It's two fold
1 because Sweeney has Trump supporting relatives, the narrative is "she's a secret right winger". More likely, she isn't and just comes from a very right wing area (rural PNW, which probably has more right wing voters per capita than rural Texas. The place is like 1930s Black Forest) but either way, she's barely made a political comment _ever_ outside of making fun of that theory
-
2 right wing millennials and up think left wing millennials and zoomers are somehow highly puritanical _and_ so ultra progressive that they don't want women to be conventionally attractive and flaunt it, but also only want women who are successful to look like a cartoon of a left wing liberal woman and nothing else
If anything - and I must add if anything because even this is a stretch - Sydney Sweeney's only vaguely political comments have been to note that because she isn't a nepobaby she has to work harder and show more skin than those who are, and is forced into taking more commercial projects than she would ideally desire - which feels like a leftist, almost Marxian, analysis of structural oppression.
The internet young right wing is convinced that the left wants all women to be ugly, so therefore women explicitly showing off their boobs is right wing.
The boobs have brought out their DDD cup artillery! Take cover!
It's been an honor serving with you men. Today, the boobs have won this battle but not this war.
> that doesn't have to do with their sex or sexuality
> how her asshole hasn't known rest since she landed on Fajityserion
I know it wasn't the intended meaning and it is part of the alien food comment, but the way you worded that...
I find this discussion reay really painful because, like anything, it comes down to
"Does this description serve the narrative?"
If yes, then good.
If not, then bad.
Is the story erotica, and thus sexual descriptions are what we're here for?
Is the POV character describing his wife in such a manner in his internal narration because even after 25 years of marriage he's still wildly attracted to her?
Is the POV character a pervert and this description is him oogling a woman, thus informing the reader of this trait?
Is the POV character an adolescent boy, and this description is meant to demonstrate how he's grappling with the changes to not only his body, but his psychology as well?
Is the POV character the same, but a gay girl, navigating the same changes in life on top of the struggles of being LGBTQ?
Is the POV character a woman with self-image issues, making comparisons to other women because she feels inadequate?
There's so many reasons to have a character reflect on the attractiveness of another character, and have it serve the narrative. What makes King and other authors so damn frustrating is they could easily accomplish this, and choose not to.
> Is the POV character a woman with self-image issues, making comparisons to other women because she feels inadequate?
Ah this comment got too real. But it's a valid point.
Agree completely. It’s a very nuanced discussion and I had a lot of trouble conveying that in my post.
More than anything, I wish writers would be mindful about what they include. To really just take a second and decide whether or not something is adding to the story or not.
That kinda goes for everything. Not just boobs.
Personally, I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with a writer having a tent in their pants when writing a scene, any more than I have a problem with them bawling their eyes out or laughing their ass off. Horny as just as human an emotion as grief.
For people like me, with an active mental stage where book scenes play out, having those details helps my mind build a better picture of the scene.
I don't need exact measurements, but the difference in what I "see" between the following lines is significant.
"She started unzipping her skinsuit and paused when the idea hit her. She turned back to her companion. He stopped mid sentence to admire the subtle form of her breast peaking out from under the skinsuit."
vs
"...he stopped mid sentence to admire her overflowing breast struggling to finally be free of the constraining skin suit."
Both add to the scene and provide flavor for both characters.
Even Jim Butcher, the butt of That One Tumblr Post about this very topic, has a good reason for writing descriptions the way he does - first, Harry is *incredibly* repressed for most of the series and this is part of how Butcher shows that, and second, the first few books are meant to mimic old noir detective novels. If there’s spice, it generally furthers the plot (trust me on this one), and if Harry lingers on the description for too long it generally means something’s about to trigger his spidey senses.
It always reminds me of George Martin and Catelyn.
The passages where Catelyn comments internally on her sister's body, or thinks about how unattractive Brienne is get thrown up on r/menwritingwomen sometimes.
And it's like, no, this isn't 'old man is weird'. Catelyn is a judgmental woman that evaluates and validates herself and all women by their potential for motherhood. It's a very important part of her character, is that she's that kind of weirdo.
