casual sex often seems to be acting out of their normal day-to-day character. Be it for 'good reasons' ('I just got caught up in the moment..') or 'bad reasons' ('Tim broke my heart so...') or simply reasons of curiosity, adventure, whatever. In men it simply seems to be about the orgasm. I do freely accept that women and men are incredibly diverse, of course. The only common denominator with these motivations I am talking about is that they are _motivations _beyond the actual sex act. There usually seems to be something that acts as a primer.

So basically I just don't think most women depend on men for physical sexual fulfillment the same way men depend on women. I don't think most women are as interested in men as sexual objects as the other way around - which is not to say they aren't _at all, _obviously. I just think women are usually a little more complex. That they tend to value the emotional aspects of sexuality (which may not include relationships, but often does) as being more important than the physical. If that's not true for you or people you know I'm hardly going to argue about it, I'm just going by the people I know.



Ma'am said:


> If women didn't like casual sex, then I'd be interested to know who (hetero) men are having all these casual sexual encounters with.



Ha! Well...

 Firstly, and most obviously, I don't think many men are actually having a whole lot of casual sexual encounters. If I recall correctly, the average number of sexual partners for men is not that much higher than it is for women...which is sort of funny/sad when you consider how much more acceptable it is for men to sleep around. But I don't think that's to do with men not wanting more casual sex, I think it's solely down to the lack of opportunity they perceive. Men are generally the only ones who have the issue of nobody wanting to sleep with them. Women don't typically have that issue, as has been pointed out by Bayview.

For another, I think a lot of promiscuous men's 'notches on the bedpost' do result from some form of deception or manipulation - or even, yes, intimidation. That seems pretty much fact, actually. I think even most otherwise fairly decent men have, at least at some point, been guilty of prioritizing their own sexual imperatives over those of the women they are with. At best, avoiding or mitigating the issue or, worse, outright lying to the woman to get what they want. I have never heard a man complain about being 'used for sex' (again, not saying it doesn't happen!). On the other hand, it seems for a lot of girls/women that's pretty much a rite of passage these days. Why is that? Is that an issue of social repercussions? Maybe. I'm not sure, though. Just doesn't quite add up.

Lastly... I would definitely take issue with the assumption that having casual sex necessarily equals _liking_ it. A lot of casual sex becomes similar to drug addiction. There is a mental health component to many extremely promiscuous individuals (men AND women) and there are several named disorders. It's simply wrong to talk about enjoyment as being a primary motivator in this context.


----------



## BornForBurning (Sep 9, 2019)

> if I had the nerve to initiate things, and if I weren't worried about my safety while being alone with men I don't know well, I'd be quite interested in casual sex (with men I found attractive)


If you have to put that many qualifiers on having casual sex then maybe you aren't interested in having casual sex. Saying "I'd like casual sex if I wasn't afraid of being alone with a man I don't know well" is only a few degrees away from saying "I'd like being slapped if it didn't hurt."


----------



## Dluuni (Sep 9, 2019)

BornForBurning said:


> If you have to put that many qualifiers on having casual sex then maybe you aren't interested in having casual sex.


I think you are missing something:
Men are dangerous. They just are. We can't act like we like sex too much, or some of them will get it in their head that we won't mind if they rape us. We can't do anything that will mess with HIS image or he might kill us. We can't indiscriminately say yes because WE COULD DIE.
So yes, there's a lot more caution there. I know a number of women who enjoy lots of casual sex. They have found ways to ensure their safety and protection first, they aren't just going out and grabbing people off the street, because guys are scary and dangerous and women don't have the legal protections men do.


----------



## Bayview (Sep 9, 2019)

BornForBurning said:


> If you have to put that many qualifiers on having casual sex then maybe you aren't interested in having casual sex. Saying "I'd like casual sex if I wasn't afraid of being alone with a man I don't know well" is only a few degrees away from saying "I'd like being slapped if it didn't hurt."



I think they're a crucial few degrees. That is, I think hurting is a pretty intrinsic part of being slapped, while fearing violence from a strange man isn't an intrinsic part of casual sex.

