Sex and sexuality

[Brian G Turner]

I hadn't thought about it until now

Neither had I - certainly not really deeply. However, recently I've been reading a lot online criticising the treatment of issues such as race, gender, and sexuality in SF/F fiction.

For example, I found this viewer account about a pair of characters in the Spartacus TV series quite touching:
http://arsmarginal.wordpress.com/2012/06/29/gods-of-the-arena/

After all I'm doing this for entertainment purposes, not historical documentation

I've always obsessed about trying to put a degree of realism into what I'm writing at the moment. I'll never have something that is "real" but those little details of historical accuracy here and there I think can add to the overall authencity.

However, addressing larger social issues means having to sit down and really think on what issues to address, how to address them, and why I am addressing them so. I think it's about increasing awareness of what you're actually writing.

 

[Glitch]

However, addressing larger social issues means having to sit down and really think on what issues to address, how to address them, and why I am addressing them so. I think it's about increasing awareness of what you're actually writing.

I don't think I'm at a stage in my writing where I'm considering addressing social issues at large. But I don't disagree with the point.

The question is, do modern readers really care for real historical issues of sex and sexuality? Is it not the case that as readers, we simply wish to see a general "golden age" hybrid of ancient symbols and modern sensibilities?

Back to the opening question - I'm not interested in reading (or writing for that matter) about real historical issues of sex and sexuality. But there are people who are interested to read about it. Are we more accepting of people's differing views than our historical siblings, or have we become more rigid in our views to others?

 

[Dante DiBenedetto]

I think to explore this notion, one should understand the basic roots and rationale for homosexual relations being taboo.

Quite a bit of religious seemingly ridiculous dogma is rooted for specific reasons. Some argue that homosexuality was considered taboo or sinful because of how hygienically filthy it would be in the ancient world. I don't consider homosexual relations to be 'gross', but the implications of such acts can definitely be seen as a heightened chance for spreading or attaining diseases that would normally not be transmitted through standard coitus.

There are other seemingly silly things considered taboo for similar background reasons, such as refraining from eating sacrificed flesh, pork, and shellfish. Think of it this way -- if the local leaders simply said, don't do this, it's bad for you, most people would shrug it off. If they turned around and said, don't do this, or it's a sin punishable by death, then people are definitely going to avoid it more actively.

Side note: I think a character drama conflict rooted in newly established Christian taboos during that time period would be interesting. You're already faced with what some people would consider weird, or gross, or at the very least not in their ballpark. Then factor in the ugly face of oppression, and it would stick the reader in a situation where they have to rationalize which side is in the right -- the protagonist, or the zealot.

 

[James Coote]

I'm no expert on medieval society, but I'd imagine there were certain pressures to do "manly" physical acts like fighting battles, ploughing fields etc, and that being gay was associated with being camp and girly and thus not very good at those roles. I mean look what happened to Edward II. Considering you could get hung for stealing a loaf of bread or burned at the stake for witchcraft, gay people in medieval times probably kept their heads down and didn't mention it.

Whether to include sex and sexuality in fantasy I think it actually depends on the reader. I've probably read loads of books where there was all sorts of subtle underlying sexual tension going on and it has completely passed me by. For some people however, it would probably be glaringly obvious by its absence

 

[Susan Boulton]

For those interested in the subject;

Desire and Discipline. Sex and Sexuality in the Premodern West. Edited by Jacqueline Murray and Konrad Eisenbichler.

ISBN 0-8020-7144-9

It can help you understand both the times and the mindset.

 

[prizzley]

Some argue that homosexuality was considered taboo or sinful because of how hygienically filthy it would be in the ancient world. I don't consider homosexual relations to be 'gross', but the implications of such acts can definitely be seen as a heightened chance for spreading or attaining diseases that would normally not be transmitted through standard coitus.

Except that, before general use of condoms etc, sexually transmitted diseases were rife via heterosexual sex. (Homosexual sex increased the risk.) Many children were stillborn or born blind due to congenital syphilis. Monogamy and chastity were the safest options.

 

[JoanDrake]

Romeo's age in Shakespeare is never stated. Juliet's age is 13 - "not quite fourteen", according to the Nurse and Lady Capulet in her first scene.