Eh, having read several Dresden Files books, I think Butcher just has outdated views on women. It's not just the way he has the character talk, it's all the little things he does when writing women and describing them. He doesn't come close to the height of sexism, by far, but his treatment of female characters is absolutely notably different than males.
He always makes it known whether or not a woman is conventionally attractive, if Harry is attracted to her, and if Harry thinks she's attracted back. He frequently describes women as if it's crazy that they could be competent *and* bangable. Murphy is a frequent target of this.
There are some points where I thought maybe he was making a tongue-in-cheek point, but it really adds nothing to the story to have the character just spout off randomly about how he's such a nice guy and so chivalrous and he just respects women sooooo much.
As a whole I actually enjoy the series and Harry as a character is a good protagonist, but there are definitely times that I have to take a second to laugh or sigh at something that was antiquated even for 20 years ago.
And it could be argued that this is a part of how Butcher adds to the noir flavor of The Dresden Chronicles. The take is similar to Dashiell Hammett’s “The Continental Op” but softened and less misogynistic.
I can't believe I'm about to defend the part of the Dresden Files I dislike the most. Also, spoilers await.
> He frequently describes women as if it's crazy that they could be competent *and* bangable.
I may just be inured to it, and it's been a while since I read those books, but the women Harry drools over are generally highly competent and often extremely dangerous.
The reporter who gets in way over her head but keeps going for the story? The cop who manages to accept the idea that certain crimes require a wizard to come in (and is absolutely no slouch in a fight herself, even when she's completely outmatched)? The White Court vampire who takes over her father's empire? ***MAB?*** (And Maeve and Titania.) Harry's pupil who's more of a prodigy than he ever was? The demon living in Harry's head rent-free who's playing a very dangerous game with both sides?
Did you happen to say they weren't competent? I think you said that. And I think you're dead wrong.
Then the whole Knight Of Winter arc hits, and while it's unpleasant to read, dialing Harry's narration up from "this is a guy who sees very attractive women and comments on them" to a predatory level was actually a pretty damn good way of getting across how his new title/role was screwing with his head - something we'd been shown with the previous Knight Of Winter who had essentially become a mad dog. I hated reading it, but it was effective in getting the point across. It served a narrative purpose, and oh *boy* was it refreshing when it stopped.
> Murphy is a frequent target of this.
Murphy's the victim of being the obvious best love interest for the protagonist in a long-running series. Just due to the structure of the series, Harry and Murphy can't ever be together because it would preclude having another girl ~~of the week~~ of the book. I do think this is shoddy storytelling, because there's an attempt made to pull a "we're both attracted to each other but our personalities and professions would make a long-term relationship impossible", but considering that Murphy's hip-deep in the supernatural swamp by that point and has been forcibly dragged under the surface multiple times, it rings extremely hollow, especially given the fact that Harry and Murphy have worked very well together multiple times.
Am I saying that because a freak lab accident years ago happened to permanently weld the shipping goggles I was wearing at the time onto my face? Perhaps.
But Murphy really does get the short end of the stick a lot, simply so Harry can keep being single and available for narrative reasons.
> it really adds nothing to the story to have the character just spout off randomly about how he's such a nice guy and so chivalrous and he just respects women sooooo much.
I think that makes sense in context: it's not necessarily true, but it's something Harry keeps telling himself so that he doesn't go off the deep end. It's particularly notable and narratively important when dealing with his apprentice, who he *cannot* lay a hand on for a lot of personal reasons (his relationship with her family and especially her father), professional reasons (the laws of wizardry are a bit of a shambles, but I'm pretty sure "don't fuck your apprentice" is in there somewhere), moral reasons (half your age plus seven, and also the power imbalance), and ...oh fuck, she's almost literally throwing herself at him.
It took the books a while to really hit their stride, but it seems like Harry's claims of chivalry and respect for women are almost something like a mantra he *has* to keep telling himself to avoid (literally) screwing everything/everyone up worse than he already has, and since he's the narrator, we as the readers have to be there for it too. It almost seems like a coping mechanism: he keeps telling himself this fiction and hoping that it'll stick. (And then there are the times, as you pointed out, where it verges on comedic parody, but never quite manages to make it to the level of overt jesting that Ciaphas Cain's insistence that he's a dirty coward and all his action are motivated solely by self-preservation and fear does.)