That said, yes, in the current world, I DON'T like casual sex, because of the qualifiers mentioned. I just don't think any of the qualifiers is a necessary element of casual sex in all situations.


----------



## seigfried007 (Sep 9, 2019)

BornForBurning said:


> If you have to put that many qualifiers on having casual sex then maybe you aren't interested in having casual sex. Saying "I'd like casual sex if I wasn't afraid of being alone with a man I don't know well" is only a few degrees away from saying "I'd like being slapped if it didn't hurt."


<<<Learned the hard way. 

Men are f****** dangerous. "Stranger danger" still applies, even when you're grown up. Men you do know (or *think* you know) can be f****** dangerous, too. 

Plus, there's the whole "diseases" and "pregnancy" things to worry about. Easy dudes are that much more likely to get around and pick up "friends" (contagious microscopic or macroscopic ones that can be hard to get rid of AND MIGHT KILL YOU), and they're even less likely to care if you get knocked up. 

Because _you_ knew the risks. _You_ rolled the dice. _You_ lost. 

And he got his.



But yeah, if wasn't for those things, there'd be a lot more women who'd be jumping into casual sex. But we have _brains_, and we balance out those risks, try to stack the odds more in our favor before jumping in the sack with relative strangers to whom we have no commitments.


----------



## velo (Sep 9, 2019)

*[language warning- profanity and racial epithets]*

I think Dave Chappelle did a great job of illustrating this point to men.  This is an excerpt from his Netflix special "The Bird Revelation"  



			
				Dave Chappelle said:
			
		

> Well, you ladies were right. Be honest with you, your lives look terrifying to me. They do. Man, I know nothing about being a woman, but I know fear.
> Yo, I used to live in New York when I was 17. I couldn’t even pay my bills. You know what I did to make money? I used to do shows for drug dealers that wanted to clean their money up. One time I did a real good set, and these motherfuckers called me in the back room. They gave me $25,000 in cash. I was probably 18, 19 years old.
> I was scared. I thanked them profusely, I put that money in my backpack, I jumped on the subway and started heading towards Brooklyn at one in the morning. Never been that terrified in my life. Because I’d never in my life had something that somebody else would want. I thought to myself, “Jesus Christ, if these motherfuckers knew how much money I had in this backpack, they’d kill me for it.”
> Then I thought, “Holy shit. What if I had a pussy on me all the time?” That’s what women are dealing with. I’m going to tell you right now. It’s real talk. If them same drug dealers gave me a pussy and said, “Put this in your backpack and take it to Brooklyn,” I’d be like, “Nigga, I can’t accept this.”


----------



## ironpony (Sep 9, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> It can be, yes, I think. :smile: Mostly because of perceptions like this:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Do a lot of society still think that though, if a woman is the one to initiate sex?  What about Samantha Jones on Sex and the City, who often does the initiation?  Would she be considered to have low self esteem?


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 10, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Do a lot of society still think that though, if a woman is the one to initiate sex?  What about Samantha Jones on Sex and the City, who often does the initiation?  Would she be considered to have low self esteem?



Good point. I wonder who came up with the term French kiss. Was it a man or a woman? 

It's clear to see that tourism departments of some 'desperado countries' (the weighed down Greece comes to mind) use the show business to promote the mojo qualities of their destinations.


----------



## Aquilo (Sep 10, 2019)

ironpony said:


> Do a lot of society still think that though, if a woman is the one to initiate sex? What about Samantha Jones on Sex and the City, who often does the initiation? Would she be considered to have low self esteem?



I actually have never seen _Sex in the City_, so I can't say.  I pretty much rather read about relationships than watch on TV.


----------



## Aquilo (Sep 10, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Regarding the first question: For me, personally, I wouldn't say that to a woman (I probably wouldn't say it to a man either, honestly, but let's put that aside) because I would genuinely expect her response to be that she isn't ordinarily into 'sleeping around'. I would generally assume (of course it would depend on her personality more broadly...) that even if she has indulged it's a one time thing, or at least not a common thing, for her because [reason(s)].



