# Sexuality assumptions.



## Annoying kid (Jul 20, 2018)

If a character goes through a trilogy where their orientation and romantic/sexual status is left unanswered, what assumptions do you as a reader make about it, if any? Do you assume they're a virgin, and/or fill in the blanks, project your own traits onto the character or do you leave it as an unknown?


----------



## Underd0g (Jul 20, 2018)

With no knowledge of the story line I'd assume asexual for any of a number of reasons. You'd really need some context to answer this kind of speculation.


----------



## H.Brown (Jul 20, 2018)

I agree that more context is needed, but I have not come across a narrative where the narrative voice is given no gender, even if it is not stated a NV can come across as feminine or masciline depending on the words/phrases they use throughout the books. I think it could be interesting to see a charcter struggling with their ideals of gender through out the books. As it comes to romantic/sexual sttatus I would guess that if the NV does not reveal any romantic/sexual encounters then the reader would not need to make their mind up ether way as they would not kow about them to base a decision on.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jul 20, 2018)

Underd0g said:


> With no knowledge of the story line I'd assume asexual for any of a number of reasons. You'd really need some context to answer this kind of speculation.



In an action story, where characters have to respond to one crisis after the other.


----------



## Underd0g (Jul 20, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> In an action story, where characters have to respond to one crisis after the other.




I doubt you could maintain action for a trilogy, lol. But no, there would be no way to speculate in an action sequence. I would definitely, if I liked the character, (unless there were a tell somewhere that hits you, but that would have to be on purpose by the author) liken them to my own sexuality.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 20, 2018)

In most cases readers will fill in any character gaps with their own traits. We know this because the default position is empathy and part of empathy is to insert oneself into the equation. If such insertion is not possible, likely due to being incompatible with what is known about the character in question, I believe the second most usual go-to would be applying the traits of those the reader knows. Ones that accord with the character's perceived "type".

If the reader is an adult male and the story features a character who is also an adult male, the chances are the reader will attempt to apply their own sexual identity to the situation. 

I think its sort of a case-by-case thing. Formation of a character is a composite between imagination and assumption. A reader who is a male, heterosexual, upper-middle class virgin in their early twenties will probably be less likely to apply their own sexuality preemptively to a character who is in their forties, female and lower-middle class because after a certain point social dynamics paint certain demographics as "the other". In that case what the reader might do is find another spiritual doppelganger for this character. One either known firsthand or (even more likely nowadays, one suspects) through another medium such as television, in order to construct the need to understand.

It should be said that all this need not be conscious, let alone insidious in intention: Every reader encounters characters whose backgrounds are unfamiliar. In part that is why we read and write. The human brain's tendency to draw conclusions about people's history and personality is vital to writing great fiction.


----------



## CyberWar (Jul 22, 2018)

Statistically speaking, most people are cisgendered heterosexuals, so it can naturally be presumed that a literary character is one unless specified otherwise.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 22, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> If a character goes through a trilogy where their orientation and romantic/sexual status is left unanswered, what assumptions do you as a reader make about it, if any? Do you assume they're a virgin, and/or fill in the blanks, project your own traits onto the character or do you leave it as an unknown?





If I wrote a whole trilogy and sexuality didn't come up, then I'd think I had not fleshed out the character very well.
Sex is a central activity to humans.
We are designed to do it.
Those humans that did not evolve the drive to reproduce became extinct.
Asexual people are usually pretty weird.
Even your Grandma liked to get a nooner.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jul 22, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> If I wrote a whole trilogy and sexuality didn't come up, then I'd think I had not fleshed out the character very well.
> Sex is a central activity to humans.
> We are designed to do it.
> Those humans that did not evolve the drive to reproduce became extinct.
> ...



Would you still feel that way if the character was not human?


----------



## QuixoteDelMar (Jul 23, 2018)

If it isn't ever brought up, I wouldn't think about it at all. Sexuality may be an important element of human nature, but if the sexual preferences of a character don't change anything in the story, then clearly it isn't something I need to know.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 23, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> Would you still feel that way if the character was not human?




Yes. Aliens would likely have different mating habits.  But one of humans evolutionary adaptations was the ability to breed year round. We are literally built from the ground up to breed.

I've said it before; a man is nothing more than an elaborate guidance system for a penis.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jul 23, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Yes. Aliens would likely have different mating habits.  But one of humans evolutionary adaptations was the ability to breed year round. We are literally built from the ground up to breed.
> 
> I've said it before; a man is nothing more than an elaborate guidance system for a penis.



Then what is a hero? If a man is nothing more than an elaborate guidance system for a penis, then selflessness shouldn't be a thing.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 24, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> If a man is nothing more than an elaborate guidance system for a penis, then selflessness shouldn't be a thing.



If this is meant as a serious rebuttal, there are dozens, probably hundreds, possibly by now thousands, of books by evolutionary biologists exploring and explaining the relationship between altruism and genetic replication and it's about as settled as anything in evolutionary biology gets.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jul 24, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Yes. Aliens would likely have different mating habits.  But one of humans evolutionary adaptations was the ability to breed year round. We are literally built from the ground up to breed.I've said it before; a man is nothing more than an elaborate guidance system for a penis.



Wrong, wrong, wrong. Utter nonsense.

Humans are no different from any other animal. I volunteered at a zoo one summer and talked with staff quite a bit. We have interfered with our reproductive process, which is how we are able to breed at any time, except when the female is already pregnant. Zoos face similar issues with the animals there.


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jul 24, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> If this is meant as a serious rebuttal, there are dozens, probably hundreds, possibly by now thousands, of books by evolutionary biologists exploring and explaining the relationship between altruism and genetic replication and it's about as settled as anything in evolutionary biology gets.



Meaning what?


----------



## JustRob (Jul 24, 2018)

Why focus on sexuality? What if the writer doesn't mention that a character is a vegan? Throughout a trilogy surely the characters will eat a meal at some point. The point about sexuality is that our language demands that characters be assigned a gender even if it isn't relevant to the story.

My angel was severely disappointed with the film version of Alistair MacLean's book _Ice Station Zebra_ because a woman appeared in it even though there are no women in the book (so she tells me). What does giving all one's characters the same gender imply in the reader's mind, that sex is not an aspect of the story at all or that they are homosexual in practical terms as well as genetically? That book was an action story, so a precise example of the subject in question. The answer is that the written story is simply a guide for the reader to create their own by filling in the gaps in a way that fits the written words comfortably into their minds. I would in fact say that a writer _should_ omit some details and not fill out characters too much in order to give readers that leeway. In an action story it is possible to focus too much purely on the action and have characters that are just flat stereotypes, but the opposite extreme is just as hazardous to my mind.

In my only novel all my characters seemed to be typically English with no hint of any ethnic variations. Perhaps a critic who supported the view that varied ethnicity should be included in stories might have criticised this approach, but they would have been wrong. I never mentioned the ethnicity of my characters because it is politically correct not to draw attention to it nowadays and only in a planned later novel did I reveal in passing that one of the characters was actually Anglo-Caribbean. What the others were never mattered. That's the point then, that the language doesn't demand that ethnicity and dietary proclivities be revealed but insists on characters having gender.