The Persian Boy does not use pederasty for shock value. It is a pretty straightforward romance between Alexander the Great and Bagoas, both of whom were historical figures. It does mention sex, quite extensively, but history is the main theme of the story

To me, it depends on what the story is about. A lot of fantasies are pretty much about the intriguing of royal houses. Since this implies both that offspring are important and that sex is a factor in power relationships; then it also seems logical that any final results are going to be both heterosexual and between adults

OTOH we have the anime Eureka 7. This is centrally two intertwined love stories. One is between Renton Thurston, who is 14, and Eureka, whose age is indeterminate because she isn't fully human. The other is a menage a trois between Anemone, who is 14-17, Dominic Sorel, who is apparently in his late teens to early 20's and Dewey Novack, who is in his late 30's to early 40's. (Among many other reasons this is one major factor that makes me like anime, they do not seem afraid to push the envelope in psychosexual relations)

There is, I think a fairly rich source of drama that might come about through sexual relations that might be possible between different alien species. Larry Niven calls it Rishathra, in his Ringworld series and other writers have alluded to it but two things stand in its way. The first is that the production of offspring, (excluding extensive genetic engineering which would make the sex supercilious), is the height of biological impossiblility (think of of humans having viable offspring with spiders, now remember that spiders are our close cousins compared to creatures from another world) and the second is that the actual relationships would have no human analogues we could relate to. At the risk of seeming Homophobic I have to admit that I have not yet found any work, fantasy or otherwise, that uses a homosexual romance as its main story. It's not that I dislike homosexuals, its just that I can't relate to their romantic/sexual relationships in any real way.

 

[allmywires]

At the risk of seeming Homophobic I have to admit that I have not yet found any work, fantasy or otherwise, that uses a homosexual romance as its main story.

Not to be facetious, but perhaps because you haven't been looking? Anyway:

It's not that I dislike homosexuals, its just that I can't relate to their romantic/sexual relationships in any real way.

Why is that, though? Surely love is the same whichever way you look at it? If a character's well-drawn enough, you should be feeling what they're feeling, and 9 times out of 10 a protagonist is there to be sympathised with. Are you saying there's no writer out there that could make you feel pain for a lesbian MC who's just lost the love of her life, or a gay man who's fallen in love with his best friend? I'm wondering what the difference is with that and being able to sympathise with a murderer, or an alien, or even a celebrity - since these are things you (presumably) are not, what's making you sympathise with them and not a homosexual?

 

[Grimbear]

Except that, before general use of condoms etc, sexually transmitted diseases were rife via heterosexual sex. (Homosexual sex increased the risk.) Many children were stillborn or born blind due to congenital syphilis. Monogamy and chastity were the safest options.

Yep, I agree. We don't see these things in the same light now due to birth control methods and modern medicines , but the possibility of deadly venereal disease and/or pregnancy would hamper a lot of behaviors in a fantasy world.

How likely would most characters in a medieval-type world have been to engage in vast amounts of promiscuous sex with multiple partners, given all the dangers and drawbacks?

To be honest - when I see characters in a medieval setting being very promiscuous - it's this I find more baffling than monogamy or abstinence - especially if said characters are supposed to have a brain.

Saying that - we do know that the Romans had some birth-control devices similar to condoms (although not as effective) and also special resins which acted as spermicides. Obviously they didn't know why these things worked - it was trial and error I expect and if something worked they stuck with it and tried to improve it. The rise of Christianity put a stop to such sensible ideas and inventions.

Marrying young was encouraged for these reasons, and obviously the younger the prostitute, the less likely it is for him/her to have had time to catch some horrendous, disfiguring illness (hence the use of children and adolescents). Although they didn't know exactly how or why diseases spread the way we do today, they weren't imbeciles.

However, there have always been individuals who engage in risky behaviour for whatever reason. And people are different too. If we're trying to depict a society why would we not want to depict all its different aspects? Characters can have differing points of view regardless of their time or culture.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

The BBC has done some wonderful series that deal with this. (Both of the following are available on YouTube).

If Walls Could Talk about the history of the home dealt with sexuality when it came to the living and bedrooms.

History Cold Case has one episode about a girl with syphillis from the Victorian era, a child who was possibly murdered for his body to be used for research, a mother in prehistoric times pregnant with triplets. The wonderful part of this series for me has been the bringing of humanity to the history and having a real person to associate with the time. Some stories have been heartbreaking.

I think Allmywires has hit on it with his post the key is that these are human beings. As soon as you give your characters humanity it does not matter who they are, what they are or how they conduct their lives a reader can then identify with them.

I've had a couple of readers I've forgot to warn them that my MCs are gay and they've commented that despite not normally reading/watching gay characters, because they make them uncomfortable, they were rooting for the couples in my story.