Perhaps that's a more old-fashioned view, then (but very sweet with it)? I mean, do you think your perception would change if you were talking to a woman, say, in her early twenties, one who goes out clubbing every weekend?



> ....solely to society seems to suggest that women are somewhat paralyzed when it comes to acting according to their desires. Which might well be true, but I don't like to believe it, mainly because I've known an awful lot of women who have been strong individuals with no shortage of a sex drive and I just find it hard to believe their disinterest in casual sex was anything other than a freely-made choice made on their own terms.



I don't think it's as extreme as paralysis: women will have casual sex and not think anything of it. They just won't discuss it openly as men do. And it would be interesting to do a study on women who haven't had casual sex to see why they haven't.  I think a number of elements will come into play, a lot more than men would offer, I think. But I can guess 'social backlash, STDs, safety,' etc will come at the top of it as a turnoff for them.


----------



## ironpony (Sep 10, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> Perhaps that's a more old-fashioned view, then (but very sweet with it)? I mean, do you think your perception would change if you were talking to a woman, say, in her early twenties, one who goes out clubbing every weekend?
> 
> 
> 
> I don't think it's as extreme as paralysis: women will have casual sex and not think anything of it. They just won't discuss it openly as men do. And it would be interesting to do a study on women who haven't had casual sex to see why they haven't.  I think a number of elements will come into play, a lot more than men would offer, I think. But I can guess 'social backlash, STDs, safety,' etc will come at the top of it as a turnoff for them.



This I find strange, cause my women friends talk about their sex lives with each other more than the men do it seems, unless that is unusual?


----------



## SueC (Sep 10, 2019)

I think - just my opinion - that TV and movies make it seem that women sit around talking about sex and all that it encompasses, on a regular basis. I don't think that is true. I can honestly say, among my women friends, who have generally been married, that sex has never been a topic of conversation. It's no one's business, is it? And what is there to discuss? I mean is anyone else really interested enough in another person's sex life to have an actual conversation about it?


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 10, 2019)

SueC said:


> I think - just my opinion - that TV and movies make it seem that women sit around talking about sex and all that it encompasses, on a regular basis. I don't think that is true. I can honestly say, among my women friends, who have generally been married, that sex has never been a topic of conversation. It's no one's business, is it? And what is there to discuss? I mean is anyone else really interested enough in another person's sex life to have an actual conversation about it?



I totally agree. I don't even think men talk about it that much either, other than in a very light manner - like if there's a funny story or something, and even then it's not really talking about sex.

Talking about that stuff with friends is just weird, to me. Like, I don't want to think about my friends in that light. So I always roll my eyes when characters on TV start exchanging sex _tips. _I mean, is there anything less awkward than getting oral sex pointers from Sharon over a latte? Most people can figure out most of this stuff on their own and for those who cannot there are healthy magazines, doctors, porn, whatever.

The only demographic I can see sex being talked about frequently and in some level of detail would be teenagers. Not grown ass adults.


----------



## seigfried007 (Sep 11, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I totally agree. I don't even think men talk about it that much either, other than in a very light manner - like if there's a funny story or something, and even then it's not really talking about sex.
> 
> Talking about that stuff with friends is just weird, to me. Like, I don't want to think about my friends in that light. So I always roll my eyes when characters on TV start exchanging sex _tips. _I mean, is there anything less awkward than getting oral sex pointers from Sharon over a latte? Most people can figure out most of this stuff on their own and for those who cannot there are healthy magazines, doctors, porn, whatever.
> 
> The only demographic I can see sex being talked about frequently and in some level of detail would be teenagers. Not grown ass adults.


^^^ I second the teenagers bit. People who are new to it or haven't experienced it are a lot more likely to seek out and divulge such info. 


Of course, we're also writers, so we might just not being hanging out with the right crowds of people, I suppose. Writers are odd ducks.