Even if sex is included in a story it proves nothing definite. A female character in my novel was clearly enthusiastically heterosexual but in a planned later novel of the trilogy was in what appeared to be a lesbian relationship. In fact it was only her innermost thoughts that revealed the ethnicity of that other character. If I had ever completed that later novel it might have shaken up a reader's assumptions made while reading the first novel.

I recollect reading a science fiction short story, the name of which I don't remember, where two characters alone on a space station realise that an alien being is breaking into it. Only at the very end of the story does the writer reveal the reality, that these are just two computers communicating with each other and the alien is simply the maintenance man who has come to check them over. Perhaps the computers had male and female names, which would also have introduced an implied sexual element, but I can't remember. 

There are two distinct ways that a writer can go, either omitting certain details entirely and allowing the reader to fill them in to their own satisfaction, or omitting them in a way which plays on the reader's assumptions and then later destroying those assumptions in a way that hopefully proves to be entertaining. The key is to be aware of one's omissions and how they may play out in the reader's mind and know exactly what one intends to do about them in the long run.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 24, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> Meaning what?



Ralph Rotten is essentially correct as far as the "a man is an elaborate guidance system for a penis" comment. That statement is basically inarguable, however simplistic and unpalatable to most people. 

I think this may be veering off the original topic, however since the original poster chose to bring up the issue of selflessness in terms of sexuality, I think my comment was self-explanatory: Altruism or "being a hero" is not only entirely compatible with genetic replication but is actually a core component. All one need do is look from a macro scale and see its contribution to the survival of species that habitually employ some version of selflessness versus those that do not. Books can explain this much better than I.

I agree with you that human beings are not unique in being designed to breed. Every animal is designed for that, otherwise they would die out rather quickly. We are however more efficient at it than some - such as panda bears and blue whales - but on the other hand less efficient than others - such as rabbits, rats, cats, squirrels and just about every species of bird and insect. Other species of animals do breed year round, too. Most mammals' ability to breed is dictated by the estrus cycle, not seasonality. Those that do only reproduce at fixed times of year have evolved to do so more out of environmental circumstances (e.g hibernation) rather than biological limitation. 

I'm not sure what your comment "We have interfered with our reproductive process, which is how we are able to breed at any time, except when the female is already pregnant..." means in this context. I am guessing you are probably referring to contraception (?) If so I would say that seems something of an irrelevancy since neither of these has any bearing on whether a woman _can_ get pregnant year-round or indeed her _process_ (IVF etc notwithstanding) but merely affects her control of _how often_ she wants to. Also it should be mentioned the majority of the world's population as a whole still either has no access to birth control or chooses not to use it for other reasons, so the "we" in that case would be rather tilted toward the developed world, if that was what you meant.




JustRob said:


> Why focus on sexuality? What if the writer doesn't mention that a character is a vegan? Throughout a trilogy surely the characters will eat a meal at some point. The point about sexuality is that our language demands that characters be assigned a gender even if it isn't relevant to the story.
> 
> My angel was severely disappointed with the film version of Alistair MacLean's book _Ice Station Zebra_ because a woman appeared in it even though there are no women in the book (so she tells me). What does giving all one's characters the same gender imply in the reader's mind, that sex is not an aspect of the story at all or that they are homosexual in practical terms as well as genetically? That book was an action story, so a precise example of the subject in question. The answer is that the written story is simply a guide for the reader to create their own by filling in the gaps in a way that fits the written words comfortably into their minds. I would in fact say that a writer _should_ omit some details and not fill out characters too much in order to give readers that leeway. In an action story it is possible to focus too much purely on the action and have characters that are just flat stereotypes, but the opposite extreme is just as hazardous to my mind.
> 
> ...



As eloquent as this is, I think this verges on a bit of false equivalency at times.

Gender, and sexuality in particular (one must be careful not to use them as synonyms), is a crucial detail in most stories. One cannot compare a character's eating habits or anything else about them to it, for essentially the reasons that have been illustrated in the discussion thus far: Sex in the primary motivator, far beyond the prevalence of the act itself, and essentially governs how we operate on both the individual and societal level. It is hardly a detail.

There are a tiny minority of A-Sexuals but that is not the default orientation for either gender and to avoid addressing sexual identity in some way, even passingly, and without an apparent reason (if they are designed to be an a-sexual, or a robot, then you're probably fine...) may very well hurt the realism of the character. For example in traditional children/young adult books, things like Enid Blyton and the Hardy Boys, the characters are almost entirely sanitized from anything sexual. It's a "fill in the blanks" extravaganza as far as most of those characters are concerned. However in most of those books you have an enduring (and increasingly satirized) situation of human characters not behaving like real people at all.

The youngsters in Blyton's "Famous Five" books, for instance, are supposed to be pubescent yet you would never guess it would you? They behave like eunuchs, like a sexually repressed old woman's vision of teenagers, which happens to be what they are. It's fine as a product of its time and I am certainly not proposing one starts introducing graphic sexual behavior in a book featuring children and aimed at children but these _are not real characters. _These are not books that are likely to be published today, either. Increasingly the trend even in books aimed at young readers is to introduce issues surrounding sexual identity and romantic relationships, albeit a lot more cautiously than would be appropriate for adult books. Harry Potter is a good example of this.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jul 24, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> If this is meant as a serious rebuttal, there are dozens, probably hundreds, possibly by now thousands, of books by evolutionary biologists exploring and explaining the relationship between altruism and genetic replication and it's about as settled as anything in evolutionary biology gets.



That doesn't settle it. They can't explain the evolutionary benefit of a younger person risking their life to save an old person or spending resources on old people who can no longer breed and thus serve no function under the walking genitalia paradigm. This is arguing for Social Darwinism. Which is actually the villain's motivation for my story.

The reason why we take care of old people as a society is nothing to do with breeding or sex, as we could spend those resources on breeding if we wanted to. It's because as sentient beings with reason, we can rationally consider the ethics and morality and act outside of the imperative to breed.

I find the argument unconvincing that just because it's a strong biological drive that means we should talk about it in narrative. Taking a dump is an even stronger biological drive than sex. But no one promotes characters talking about the toilet. Could is be just because one has a squick factor?


----------



## JustRob (Jul 24, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> I've said it before; a man is nothing more than an elaborate guidance system for a penis.


Not also an elaborate protection system for a womb? So much for machismo. What good is procreation if one doesn't also protect one's investment?


----------



## Jack of all trades (Jul 24, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> Ralph Rotten is essentially correct as far as the "a man is an elaborate guidance system for a penis" comment. That statement is basically inarguable, however simplistic and unpalatable to most people.
> 
> I think this may be veering off the original topic, however since the original poster chose to bring up the issue of selflessness in terms of sexuality, I think my comment was self-explanatory: Altruism or "being a hero" is not only entirely compatible with genetic replication but is actually a core component. All one need do is look from a macro scale and see its contribution to the survival of species that habitually employ some version of selflessness versus those that do not. Books can explain this much better than I.
> 
> ...