Joan is absolutely right that there are not enough main gay characters in the various genres. Persian Boy is pretty much historical erotic romance and a gripping one at that, but erotic romance and all its subgenres is the one place gay characters are well represented. (Like Anne Lyle said in the other thread two fit men is better than one )

 

[JoanDrake]

Not to be facetious, but perhaps because you haven't been looking? Anyway:



Why is that, though? Surely love is the same whichever way you look at it? If a character's well-drawn enough, you should be feeling what they're feeling, and 9 times out of 10 a protagonist is there to be sympathised with. Are you saying there's no writer out there that could make you feel pain for a lesbian MC who's just lost the love of her life, or a gay man who's fallen in love with his best friend? I'm wondering what the difference is with that and being able to sympathise with a murderer, or an alien, or even a celebrity - since these are things you (presumably) are not, what's making you sympathise with them and not a homosexual?

Darnnit. I left out the the phrase "that I found interesting" after I talked about books with a homosexual love story as the central theme. There are actually many of them.

One of my favorites is "Steel Beach" by John Varley. In that one the major character changes his/her sex as easily and with about as much thought as you or I would give to changing a coat.

What you say is very true. In gustibus non disputandum est. However, you're cutting the very para in which I address this. I was speaking historically, and noting that the major demographic for which most speculative fiction has been written has had little use for anything beyond the "heteronormative" outlook. Hopefully, as more e ebooks come online we may see what I hope will be a veritable explosion of wild, wonderful and strange sexual viewpoints. For in this, as in all else, isn't that mainly what we fantasists write about?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

My sort of dilemmma-ish thing at the moment seemed as closely related to this thread as anything, so rather than start a new one:

Does being straight/gay/bi have to be an essential plotline?

I have a character, who I started writing without giving much consideration to his sexuality (he was planned to be straight, initially) but as I've written him, I've become increasingly sure he's bisexual*. And, when I raised it with some of the people who've read my book, I've mostly had the response that they could see that in his character.

But, it's not a major plot driver (only in so far as he has some personal difficulties with it, due to a sibling relationship in the first book where being bi would have been frowned on, and he has, to this stage, end of book 2 hidden it.) It may or may not become a plot line in book 3, something is potentially forming but if it does, it's less to do with the sexuality per se and more to do with the character development.

So, I'm not planning on exploring bisexual relationships in a futuristic society (whilst I have taken some time to think about the reactions of those closest to him, and his status within the society), but I do seem to have a character who is bisexual and that is having an impact on his character.

Do I need to make sexuality a plot driver, or is it enough just to say a character is, and there you go, it's just part of them? I'm thinking of JK Rowling and Dumbledore - it didn't surprise me he was gay, and I thought it was refreshing that someone could have a gay character without having to make an issue of it. Or am I being hopelessly naive and going to incur the wrath of people for daring to have a character who is bi without it being a central plot line? (I have many characters who are straight, and it's not a central plot line....)

*just to say its not because of any current trends or anything, it was just as I wrote him and got to know him a bit better, it became evident to me that I had his sexuality wrong in the very first planning stages.

 

[notveryalice]

I have many characters who are straight, and it's not a central plot line...

This is the crux of the matter.

When you write sex scenes you know who the participants are for reasons quite apart from everybody's sexual identity--because sexual identity is a part of character, and the details of sex scenes are a result of character interaction.

Isn't it enough to know who your main is going to have sex with? An overarching declaration of sexuality is just a trivial consequence of that (in real people ditto).

 

[Brian G Turner]

Does being straight/gay/bi have to be an essential plotline?

My personal feeling is that there is a the plot - the sequences of events and challenges that a protagonist journey's through in an attempt to overcome adversity.

And then there's the emotional development arc of the protagonist.

Both may run concurrently, but may not be entirely in sync.

If a character is anything but heterosexual in a heteronormative world, there is inevitably emotional baggage of some kind to deal with. In which case, chances are it's going to be a significant consideration in the character's emotional development arc (presuming it's a protagonist where emotional development is required).

If the world is not heteronormative, and sexuality is not so much an issue, then this again will need to be referenced within the world building.

IMO.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

No I don't think so. I try to write my gay characters so them being gay is central to their character rather than to the plot. I personally think JK Rowling missed out by not explaining it in the book because I don't think he was single. It explains his relationship with Snape very well. Had the relationship been between him and McGonaghall it could've had the same issues, but because he was gay the relationship was with a man. It is the relationships like notveryalice said that tell you what the character are.