----------



## ironpony (Sep 11, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I totally agree. I don't even think men talk about it that much either, other than in a very light manner - like if there's a funny story or something, and even then it's not really talking about sex.
> 
> Talking about that stuff with friends is just weird, to me. Like, I don't want to think about my friends in that light. So I always roll my eyes when characters on TV start exchanging sex _tips. _I mean, is there anything less awkward than getting oral sex pointers from Sharon over a latte? Most people can figure out most of this stuff on their own and for those who cannot there are healthy magazines, doctors, porn, whatever.
> 
> The only demographic I can see sex being talked about frequently and in some level of detail would be teenagers. Not grown ass adults.



Well that's what I mean, if something funny happened, then a friend is more likely to talk about it, as oppose to just casual sex, where not anything funny happened.  But I thought women were more likely to talk about funny occurrences during sex with each other, more compared to guys though.


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 11, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> The only demographic I can see sex being talked about frequently and in some level of detail would be teenagers. Not grown ass adults.



You're pretty wrong there. The active participation in sexual discourse was the main propellant force in the Renaissance, for one. And why has the adolthood age been set at eighteen years? Because of these teenagers' sex drive, which is considered more than healthy, necessary 'even'.
Apropos, I'll remind us writers that the main passionate, dramatic turbulence-causing factor in human life is the relationship Eros-Thanatos, i.e. Passion-Fear of loss. That's why Sex and the City became a global phenomenon.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 11, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> You're pretty wrong here. The active participation in sexual discourse was the main propellant force in the Renaissance, for one.



I thought it was pretty obvious I was talking casual conversations between friends and acquaintances, not shifts in academia. 

I mean, I'm pretty sure regular people hanging out in Venetian marketplaces in the 1500's didn't suddenly start openly discussing cunnilingus preferences or whatever because 'it's the Renaissance, dude'. But if you have evidence to the contrary I'd be _thrilled _to hear it!.



Ken11 said:


> And why has the adolthood age been set at eighteen years? Because of these teenagers' sex drive, which is considered more than healthy, necessary 'even'.



No idea what your point is, sorry. And I'd try to figure it out but I'm too busy trying to work out why you put apostrophes around 'even'.



Ken11 said:


> Before you try to be sarcastic, I'll remind us writers that the main passionate, dramatic turbulence-causing factor in human life is the relationship Eros-Thanatos, i.e. Passion-Fear of loss.



Before you try to start arguments, I'll remind you again I was referring to realistic depictions of modern-day female sexuality, not...whatever you are trying to say. What relevance do you think Eros has to what women or men talk about with their pals over a Subway sandwich?



ironpony said:


> Well that's what I mean, if something funny happened, then a friend is more likely to talk about it, as oppose to just casual sex, where not anything funny happened. But I thought women were more likely to talk about funny occurrences during sex with each other, more compared to guys though.



I don't think there's a difference there. I mean, it would probably depend if anything on what the 'funny occurrence' was. Women might be less inclined to share something really gross, not sure. There'd probably be a difference in language used? A lot of women in America have a really big aversion to vulgar words. Again, depends on the broader demographic as much as gender I would think.

Either way I think that's splitting hairs.


----------



## PiP (Sep 11, 2019)

SueC said:


> I think - just my opinion - that TV and movies make it seem that women sit around talking about sex and all that it encompasses, on a regular basis. I don't think that is true. I can honestly say, among my women friends, who have generally been married, that sex has never been a topic of conversation. It's no one's business, is it? And what is there to discuss? I mean is anyone else really interested enough in another person's sex life to have an actual conversation about it?



Sue, I am am relieved you are not a fly on the wall when I get together with some of my girlfriends. We often talk about sex in a humorous way which leads me to think, after reading your comment, maybe it is a cultural issue re upbringing or religious beliefs. Our Portuguese friends are  also very open and my Dutch friend had no shame. So maybe cultural backgrounds should be taken into account when writing dialogue?


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 11, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> I thought it was pretty obvious I was talking casual conversations between friends and acquaintances, not shifts in academia.
> 
> I mean, I'm pretty sure regular people hanging out in Venetian marketplaces in the 1500's didn't suddenly start openly discussing cunnilingus preferences or whatever because 'it's the Renaissance, dude'. But if you have evidence to the contrary I'd be _thrilled _to hear it!.
> 
> Before you try to start arguments, I'll remind you again I was referring to realistic depictions of modern-day female sexuality, not...whatever you are trying to say. What relevance do you think Eros has to what women or men talk about with their pals over a Subway sandwich?