As was explained to me, the mother nursing the young is part of limiting fertility. When zoos separate the young fro their mothers, the mothers become fertile again, instead of waiting for the "right" season. So bottle feeding and even pumping to feed breastmilk will result in an early return of fertility.

I am not commenting on prevention methods, abortion of IV fertilization, although all of those are also artificial.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 24, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> If a character goes through a trilogy where their orientation and romantic/sexual status is left unanswered, what assumptions do you as a reader make about it, if any? Do you assume they're a virgin, and/or fill in the blanks, project your own traits onto the character or do you leave it as an unknown?



The reader will make the assumptions the writer leaves them room to make -- and in doing so may not make the same assumptions as the writer. If sexuality or gender are important, in your mind, while writing the story be sure to make those traits clear. If it's not important, don't worry about it.



Annoying kid said:


> Then what is a hero? If a man is nothing more than an elaborate guidance system for a penis, then selflessness shouldn't be a thing.



You are conflating physiology and psychology. While many of our psychological traits have their roots in our biology they are not bound by it. Characteristics like altruism and morality -- as well as selfishness and sadism -- are choices we make that are not necessarily biological imperitives.



Jack of all trades said:


> Wrong, wrong, wrong. Utter nonsense.
> 
> Humans are no different from any other animal. I volunteered at a zoo one summer and talked with staff quite a bit. We have interfered with our reproductive process, which is how we are able to breed at any time, except when the female is already pregnant. Zoos face similar issues with the animals there.



Most mammals have reproductive cycles (for instance, dogs go into estrous about twice per year, elephants once, rats every few days), it just so happens that humans do so on a roughly 28 day cycle. However, humans are one of the few animals who menstruate (some other primates, a few species of bat, and elephant shrews).


----------



## Bayview (Jul 24, 2018)

Jack of all trades said:


> Wrong, wrong, wrong. Utter nonsense.
> 
> Humans are no different from any other animal. I volunteered at a zoo one summer and talked with staff quite a bit. We have interfered with our reproductive process, which is how we are able to breed at any time, except when the female is already pregnant. Zoos face similar issues with the animals there.



What do you mean? What's the interference with the reproductive processes? (I read your stuff below about breast feeding, but... how is it an interference?)

And when you say "breed" at any time, do you mean have sex, or do you mean conceive? Because we can certainly have sex while pregnant, but we certainly can't conceive at any time (usually only a few days of fertility per cycle), so neither possible meaning of the word really makes sense...


----------



## Moonbeast32 (Jul 24, 2018)

I will always assume them to be a white male in their 20s. 

However, I don't think I'd ever be invested in a character whose appearance is left unidentified for 3 whole books. Is that even possible?


----------



## Moonbeast32 (Jul 24, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> I've said it before; a man is nothing more than an elaborate guidance system for a penis.



really? I thought they were a miserable little pile of secrets.

Seriously though, there is so much more to a person than their sexuality. I think that's a very narrow worldview you have.


----------



## MrDark (Jul 24, 2018)

The whole the male is just a guidance system for a penis is in a way correct but stated wrong. Think more along these lines. If you take a scene where there is action and you involve a male and female character who are going through a harrowing experience, will they be drawn together. In most circumstances the simple answer is yes, this can also be true of a male and male together or female and female. Most men and women both have the strong desire to protect. Especially if it is there own family. Others have more desire to protect all around them. If your character is  "Hero" then yes their desire to protect people will be the main point. I think the sexuality should be at least hinted at. Ether it be by having them involved with someone or at least through their own thoughts. Something as simple as looking at someone at thinking they are beautiful is enough to indicate sexuality. If it's not something you plan to focus on that is fine. I have read plenty of books that glance over it but it's enough for you to know where their sexual interest lay.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 24, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> That doesn't settle it. They can't explain the evolutionary benefit of a younger person risking their life to save an old person or spending resources on old people who can no longer breed and thus serve no function under the walking genitalia paradigm. This is arguing for Social Darwinism. Which is actually the villain's motivation for my story.
> 
> 
> The reason why we take care of old people as a society is nothing to do with breeding or sex, as we could spend those resources on breeding if we wanted to. It's because as sentient beings with reason, we can rationally consider the ethics and morality and act outside of the imperative to breed.
> ...



Evolutionary biology can explain altruism in every sphere. If it could not rest assured you would hear every creationist/christian apologist singing from the rooftops that "evolution cannot explain x" as a proof for why religion is the answer. Just because you and I may not be able to understand let alone explain the reason why certain types of altruistic behavior exist in the theater of a writing forum does not change the 100% record of evolutionary biology when it comes to explaining all aspects human behavior considered thus far.

 Again I am not wanting to play scientist, nor derail a thread too far into that kind of discussion as it tends to touch nerves, but I recommend further reading on the subject. The Selfish Gene by Richard Dawkins is a good place to start. Regardless of what one thinks of the man and his religious views, most agree the science is sound. And it answers these exact questions.

I did not mention walking genitalia myself and do not personally enjoy Ralph's comment, which I believe he meant to be somewhat flippant. I do not look at people as merely walking genitals and would rather hope he does not either. That has no impact on the central point though, which is that sex really influences virtually every social construct there is. I think you are thinking hearing the word "sex" and thinking purely of it in terms of carnality when it is really much more complex. Ask yourself why people do most of the moral things they do and if they can answer at all it will tend to come back to matters of family, faith, friendship, etc. All of those concepts, with no exception I can think of, have undisputed evolutionary, and therefore reproductive origins. The moment you can come up with a social construct that exists across the world built around taking a dump you will have the ghost of a point.






Moonbeast32 said:


> Seriously though, there is so much more to a person than their sexuality. I think that's a very narrow worldview you have.




Or perhaps you just have a very narrow view of the concept of sexuality? As mentioned before, intercourse and physical contact has a relatively small part to play in how sexuality it impacts our lives.

At times like these I often think of the Oscar Wilde quote: "Everything in the world is about sex...except sex. Sex is about power."




MrDark said:


> The whole the male is just a guidance system for a penis is in a way correct but stated wrong. Think more along these lines. If you take a scene where there is action and you involve a male and female character who are going through a harrowing experience, will they be drawn together. In most circumstances the simple answer is yes, this can also be true of a male and male together or female and female. Most men and women both have the strong desire to protect. Especially if it is there own family. Others have more desire to protect all around them. If your character is "Hero" then yes their desire to protect people will be the main point. I think the sexuality should be at least hinted at. Ether it be by having them involved with someone or at least through their own thoughts. Something as simple as looking at someone at thinking they are beautiful is enough to indicate sexuality. If it's not something you plan to focus on that is fine. I have read plenty of books that glance over it but it's enough for you to know where their sexual interest lay.



I suggest turning this on its head. Rather than discussing whether a character's sexuality needs mentioned, let's simplify it: Why should we even mention whether our characters are male or female (or something in between)?

I suspect the answer to that is yes obviously we need to do that 99 times out of 100. I cannot imagine enjoying too many books unclear if my character is a male or female or a "whatever". Because until I know that, they do not seem real.