When I write mine I try to keep the fact they are gay from being an issue. With Mayhem it had to be because it was my means of keeping Socrates, the crown prince, alive. However apart from his abdication I'd like to keep it so Socrates and Nate being gay is only an issue because they are together. If they were Socrates and Natalie the issues would be similar.

With my detectives they weren't sneaking around having sex in a cupboard because they were gay. They were sneaking around because they were having sex at work and one of them already had a partner.

 

[prizzley]

I try to write my gay characters so them being gay is central to their character rather than to the plot.

Sorry, I don't get it. For most people I know, their sexuality isn't central to their character, it's just one part of who they are. If a story is about relationships rather than sex, then paint their character and let the reader decide on their sexuality. IMO J K Rowling got it right with Dumbledore.

 

[AnyaKimlin]

Sorry, I don't get it. For most people I know, their sexuality isn't central to their character, it's just one part of who they are. If a story is about relationships rather than sex, then paint their character and let the reader decide on their sexuality. IMO J K Rowling got it right with Dumbledore.

That is what I meant. It is a part of who they are but only really impacts the plot based on how they react if there is a sexual or romantic relationship. It doesn't have to central to the plot. Just like a character who is married or has a girlfriend doesn't have to be.

 

[allmywires]

Does being straight/gay/bi have to be an essential plotline?

Not at all - in fact, Mouse and I were talking about this the other day, the case of springing surprise sexuality on people who have been 'hoodwinked' (for want of a better word) into believing they're straight. It also depends who your target readership is - people do not like surprise gays very much! (Well, people who aren't like me ) I would say if it's completely inconsequential, maybe donate a paragraph or two, a conversation between two characters, to it and leave it. It's enough to know, I think, when it's not got bearing on the plot. However...

It may or may not become a plot line in book 3, something is potentially forming but if it does, it's less to do with the sexuality per se and more to do with the character development.

...don't sacrifice a potential plot point because you're afraid of losing readers. I'm 99% sure that unless you make it into a full-blown bisexual love story (which you won't) people aren't going to shut the book and go, 'Bleurgh, didn't want that.'

 

[Brian G Turner]

For most people I know, their sexuality isn't central to their character, it's just one part of who they are. If a story is about relationships rather than sex, then paint their character and let the reader decide on their sexuality.

That is what I meant. It is a part of who they are but only really impacts the plot based on how they react if there is a sexual or romantic relationship. It doesn't have to central to the plot. Just like a character who is married or has a girlfriend doesn't have to be.

I'm kind of surprised by these reactions. I would have presumed that our own sexuality is actually a major part of our being, but that in a heteronormative world this is rarely challenged - in fact, it is actively fed through images and themes in media and advertising.

Now consider what happens if you fall outside of that - that your sexuality is considered abnormal, condemned, even by family and friends; you are repeatedly threatened over it by strangers, and society treats you as a third class citizen.

Is such a person really not going to consider their sexuality as a key issue, and one that will influence their reaction to so many different situations directly even outside of sexual relations?

 

[Jo Zebedee]

I'm 99% sure that unless you make it into a full-blown bisexual love story (which you won't) people aren't going to shut the book and go, 'Bleurgh, didn't want that.'

definitely no plans for that to happen.

Is such a person really not going to consider their sexuality as a key issue, and one that will influence their reaction to so many different situations directly even outside of sexual relations?

And therein lies the dilemma. For the development of this character, it is important, of course it is. How could it not be, it's one of the things that shapes them. But, for the development of the plot per se, there isn't a story line about it. But, it's referenced in the characters internal thoughts, and will be coming more to the fore when other characters become aware of it.

That's what I'm mostly worried about, not the effect on the character, I'm pretty sure I can handle that, but if in not tackling it as a plot line (and I have more than enough incendiary subjects to deal with without adding another for the sake of it), it makes it become superfluous. (and runs the risk, if I'm honest, of looking like I'm jumping on a current bandwagon, for the sake of it.)

(I can't not mention it, he's a key pov character, so to never come up would be unrealistic. At this point, over two books of c. 200000 words, it's been alluded to obliquely once and mentioned openly twice. So, it's not exactly a dominant theme.)

But to not write him the way I think he really is risks making him into a false character. (and for those of the "Writer is in charge school," I am in charge, but the characters, surely, partially form our development of them?)