You know, I'm aware, that impacts to the higher classes of society come from the lower classes of society. And indeed, luckily for you to mention Venetia, for Venetia had the highest prostitute rate in medieval Europe per capita.

All you need to know about the modern day sexuality has been depicted in the global phenomenon ''Sex and the City''. And I don't really know why are you trying to avoid the reference of it.


----------



## Dluuni (Sep 11, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> Of course, we're also writers, so we might just not being hanging out with the right crowds of people, I suppose. Writers are odd ducks.


I'm a romance writer. Not only do my writer friends discuss sex regularly in writing group, but I also have friends who are sex-positive, sex workers, hypersexual, kinky, etc. And I write sweet!


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 11, 2019)

Dluuni said:


> I'm a romance writer. Not only do my writer friends discuss sex regularly in writing group, but I also have friends who are sex-positive, sex workers, hypersexual, kinky, etc. And I write sweet!



That's because you're Alaskan. Sex warms


----------



## Bayview (Sep 11, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> All you need to know about the modern day sexuality has been depicted in the global phenomenon ''Sex and the City''. And I don't really know why are you trying to avoid the reference of it.



I think possibly people were trying to avoid the reference of it because it's so patently absurd that it's hard to discuss it without insulting the person who seems so fascinated by it.

Nevertheless, if you think a fairytale about some straight, rich, beautiful, shallow, useless white women in Manhattan contains all you need to know about modern-day sexuality, I'm confused by the point of this thread. Instead of asking us for insight, shouldn't you just pull out your well-worn DVDs of Sex and The City and prepare yourself for epiphany?


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 11, 2019)

I must admit, it’s very sweet to see my fellow men in this thread holding Sex In The City, a show which never was regarded as realistic whatsoever and also ended FIFTEEN FRIGGING YEARS AGO, as being the supreme evidence of how “modern women” act. 

What next, guys? Black history based on a close reading of The Cosby Show? Avian zoology based on analysis of Big Bird? I can’t wait.


----------



## Aquilo (Sep 11, 2019)

SueC said:


> I think - just my opinion - that TV and movies make it seem that women sit around talking about sex and all that it encompasses, on a regular basis. I don't think that is true. I can honestly say, among my women friends, who have generally been married, that sex has never been a topic of conversation. It's no one's business, is it? And what is there to discuss? I mean is anyone else really interested enough in another person's sex life to have an actual conversation about it?



Pretty much this. But it might be because I write about it. I don't want to switch off the computer and talk some more about it.


----------



## Bayview (Sep 11, 2019)

I talk to my women friends about sex when there's something to talk about - like, if someone needs information or reassurance or something. And, yes, that was probably needed more when we were kids and just figuring everything out, but it's not an unheard of topic of conversation now.

There are definitely different norms in different social groups, though. And it's interesting to see the dynamics at work when different social groups interact. I have one friend who is very forthright about _everything_, to the point of possibly never having suffered the burden of an unexpressed thought, and people react to her really differently. If a group is all women and she gets going, the women will generally join in, and there's often a sense of a dam breaking, as if there's stuff they wanted to talk about but hadn't thought they were allowed to. All it takes is one person in the group to throw it off, though - one man, one woman who doesn't seem to approve, whatever - and the silence holds. I think silence is the safe default, for sure.


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 11, 2019)

Bayview said:


> I think possibly people were trying to avoid the reference of it because it's so patently absurd that it's hard to discuss it without insulting the person who seems so fascinated by it.
> 
> Nevertheless, if you think a fairytale about some straight, rich, beautiful, shallow, useless white women in Manhattan contains all you need to know about modern-day sexuality, I'm confused by the point of this thread. Instead of asking us for insight, shouldn't you just pull out your well-worn DVDs of Sex and The City and prepare yourself for epiphany?