If knowing a character's genitals is important for realness, then is it not necessary to elaborate further? "Guided penis" minefields aside, what is the purpose of specifying your character's genitals if you are not going to address what they do (or fail miserably to do) with them in some way?

In the year 2018 the answer to this question cannot surely be that a character's sexual identity is a mere additive, some kind of incidental detail, along the lines of "John has brown hair" or "Kim feels uneasy about eating eggs", can it? We all know that in the real world gender roles and sexual orientation carry both assets and baggage that is important for deriving meaning in life as in fiction. Even if the sexual identity is relatively non-present in the plot, ignoring it deliberately for convenience, or to try to cast a wider net of prospective readers, or to avoid blushing, seems counterproductive. 

By no means must sexuality be front and central to every story...but I think it needs addressed as must any other important trait. Otherwise you likely end up with an emasculated avatar in lieu of a human being.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 24, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> That doesn't settle it. They can't explain the evolutionary benefit of a younger person risking their life to save an old person or spending resources on old people who can no longer breed and thus serve no function under the walking genitalia paradigm. This is arguing for Social Darwinism. Which is actually the villain's motivation for my story.
> 
> The reason why we take care of old people as a society is nothing to do with breeding or sex, as we could spend those resources on breeding if we wanted to. It's because as sentient beings with reason, we can rationally consider the ethics and morality and act outside of the imperative to breed.
> 
> I find the argument unconvincing that just because it's a strong biological drive that means we should talk about it in narrative. Taking a dump is an even stronger biological drive than sex. But no one promotes characters talking about the toilet. Could is be just because one has a squick factor?




Sociologically, everything men do is to get laid.  We really are that simple after you peel away the layers.
Why do you go to college? So you can get a good job and land a hot wife.
Really if you study your own logic, deep down it is all just a roundabout way to be more successful/outgoing/fashionable to appeal to the opposite sex.
Sure we have altruist-ism, but only to be the hero...so we can score more.


But back to the point I was originally trying to make; unless you are writing a comic book, your hero & heroine will be sexual beings.  Sure, maybe they don't hop in bed all the time, but it would be a factor in their thinking.  Mating is at our very core.  Just ask any man you know if they could do anything for an hour...what would it be?
I can already tell you what they'll say (unless they have toddlers, in which case their answer would be 3 minutes of sex, and 57 minutes of sleep.)


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 25, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Sociologically, everything men do is to get laid.  We really are that simple after you peel away the layers.
> Why do you go to college? So you can get a good job and land a hot wife.
> Really if you study your own logic, deep down it is all just a roundabout way to be more successful/outgoing/fashionable to appeal to the opposite sex.
> Sure we have altruist-ism, but only to be the hero...so we can score more.



_"And on the third day the Lord said: Thou shalt not make sweeping generalizations."_

View attachment 22458


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 25, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> _"And on the third day the Lord said: Thou shalt not make sweeping generalizations."_
> 
> View attachment 22458




My assertions are based on published fact. Just because those Jesuits are smiling from ear to ear doesn't mean they are eunuchs...or have you forgotten the sexual scandals of the Catholic church?  That was widespread abuse where priests manipulated children into positions where they could...get laid.
Just because you wear a fancy collar does not change a thing.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 25, 2018)

To further illustrate my point that we are sexual beings; have any of you seen what happens to eunuchs? Ever seen an adult male cat that has been neutered? They get fat and demand a lot of attention.  They are essentially compensating for the loss of their gonads by eating more and attention seeking.  
Losing your sexuality is a life-changing thing because it *effects your base calculations in the way you view the world*.


----------



## Bayview (Jul 25, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> To further illustrate my point that we are sexual beings; have any of you seen what happens to eunuchs? Ever seen an adult male cat that has been neutered? They get fat and demand a lot of attention.  They are essentially compensating for the loss of their gonads by eating more and attention seeking.
> Losing your sexuality is a life-changing thing because it *effects your base calculations in the way you view the world*.



Losing your legs would also be a life-changing thing... that doesn't mean that human beings exist only to serve their legs. Losing your eyes, your ears, etc. - all life changing.

There's a world of difference between "sexuality is important to most human beings" and "a man is nothing more than an elaborate guidance system for a penis". I think you're overstating the situation by a pretty significant degree.

Even if the overstatement is true of _you_, without making sweeping generalizations about other men (or assexuals or priests) you must accept that the sex drive is often sublimated into a variety of activities that aren't directly sex-related. I mean, how is making over-generalizations on a writers forum helping you to get laid?


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 25, 2018)

One word: groupies.


----------



## Bayview (Jul 25, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> One word: groupies.



You're playing the long game. Good luck with it!


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 25, 2018)

I'm actually a little surprised that any woman would debate the statement "men are a guidance system..."

Think about this; there has been debate for scores of years about men's inability to have a nonsexual relationship with female coworkers.  How often have you read writers who identify women by their beauty...not talent or intelligence, but cleavage or glutious. 
Men are pigs. Sure, some of clean up well, but if you could hear our daily thoughts you would prolly flee every time you saw a man.  

Men were designed from the ground up to procreate. All of these things we do, the posturing, the image, heroism, are ultimately to that end. We don't mean to be pigs, we were just built that way.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 25, 2018)

There are also about a hundred media experiments (like eye tracking studies) that prove that when a man sees a woman, or even a picture of a woman, their eyes do not linger on her eyes. We scan her top to bottom, with extra focus on the accessories.

Men are pigs. 10,000 years of civilization is just not enough time to evolve away from that.


----------



## Ralph Rotten (Jul 25, 2018)

Dang mobile browsers.


----------



## Birb (Jul 25, 2018)

To answer the OPs question, I'd probably just assume the person is straight. It's just the sweeping majority, if I was to walk into a room there is much higher a likelyhood I'd talk to a straight person than a gay person. But, I usually don't really care about sexuality all that much. 

To add to the discussion that has been somewhat prevolent. I think it's very ignorant to assume that men or women, are built just to procreate. At least, half so. Biologically speaking, yes we have hormones and sex drive and attraction to help meet the right mate and deliver offspring, but I'd like to think humans are a little more advanced than that. While the core of our instincts can be comparative to animals, there's a lot more that can't. We have things that interest us, other passions that we focus on and enjoy. A wolf focuses on it's pack, hunting, and raising the cubs. Other animals have the same sort of schedule. They feed, they birth, they die. Rinse repeat.  A comment was made that men go to college to go get a good job and to get laid, but I'm going just to pursue my dreams. I'm not worried about relationships, I just don't have the confidence, appearance, or personality, and I think it's safe to say that's becoming more and more common. How many women have you heard saying they don't want children, how many men being bachelor's for most (if not all) their lives?


----------



## Bayview (Jul 25, 2018)

Ralph Rotten said:


> Men were designed from the ground up to procreate. All of these things we do, the posturing, the image, heroism, are ultimately to that end. We don't mean to be pigs, we were just built that way.



I can see why it would be convenient for you to believe that, but...

I know lots of men who have lower sex drives than their female partners. I have a good friend who actually broke up with her fiance because she realized they weren't sexually compatible - she wanted sex every night, he was content with once a week, if that. I know lots of men who've decided against a sexual interaction with an attractive woman because they knew it would get in the way of their other goals (like having a night out with their friends). I know lots of men who do things that make them less attractive to women (like overeating, over-drinking, over-playing video games, etc.).

Do I think the sex drive is a pretty powerful force? You bet, for men _and _women. But we're also driven by hunger and thirst - are men and women merely conveyance systems for our stomachs? We're driven to nurture our offspring/offspring-proxies - are men and women merely hugging and feeding machines? We're driven by our need for sleep/rest - are men and women just pillow-hunting machines? etc.

Sex is important. But it's not all there is.


----------



## Moonbeast32 (Jul 25, 2018)

You know, Ralph, you're correct. If you believe that your only purpose in living is to reproduce, then that's right. Humans have an ability that sets them apart from any other animal on Earth: the ability to make what they believe a reality...



> Men are pigs. 10,000 years of civilization is just not enough time to evolve away from that.



Which is why I think your opinions are such a sad waste of potential.


----------



## Thaumiel (Jul 25, 2018)

I've always thought we were more of an embodiment of the second law of thermodynamics, our true purpose being devoted to increasing the entropy of the universe around us. Penis-guidance systems are old hat.




On topic: As far as the OP goes, as a reader I don't really think about it. If a character's sexuality isn't mentioned, it isn't important to the story and not worth speculating on. Look at Dumbledore being gay in Harry Potter, it was entirely irrelevant to the story of those seven books as a whole so there was no need for it to be stated or even thought about. That entire premise belongs to the expanded literary/film/theatrical universe we're receiving now.


----------



## Terry D (Jul 25, 2018)

First off, men -- nor any other living thing on this planet -- were not 'designed' for anything. Evolution is not a goal oriented process, it is a result of random mutations and the slight advantages some of those mutations provide. There's no plan involved from a biological perspective.

However, that being said, Ralph's point has some basic biological merit. Reproduction is a primary driver for virtually every species on Earth. Bigger, stronger, faster, more colorful, more successful members of most species are the ones who find it easier to reproduce and pass on their characteristics to subsequent generations. Again, no plan involved, that's just the way it works. In primate males those traits which provide the tools for 'success' tend to be strength, speed, aggressiveness, and the ability to provide a positive environment for the group. Those same traits are in the human genome also, so human males, as biological specimens, are inclined to express many of those same traits. It's been proven that men respond to visual sexual stimuli more than women do, and that men are genetically less apt to be monogamous. That's a male's brain and body reacting to chemical (hormonal) stimuli. The same happens in women. There is a biological component to mate selection that is built-in.

That's the biology of it, but that's not the whole story in humans. With our large brains we've developed a sense of self-awareness that doesn't seem to exist in most other species. An awareness which allows us to over-ride the biology and actually make choices based on understanding rather than impulse. All typical members of the species have the ability to make those choices -- or not, that's a choice too -- unless there is a mental defect which removes the brakes from the hormone-train. 

So, while all animals, including humans, are biologically pre-programmed to seek mates for reproduction, humans have the biological gift of choice. If men, or women for that matter, choose to behave like pigs, that's on the individual, not their biology.


----------



## Kyle R (Jul 25, 2018)

Erotica writers would certainly agree: sex sure is motivating.

Thriller writers, though, would argue that the need for survival and safety is even stronger.

Looking at the structure of the body, it's hard not to notice that the genitals aren't even protected—which shows that the body, sadly, doesn't consider them vital. (Try telling that to a guy when he's horny, though!  )

Compare that to the brain, which the body obviously views as tremendously important, wrapping it in a formidable bulwark of bone.

A fun topic to argue about, either way.

In response to the original post: as a reader, I wouldn't really worry about the character's sexuality, unless it played a role in the story. As a writer, I wouldn't worry about it either, unless several readers pointed it out as an issue. :encouragement:


----------



## Annoying kid (Jul 25, 2018)

> which is that sex really influences virtually every social construct there is. I think you are thinking hearing the word "sex" and thinking purely of it in terms of carnality when it is really much more complex. Ask yourself why people do most of the moral things they do and if they can answer at all it will tend to come back to matters of family, faith, friendship, etc. All of those concepts, with no exception I can think of, have undisputed evolutionary, and therefore reproductive origins. The moment you can come up with a social construct that exists across the world built around taking a dump you will have the ghost of a point.



_
_If you cast the net that wide and say all behaviour can be reduced to sex, than it's very abstractness makes it a poor argument for saying a specific character should talk about sexuality in order to be realistic. 




> But back to the point I was originally trying to make; unless you are writing a comic book, your hero & heroine will be sexual beings.



It is a comic book, or rather graphic novel trilogy. 

One of the big reasons why I don't think there's any point mentioning sexuality with this character is redunancy.  I already have a planned pairing and at least one married couple that cover the romance angle so I'd just be saying the same thing again.


----------



## Writer-1 (Jul 25, 2018)

Unless a situation pops up where the issue needs to be addressed, then I don't think it would really matter. Think of the Avengers: until Romanov and Banner started getting close, there really was no way of knowing what her sexuality was. Nor did it matter because it never came up until her and Bruce started dating (or whatever they were doing).


----------



## sigmadog (Jul 25, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> If a character goes through a trilogy where their orientation and romantic/sexual status is left unanswered, what assumptions do you as a reader make about it, if any? Do you assume they're a virgin, and/or fill in the blanks, project your own traits onto the character or do you leave it as an unknown?



Unless it played an important part of the story, I couldn't care less.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 25, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> If you cast the net that wide and say all behaviour can be reduced to sex, than it's very abstractness makes it a poor argument for saying a specific character should talk about sexuality in order to be realistic.




I didn't say they should talk about it. I simply meant there should be some understanding on the part of the reader as to what Character X's sexuality is or is not and how it motivates their behavior. How that is done is the writer's call and I take no binary position on any of it. It certainly does not need be explicitly mentioned, nor illustrated. 

Nobody would say Jaws is a novel primarily about sex and yet all the main characters' sexual history, grievances and current tensions (other than the shark's, arguably) run rampant and this assists in their realism strongly. I believe this is the main point Ralph is making. I think if he is wrong about anything major it is assuming there is a difference between men and women in that respect...that is a topic for another day, though.




Ralph Rotten said:


> My assertions are based on published fact. Just because those Jesuits are smiling from ear to ear doesn't mean they are eunuchs...or have you forgotten the sexual scandals of the Catholic church? That was widespread abuse where priests manipulated children into positions where they could...get laid.
> Just because you wear a fancy collar does not change a thing.




Nobody says priests and monks are eunuchs. I am not disputing the statement that (virtually) all human beings are sexually influenced to varying degrees, or that all human beings do not possess some manner of sexual goal. That has actually been my point throughout this discussion.

What I am disputing is the statement that "everything men do is to get laid". Firstly that makes no logical sense. If it was true it would lead to better treatment of women, among heterosexual men, as it is obvious that women are more likely to have sex with men who are nicer to them. To assume otherwise is to take a misogynistic position. 