But, it was a quiet fascination. People didn't watch it because of the acting, characters, etc. (OK, maybe a little). They watched it  because of the name of the series.
And, like it or not, women have the tendency to become very jealous of other women's success, and that was the key point of the success of the series: there's this majority of women all over the world who'd love to live in the chic Manhattan, to be useless, to look model-like, to sip pina colada all day long etc. 
In the end I'm stressing that this chick flick called Sex and the City wasn't my cup of tea. My mom loved it, but my sister didn't. I myself am more a Charlie Sheen kind of guy


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 11, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> You know, I'm aware, that impacts to the higher classes of society come from the lower classes of society. And indeed, luckily for you to mention Venetia, for Venetia had the highest prostitute rate in medieval Europe per capita.



Not sure the prevalence of prostitution has historically been a hallmark of women's sexual empowerment, Ken.



Ken11 said:


> there's this majority of women all over the world who'd love to live in the chic Manhattan, to be useless, to look model-like, to sip pina colada all day long etc.



Do you have any evidence to support this besides the moderate success of a 1990's TV show? I assume if it's perceived as every women's dream there must be a ton of other examples.


----------



## luckyscars (Sep 11, 2019)

Bayview said:


> There are definitely different norms in different social groups, though. And it's interesting to see the dynamics at work when different social groups interact. I have one friend who is very forthright about _everything_, to the point of possibly never having suffered the burden of an unexpressed thought, and people react to her really differently. If a group is all women and she gets going, the women will generally join in, and there's often a sense of a dam breaking, as if there's stuff they wanted to talk about but hadn't thought they were allowed to. All it takes is one person in the group to throw it off, though - one man, one woman who doesn't seem to approve, whatever - and the silence holds. I think silence is the safe default, for sure.



I agree. I think actually things like age, religious upbringing, culture, education level, individual interest and group norms have way more to do with sex-talk than gender.

When I lived in the Middle East nobody ever - men or women - talked publicly about sexual issues ever...because if you did, you were likely to go to jail. That's an extreme example but a group of church women in America are probably going to be not a hundred miles removed and ultimately public persona and cultural norms feed into what people are comfortable discussing even in an intimate setting to an extent.

There was a news story a few years ago about the rising epidemic of STD's among elderly people. The reason is pretty clear: Sexual health was _never _discussed with them. Not in school certainly, but not among their friends in the 1950's either. Apparently a lot of older people are totally unaware of condoms as anything other than contraceptive devices which they then see as irrelevant when they're 85 and can't get pregnant. So, it's safe to assume at least that aspect of sexuality - sexual health - doesn't feature in their conversations a whole lot. On the other hand, it's a fairly normal and not particularly embarrassing topic of discussion for young adults.


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 11, 2019)

luckyscars said:


> Not sure the prevalence of prostitution has historically been a hallmark of women's sexual empowerment, Ken.
> 
> 
> 
> Do you have any evidence to support this besides the moderate success of a 1990's TV show? I assume if it's perceived as every women's dream there must be a ton of other examples.



The richest patronas of ancient Rome enjoyed such a liberation that they could get to go to sleep with the best gladiators, for example. Not quite prostitution, but close to it. And I'm sure the same was happening during the medieval period; this time the target must've been the chivalrous knights.

I never said every woman, but the majority of women, at least. If you negate this, you must be poorly informed about the female psyche.


----------



## seigfried007 (Sep 11, 2019)

Ken11 said:


> I never said every woman, but the majority of women, at least. If you negate this, you must be poorly informed about the female psyche.




^^^ From the guy who started a thread about not understanding "the beautiful female soul and spirit." 

Have you gained _that much_ understanding over the past 8 pages? If so, we're some damned good teachers that you've gained _that much_ insight into the beautiful female soul, I guess. You must be a quick study on the female condition. 

Can we give our fine members here a round of applause and shit ton of back-patting? 

(insert canned applause)


***
Regarding historical prostitution as an indicator for sexual liberation, I'd be tempted to think it's indicative of almost the opposite. Prostitution is often a historical indicator of a poorly educated class of women who seemingly have no other recourse to make a living. They've got to put food on the table, and sex sells, so there you have it. The society itself may be sexually libertine, but the women aren't necessarily free to pursue sex for pleasure (and certainly cannot pursue it without suffering repercussions). It's a profession--world's oldest one. And she's likely doing it because she has no other marketable skills and training and can't seem to make a living otherwise.