Of course there are plenty of men who do believe that women like to be treated barbarically, mainly due to being unable to differentiate between pornography and real life, but it is baseless. So either men are stupid enough to consistently and deliberately act against what you claim is their ONLY motivator...or it is not actually their only motivator and most people do not solely care about achieving intercourse. Which is it?

If you still want to say that "everything men do is to get laid" then you don't only have to explain monks and priests. I certainly expected you to mention the problems of Catholic priests and sex abuse. However the point is that joining the priesthood is obviously not done to increase one's chances to "get laid". Why would a man whose only intent in life is to have sex ever join the priesthood, a career which not only grants little access to women but actively prohibits it? You have to explain how that motive works. If anything a man is more likely to take Holy Orders in order to escape their sexual identity, not improve it, as has historically been the case for many homosexuals, bisexuals, gender dysphoric individuals and, yes, paedophiles too.

Sex avoidance is not unique to those who are religious anyway. Bayview made a good point about ordinary men with low libido. It is surprisingly common. The _Hikkomori_ is a term for a growing subculture of Japanese men who do not leave their rooms very often and avoid contact with any women whatsoever (at least human ones). This is a choice made when very young in many cases, so nothing to do with rejection. Please explain, how are those gentlemen improving their chances of "landing a hot wife" exactly?  

Conclusion: Society is sex obsessed, individuals are not. Generalizations and stereotypes about behavior based on gender norms should be avoided. This is especially true in fiction.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jul 26, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> I didn't say they should talk about it. I simply meant there should be some understanding on the part of the reader as to what Character X's sexuality is or is not and how it motivates their behavior. How that is done is the writer's call and I take no binary position on any of it. It certainly does not need be explicitly mentioned, nor illustrated.
> 
> Nobody would say Jaws is a novel primarily about sex and yet all the main characters' sexual history, grievances and current tensions (other than the shark's, arguably) run rampant and this assists in their realism strongly. I believe this is the main point Ralph is making. I think if he is wrong about anything major it is assuming there is a difference between men and women in that respect...that is a topic for another day, though.



I don't understand the premium writers place on being humanized and realistic outside of literary fiction. Real humans are  unclear, unfocused,  overcomplex beings who can't tolerate too much conflict without PTSD.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 26, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> I don't understand the premium writers place on being humanized and realistic outside of literary fiction. Real humans are  unclear, unfocused,  overcomplex beings who can't tolerate too much conflict without PTSD.



Fair point and a mea culpa: I tend to take it as a given that characters should be as a realistic as possible and confess to never really considering if that is true for all fellow writers. 

Perhaps this deserves a topic all of its own? In any case the main reason authenticity matters for me is two-fold: Firstly because realistic characters tend to be necessary for cultivating empathy between the reader (presumably a human being) and the character. Secondly because my stories tend to focus heavily on psychology and examining what it means to be human. Therefore characters must closely resemble humans to be useful.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jul 27, 2018)

luckyscars said:


> Fair point and a mea culpa: I tend to take it as a given that characters should be as a realistic as possible and confess to never really considering if that is true for all fellow writers.
> 
> Perhaps this deserves a topic all of its own? In any case the main reason authenticity matters for me is two-fold: Firstly because realistic characters tend to be necessary for cultivating empathy between the reader (presumably a human being) and the character. Secondly because my stories tend to focus heavily on psychology and examining what it means to be human. Therefore characters must closely resemble humans to be useful.



Realistically to be a big shot hero, the character can't have normal priorities that closely resemble humans though. Bringing sexuality into it comes close to the cliche of the gifted character whining about why they can't have a normal life, or the butler or whoever telling the hero I wish I could see you happily married or in a relationship. 

What response do they expect when they mention that? Okay, I'll find and turn my attention to somebody and upset the training regimes and status quo that's allowed you to not be dead.  

=;


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 27, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> Realistically to be a big shot hero, the character can't have normal priorities that closely resemble humans though. Bringing sexuality into it comes close to the cliche of the gifted character whining about why they can't have a normal life, or the butler or whoever telling the hero I wish I could see you happily married or in a relationship.
> 
> What response do they expect when they mention that? Okay, I'll find and turn my attention to somebody and upset the training regimes and status quo that's allowed you to not be dead.
> 
> =;



Truth be told, I get the sense this differs between genre. I do not recall the last book I read which contained a big shot hero whose priorities were superhuman or whose character was immune from human trappings. That is not saying they do not exist, merely that they are not the kind of books I routinely read. Many readers, and plenty of writers, intentionally avoid any allusion to ubermensch in their protagonist's personality. While it is still typical for the protagonist to be _different _to his or her peers (often this is why they are the protagonist) it will often only be in terms of what drives the plot and may or may not be a gift. 

For example one could write about a woman in her 20's who is ordinary in every way except that one day she wakes up and discovers she has gone blind and the ensuing novel becomes a psychodrama involving how she got that way. In a novel like that it may well be extremely important, vital actually, to nurture a sense of emotional connection between the reader and the protagonist. This would include making her seem like an ordinary 20-something year old woman. Ordinary 20-something year old women typically have quite active sex lives.

Of course superheroes and characters who are sexually aloof will always have their place, but they are a relatively small portion of the overall market in terms of protagonists. Certainly they are no longer the mainstream as they perhaps were once.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jul 28, 2018)

> Of course superheroes and characters who are sexually aloof will always have their place, but they are a relatively small portion of the overall market in terms of protagonists. Certainly they are no longer the mainstream as they perhaps were once.



That's because most mainstream storytelling is written to follow the hero's journey as a checklist where one of the points on that journey is "The Woman As Temptress", so of course there will be a sexual element. The hero with human developmental angst  has also been popularized by Marvel comics, and copied by DC, which is why alot of these heroes come off like teenagers. The metaphor of mortal to superhero is used to highlight teenager to adulthood.

If the hero doesn't put in more work than other people, why would he or she expect to be any better? Well the Hero's Journey answers this question with a mentor, who 's interest in the hero sees to such concerns, who will also provide some kind of blueprint for the hero's development. But that relies on trusting the mentor. If the hero didn't just follow the guru and didn't believe everything they were told, about how special they were or maybe didn't have a mentor, then why would they assume that they can be better than others by doing the same amount or work or less than what others do. 

That's where this character is at. This chain of logic: I want to be the best, so I must do the most. Only way I'll know I'm doing the most, is if I use all my time. If I don't seek to be the best, them I'm playing to lose. So I will lose.

That's the very opposite of ubermensch thinking because that's the humility of realising you can be beaten if you don't put in more work than the opponent. That to me is alot more rational and relatable than someone who thinks:

I'm going to seek out pleasurable experiences and follow the guru, believe what he says about me,follow his training regimes, and assume everything's going to work out. I call that Eragon style. That's someone who believes the hype about them.


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 29, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> That's because most mainstream storytelling is written to follow the hero's journey as a checklist where one of the points on that journey is "The Woman As Temptress", so of course there will be a sexual element. The hero with human developmental angst  has also been popularized by Marvel comics, and copied by DC, which is why alot of these heroes come off like teenagers. The metaphor of mortal to superhero is used to highlight teenager to adulthood.
> 
> If the hero doesn't put in more work than other people, why would he or she expect to be any better? Well the Hero's Journey answers this question with a mentor, who 's interest in the hero sees to such concerns, who will also provide some kind of blueprint for the hero's development. But that relies on trusting the mentor. If the hero didn't just follow the guru and didn't believe everything they were told, about how special they were or maybe didn't have a mentor, then why would they assume that they can be better than others by doing the same amount or work or less than what others do.
> 
> ...



I do not follow all of what you just wrote, but my instincts tell me you may have misinterpreted my point slightly. 

First of all, I do not write my character's sex lives as part of any sort of checklist, not even subliminally. I do not doubt this may happen with some writers, particularly in more formulaic genres (action, thriller, romance etc.) but most good writers simply write characters in an attempt to be fully-formed, fleshed out people. 

The emphasis on sexuality will vary, as I have consistently said, depending on what makes sense for the kind of character they are and the kind of story that is being written. Where my views differ with others on this thread is that I think sexuality is (1) One of the more important, if not the most important, motivator for most people and (2) Even if it is less important for Character X, it can never be entirely avoided.

Now, the above is only true if one prizes realism. Some stories do not and I freely admit I may have overlooked that initially. There isn't much need for sexuality in a book like Orwell's Animal Farm, for instance. But these are exceptions not the rule. Animal Farm does not require realistic characters because it is effectively a single-issue novel (also very short) and the characters, besides being farm animals, are not supposed to represent the human condition but instead be figureheads satirizing political extremes. 

To write a story concerning human characters (and even human analogs) that ignores or otherwise distorts the experience of how real human beings live is where the ubermensch issue comes in. Besides those few exceptions, traditional romance featuring a handsome and noble prince, a military thriller featuring a brave soldier with impeccable morals, or anything featuring chaste characters with no good reason presented as to why the everyday constraints of human society don't apply and why they don't have to worry about "normal stuff" is usually not terribly interesting to most readers. All one needs do is look at what sells versus what doesn't to see that. Sexuality is just one string in the bow, but it is absolutely necessary that it is dealt with maturely and not avoided.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jul 29, 2018)

> All one needs do is look at what sells versus what doesn't to see that.



Again, I'm writing  graphic novels. And while graphic novels see improving sales, the overall comics industry as it is currently is in a state of decline. So there's no reason to be terribly interested in what sells in an industry that is wavering at best. In your medium perhaps that relies on introspective and internalized stream of thought, you can't entirely avoid sex, which is why if I were to ever novelize the story in prose, I would switch main characters entirely.



> I do not follow all of what you just wrote, but my instincts tell me you may have misinterpreted my point slightly.



Okay so I'll say it more simply.  Sex is a non productive hobby unless you are willing to have children. The character who's job involves facing the deadliest of foes, does not have time for non productive hobbies. Non productive defined as having nothing to show for it at the end. 

Those who work hard, play hard, are dead hard.

But I'm interested in how you'd approach the theme of sex with  a character who trains 80 hrs a week who's obcessed with staying number 1.


----------



## Bayview (Jul 29, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> But I'm interested in how you'd approach the theme of sex with  a character who trains 80 hrs a week who's obcessed with staying number 1.



Missing sex? Finding him/herself attracted to someone and being surprised because it's been so long since s/he's felt that way? Having quick bouts of "sport sex" to release tension? Reacting to a come-on from another character with revulsion, disinterest, regretful ambivalence, or enthusiastic acceptance?

80 hours of training leaves 88 hours of non-training. So even assuming the character is able to stay 100% focused on excellence while training, there are still 88 other hours to deal with...

Asexuality is a real thing, and possibly your character is asexual (just not at all interested in sex). But even if that's the case, the people _around_ your character are not likely asexual, so they'll have expectations of your character and your character will have feelings about these expectations...


----------



## Annoying kid (Jul 29, 2018)

> 80 hours of training leaves 88 hours of non-training. So even assuming the character is able to stay 100% focused on excellence while training, there are still 88 other hours to deal with...



You have to subtract 56 hours for sleeping. 
 15 hours for eating. (10,000 calories a day) 
 2 hours for the toilet. 
2 for oral and bodily hygeine. 
1 hour for church.
 1 hour feeding the unicorn, who too dangerous for other people.
 7 hours for the holy water steam room and deep tissue massages which are needed for recovery.
1 hour  on exercise theory, devising new regimes, reviewing what's been done, etc. Gotta keep changing it or the body gets used to it. 
1/2 hour being filled in on current events in the city, state and continent.
1/2 hour for documents that need signing relating to work orders and who gets to immigrate into the state.
3 hours reading theory/writings relating to relevant subjects, mostly combat / war theory/writing own thoughts down.
1 hour crimefighting. 

That's 88 hours. Now the character could do a little less here and there, but the most the character could ever do is just invite a person in for sex. But then they'd have to make sure the person can be trusted, I'd have to get into how the sex is done, because there's no birth control yet, so they'd have to think about inventing it or doing other sex acts, and it just gets bogged down into being more trouble than it's worth.


----------



## bazz cargo (Jul 29, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> If a character goes through a trilogy where their orientation and romantic/sexual status is left unanswered, what assumptions do you as a reader make about it, if any? Do you assume they're a virgin, and/or fill in the blanks, project your own traits onto the character or do you leave it as an unknown?


Hi,
while I reckon you probably could write such a mysterious character, with a lot of fiddling with how it is written, I wonder if it would be worth it. Thinking of Bel Thorne, an interesting character who  walks all three sides of the line. Then there is Spock, the polar opposite. Reflections of expectations and playing with the reader's mind. 
Good luck
BC


----------



## Bayview (Jul 29, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> You have to subtract 56 hours for sleeping.
> 15 hours for eating. (10,000 calories a day)
> 2 hours for the toilet.
> 2 for oral and bodily hygeine.
> ...



But what about multi-tasking? I mean, I don't think I'm unique when I say that if I've probably thought about sex while performing all of the activities you've listed, assuming I've taken part in the activity at all. Thinking about sex while falling asleep, dreaming about it while asleep? Check, check. Thinking about sex while eating? Sure. On the toilet? Probably, really. While brushing my teeth and showering? Hell, yeah. Church? I don't go, but if I did? Yup. I accept that unless "feeding the unicorn" is a euphemism, it's probably not conducive to thoughts about sex, but then on the flip side, steam room and deep tissue massage? Hell, yeah. etc.

I'm not saying it's impossible that your character doesn't think about sex--again, there are asexual people who just aren't interested. But that in itself is unusual enough that I think I'd expect an author to mention it.