----------



## seigfried007 (Sep 11, 2019)

Dluuni said:


> I'm a romance writer. Not only do my writer friends discuss sex regularly in writing group, but I also have friends who are sex-positive, sex workers, hypersexual, kinky, etc. And I write sweet!


Romance writers are a different breed. You get into a sci-fi circle or some other genre, and I doubt you'll get the open sex talk. Writers in general tend to be introverts with narrow social circles, so our likelihood of bumping into these conversations is less than what an extroverted group would probably experience. For instance, when I was cashiering, I bumped into a lot more sex talk because I was meeting a lot more people and hanging with a lot more extroverts. But when I'm not working in such a profession, I just don't bump into these sorts of conversations much--because I ain't hanging with much of anyone. 

But for romance writers, sex talk is almost more like casual conversations around the water cooler at work. Ya get that TPS report, mate?


----------



## Kyle R (Sep 11, 2019)

_Sex and the City_'s popularity was a combination of many things. The sex aspect was only part of the appeal. The main characters struggling to navigate relationships as single thirty-somethings (... or was it forty-somethings?) in New York was another appeal.

Having each episode's relationship drama framed and summarized by Carrie's sex/opinion column was also a clever part of the show that kept viewers engaged.

It had sex, comedy, and relationship drama. Its tone fell refreshingly into that loose middle-ground between a sitcom and a soap opera. Given its lack of competition at the time, it would've been hard for a show with all those ingredients _not_ to succeed, IMO.

(It was also loosely based on a book, which I think is cool. Anytime there's a successful television or film adaptation, I always consider it a validation that books still have an impact—even if they sometimes need a different medium to reach a bigger audience. )


----------



## Ken11 (Sep 11, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> ^^^ From the guy who started a thread about not understanding "the beautiful female soul and spirit."
> 
> Have you gained _that much_ understanding over the past 8 pages? If so, we're some damned good teachers that you've gained _that much_ insight into the beautiful female soul, I guess. You must be a quick study on the female condition.



Yes, I find it sex appealing, beautiful, if a girl wants to be a model, for instance, when she knows she could be one. And the jealousy of the girls who haven't got the physique suitable for modeling I find sweet as well as beautiful 
I admit to not being completely honest in my OP when I implied that I didn't know anything about women. Just wanted to get things started in this thread I guess.


----------



## Aquilo (Sep 11, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> But for romance writers, sex talk is almost more like casual conversations around the water cooler at work. Ya get that TPS report, mate?



Not really.  For one it's not usually personal experience we're talking about: it's relating to how it's written on the page. I can talk until the cows come home on how to write a sex scene in fiction, but talking face to face over personal experience...? It crosses a line I don't like. It's a bit like covering the BDSM lifestyle, where assumptions are made that you must be into it in the bedroom as the author. I get asked it a lot, and most times I'll back away from answering questions like that. The only time I do answer is when it comes from someone in the lifestyle. Most times they're not asking to know personal detail on my sex life and have a giggle, they're asking where and how I know the lifestyle in general and can I portray it well. And then it's like respecting anyone who's lifestyle you're stepping into: you tell them your source and experience: and for me, I use a consultant who teaches BDSM and who has been in the lifestyle for over two decades.


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 11, 2019)

For me i knew about sex by the age of 13 due to my family having a wide variety of books including some on anatomy so I have to agree with the several people who've talked about ones upbringing being a key factor. Now i know a whole lot more about sex and women in general dispite not having been with anyone intimately in my whole life. One dosent need to be intimate to know about or be knowledgeable of intimacy, just throwing out a simple observation there.