Remember that writing is a sort of interaction between the author and the reader--the ol' "co-create the text" idea. The words you put on the page combine with the ideas from the reader's mind in order to create the final effect of the story. Most readers have sex somewhere in their minds, so if that part of their minds doesn't get any recognition in your story, they may feel the lack.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jul 29, 2018)

Bayview said:


> But what about multi-tasking? I mean, I don't think I'm unique when I say that if I've probably thought about sex while performing all of the activities you've listed, assuming I've taken part in the activity at all. Thinking about sex while falling asleep, dreaming about it while asleep? Check, check. Thinking about sex while eating? Sure. On the toilet? Probably, really. While brushing my teeth and showering? Hell, yeah. Church? I don't go, but if I did? Yup. I accept that unless "feeding the unicorn" is a euphemism, it's probably not conducive to thoughts about sex, but then on the flip side, steam room and deep tissue massage? Hell, yeah. etc.
> 
> I'm not saying it's impossible that your character doesn't think about sex--again, there are asexual people who just aren't interested. But that in itself is unusual enough that I think I'd expect an author to mention it.
> 
> Remember that writing is a sort of interaction between the author and the reader--the ol' "co-create the text" idea. The words you put on the page combine with the ideas from the reader's mind in order to create the final effect of the story. Most readers have sex somewhere in their minds, so if that part of their minds doesn't get any recognition in your story, they may feel the lack.



Actual asexual people are very  rare. I don't think it's a good idea to add yet another rarity. I mean the character's already special enough. I have two quite prominent male warriors with unmentioned sexuality too, so I might just have it be an informal rule of the setting. Warriors at the elite level are typically celibate due to how hedonistic desire - even thoughts-  can undermine the will to keep suffering, causing them to wait for the afterlife. So they'd be a bit like Jedi in that regard. I can explain all their sex lives at once without having to get into each one individually. I think that's best as I don't have anything particularly original or insightful to say about sex with regards to these characters. 8-[


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 29, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> Again, I'm writing  graphic novels. And while graphic novels see improving sales, the overall comics industry as it is currently is in a state of decline. So there's no reason to be terribly interested in what sells in an industry that is wavering at best. In your medium perhaps that relies on introspective and internalized stream of thought, you can't entirely avoid sex, which is why if I were to ever novelize the story in prose, I would switch main characters entirely.
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Apologies, I missed you stating before that you wrote graphic novels...Not sure that it matters to this discussion though, I don't know a great deal about the intricacies of graphic novels versus conventional ones but I sense they are read for more or less the same purposes.

"Sex is a non-productive hobby unless you are willing to have children..." This is false. Science has found that sexual intimacy with or without reproduction is vital to both male and female well-being. As well as being extremely good exercise, there are a number of mental benefits. But even if that was not the case, sex is fundamental to one's_ social_ well-being. The need to form romantic relationships is a huge motivator for getting out the house and doing things. This may or may not apply to your character, as Bayview stated, but if you are trying to tell a story that is vaguely believable it _will _apply to those around him/her. I have repeatedly said, even if your character is not sexually interested, they are undoubtedly still manipulated by the sexual politics of the setting. If that is the case, addressing their own status within that setting is probably something you should at least consider in some form or other.

I think you have been given a lot of good direction regarding your initial question and based on your responses and rebuttals it sounds like you know how you want this to go anyway. Best of luck with your work.


----------



## Bayview (Jul 29, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> Actual asexual people are very  rare. I don't think it's a good idea to add yet another rarity. I mean the character's already special enough. I have two quite prominent male warriors with unmentioned sexuality too, so I might just have it be an informal rule of the setting. Warriors at the elite level are typically celibate due to how hedonistic desire - even thoughts-  can undermine the will to keep suffering, causing them to wait for the afterlife. So they'd be a bit like Jedi in that regard. I can explain all their sex lives at once without having to get into each one individually. I think that's best as I don't have anything particularly original or insightful to say about sex with regards to these characters. 8-[




I'm not sure it makes sense to look at Jedi if we're talking about an attempt to be realistic...?


----------



## luckyscars (Jul 30, 2018)

Annoying kid said:


> But I'm interested in how you'd approach the theme of sex with  a character who trains 80 hrs a week who's obcessed with staying number 1.



Sorry I didn't address this in my prior post. 

It's a little bit difficult because your character sounds very much like one I would purposely avoid for the simple reason they are atypical of most human beings. Almost no real human being trains 80 hours a week at any one thing. Also the multitasking factor is relevant, as Bayview explained quite well... 

I would probably have sexuality as being a kind of monkey on their back. Perhaps they have sacrificed their ability to maintain human relationships in spite of possessing a normal human sex-drive because celibacy is either required as part of their vocation (as it would be a priest) or because they are so obsessed with success in their chosen field this causes them to be reclusive -- the old "nobody understands me!" chestnut. Alternatively, perhaps they have a love interest but are unable to act on it or make it public because doing so might put that person in danger, say if they were a CIA agent. Perhaps they had a husband/wife/girlfriend/boyfriend but that person died, or abandoned them for *insert sad story here* and part of what drives them is a desire to cope with the past. 

Whatever the situation, common sense says the default position for somebody who is spending 80 hours a week training toward some lofty goal is one of some degree of loneliness/isolation. These are of course all well-trodden paths, but readers like 'em, and I'm not sure how original this character needs to be (?) If this is genre fiction you may well want to include these sorts of sympathetic tropes.


----------



## Annoying kid (Jul 30, 2018)

> It's a little bit difficult because your character sounds very much like one I would purposely avoid for the simple reason they are atypical of most human beings. Almost no real human being trains 80 hours a week at any one thing.




I've heard some nerds say they play world of warcraft for 80 hours a week. Grinding quests out on their couch obcessively. It's not so different in principle.





> I'm not sure how original this character needs to be (?) If this is genre fiction you may well want to include these sorts of sympathetic tropes.



When I say it's not original, I'm talking in the context of just this story. This character's brother is already about the loneliness/isolation and the old "nobody understands me!" chestnut and eventually gets a love interest.
Would you still do something similar with this character, effectively showing the reader the same thing twice? 
Wouldn't you find that annoying? I probably would.  




> ere are a number of mental benefits. But even if that was not the case, sex is fundamental to one's_ social well-being. The need to form romantic relationships is a huge motivator for getting out the house and doing things. This may or may not apply to your character, as Bayview stated, but if you are trying to tell a story that is vaguely believable it will apply to those around him/her. I have repeatedly said, even if your character is not sexually interested, they are undoubtedly still manipulated by the sexual politics of the setting. If that is the case, addressing their own status within that setting is probably something you should at least consider in some form or other.
> 
> I think you have been given a lot of good direction regarding your initial question and based on your responses and rebuttals it sounds like you know how you want this to go anyway. Best of luck with your work._



Thank you. I have to consider more than just how humanized the character is. I need to consider her meta -position in the narrative. The character's position relative to the villain, the idea that the normies are caught between two stubborn iron wills/symbols that won't compromise. The idea that when I consider exploring the character's sexuality toward the sympathetic, she comes off more normal and less eccentric and undermines the previous point because romance is about compromise. She's meant to have a massive ego driven messiah complex. Then as I said above, I need to consider her position relative to the brother. I'd ultimately like to portray it in a way where this character can add another layer to what he's doing, without taking attention away by competing with it.


----------



## Malachi (Aug 2, 2018)

I'd assume Cis and he/she was just busy with whatever was going on.


----------