----------



## seigfried007 (Sep 11, 2019)

Aquilo said:


> Not really.  For one it's not usually personal experience we're talking about: it's relating to how it's written on the page. I can talk until the cows come home on how to write a sex scene in fiction, but talking face to face over personal experience...? It crosses a line I don't like. It's a bit like covering the BDSM lifestyle, where assumptions are made that you must be into it in the bedroom as the author. I get asked it a lot, and most times I'll back away from answering questions like that. The only time I do answer is when it comes from someone in the lifestyle. Most times they're not asking to know personal detail on my sex life and have a giggle, they're asking where and how I know the lifestyle in general and can I portray it well. And then it's like respecting anyone who's lifestyle you're stepping into: you tell them your source and experience: and for me, I use a consultant who teaches BDSM and who has been in the lifestyle for over two decades.


Oh no, I wasn't meaning _personal_ sex-talk. I figured sex scenes and the like were water cooler talk--talking shop. 

I am far too aware that readers might make a lot of assumptions about one's bedroom proclivities after reading more *ahem* _adult_ scenes. But, around other writers, its much easier to talk shop on such things. 

I can't talk much about sex personally unless I'm (stupid hopped up on obscene amounts of caffeine and sleeplessness) in the company of some (generally much younger and inexperienced) people who are already talking about such things (and looking for advice from an older lady who's 'been there; done that'). My storytelling and helpful natures collide in such a state... to hilarious, eye-opening TMI effect. 

I became a bit of a sex doctor/relationship adviser at work for a few such people who didn't seem to have anyone else to go to for advice. At that particular job, I worked with a lot of teenagers and freshmen-in-college types. They didn't feel like they could go to their parents, and being not much older than them (at the time), I was old enough to be experienced, young enough to be accessible, and tiny enough to be unintimidating. Most of the more detailed conversations were with younger people who were into alternative lifestyles, so when they found an ear that wouldn't judge them for being "weird" or a newb, they'd usually open up and let those words right out (whether I wanted the details or not). 

But otherwise, I don't really talk about that sort of stuff personally. And I never give play-by-plays or details because it's still more about giving advice (and even more so, listening to whatever that person needs to say) than spilling the beans. My oppressive drive to help people is about the only thing more powerful than my desire to never talk about such things.


----------



## seigfried007 (Sep 11, 2019)

Rojack79 said:


> For me i knew about sex by the age of 13 due to my family having a wide variety of books including some on anatomy so I have to agree with the several people who've talked about ones upbringing being a key factor. Now i know a whole lot more about sex and women in general dispite not having been with anyone intimately in my whole life. One dosent need to be intimate to know about or be knowledgeable of intimacy, just throwing out a simple observation there.



Then may I humbly suggest you not write that sex scene? Fade-to-black sits better with the Christian audience anyway, and it's best to write what you know  

(I don't remember a time when I didn't know about sex, and I never believed in Santa Claus. Just a logical deduction--sticks go in holes, and men can't fit down chimneys if your house has no chimney. Figured that out before I was potty-trained. _What kind of weird child was I?_)


----------



## Rojack79 (Sep 11, 2019)

seigfried007 said:


> Then may I humbly suggest you not write that sex scene? Fade-to-black sits better with the Christian audience anyway, and it's best to write what you know
> 
> (I don't remember a time when I didn't know about sex, and I never believed in Santa Claus. Just a logical deduction--sticks go in holes, and men can't fit down chimneys if your house has no chimney. Figured that out before I was potty-trained. _What kind of weird child was I?_)



The thing is that I have to write this scene between the main couple. It's there to show just how much they care about one another more than anything else in their world. Plus it'll be great experience for when I got off to write other endeavours of various other characters.


----------



## seigfried007 (Sep 11, 2019)

_In coming back to the OP_--I'm kinda curious about how writers  handle differences in POV regarding the gender/sex of the character in said sex scene. Men writing women; women writing men.  

I'd imagine a male writer would have that much more difficulty writing a woman's perspective on sex versus characterizing her in other circumstances.

I've met a few ladies here who have written male POV in sex scenes, but I'm not sure if any guys on here have. 

***Please correct me if I'm wrong***



Rojack79 said:


> The thing is that I have to write this scene between the main couple. It's there to show just how much they care about one another more than anything else in their world. Plus it'll be great experience for when I got off to write other endeavours of various other characters.



Don't wanna derail the thread, so I'ma send you a PM


----------