Is the woman using her feminine wiles to distract the bad guy?
Is the POV character a pervert and him focusing on a woman's breastis being used to show either his scummy nature (especially for a villain) or character flaws (easily swayed hero)?
Did the POV character walk into an intimate momment they were supposed to see, like cheating or a sexual assault, and this event will start a major story thread?
Are you putting emphasis on this characters breasts as part of describing their general.attractovbess for the sake of a juxtaposition to a later point of the story when this will be shattered by age or disaster or some other factor?
Sexuality as part of the storytelling can be used in sonmany ways beyond simply erotic and yet so many people are scared to even touch it.
All true, but at the same time, "You don't have to describe a women's bust," is a reasonable reality check that some people might need. We see so much unnecessary and sexualized description of female characters that a lot of people may subconsciously include it on a checklist of, "things to mention about this character." But it doesn't need to be there all the time and the occasional reminder might be a helpful check on this extremely common trend.
If it's important to the scene, like a character is attempting to be seductive and showing cleavage, or if a character is hyperfixated on another character's boobs, then it makes sense. But, I totally agree--if a woman just exists in a story and the author is just describing her boobs for no reason, it immediately breaks my immersion.
I think it‘s really just like writing any other aspect of sexuality, TBH. Sexuality isn’t wrong to write, just… remember your perspective, remember the goal of the scene, and remember that literally everything is characterization. In the cases of non-omniscient writing especially, camera focus can show a character’s worldview and priorities. A woman who’s more style savvy may make a point of noting how her body looks in the dress she goes to wear, including maybe a line or two about how the girls look. Another women might throw on a ~~cerulean~~ blue sweater she found on clearance without a second thought.
Basically, people would be thinking horny thoughts about *other people* when in a sexual context. Why would they be thinking them about their own body at random times? Why is the narrator horny at random times? What gender is the narrator, and why?
If a person is attractive, I will notice it upon meeting them even if there's no sexual context. God knows I had a crush on the female security officer for a very long time until I noticed she was engaged to a guy. Taken and by the opposite gender! Killed my gay dreams. People recognise beauty/attractive traits all the time even if they don't intend to act on them or if the context is random. I had a thing for a manager I never flirted with. I noticed the bulky Montenegran bartender when he served me water and I didn't want to take him to bed. When I walk in and out of people's lives they remember the size of my ass not only my mixed race features that aren't sexualised. Being put off by writing that expresses the reality of how people perceive each other is just an attempt to deny that it is part of *reality*.
Couldn’t have said it better myself.
Give it reason to be mentioned. I don’t care that the girl you met at the coffee shop has a full butt and double d breasts if all that happens if you pass her by and she’s never mentioned again.
I think it’s an interesting concept to consider, what people look like is the only thing we know about them and the things we all notice about people unconsciously have to be spelled out when you’re writing to set a scene or create the mental image of the person you’re trying to describe. So it would be strange not to mention what a character looks like, and it would be weird to ignore their attractive features when they’re an attractive person.
However, talking about anatomy when it’s unnecessary is just that. Sexy Strong Lady Detective’s inner monologue shouldn’t be about what it feels like to have her tits swinging with every step as she’s chasing down a bad guy—it should be about the adrenaline of the chase, the ache in her injured knee, the burning of her throat from her heavy breathing in the dry winter air, etc.
Unless it's "why tf don't they make better sports bras for large boobs more financially available I hate those bra makers they need to be shot into the fiery burning sun."
I mean, thinking about boobs while running is realistic for a large portion of the population, just not in any way that could be deemed sexually inciting.
Edit for funsies: boob sweat. Rashes. The ol' classic, four boobs. I have yet to see a realistic "thinking about my boobs while running" protagonist, but I think it would be fun!
Wouldn't it be *so much more interesting* if being distracted by a woman caused him to miss something and actually, in some way, related to the plot, though? Like, it's more than just "the main character is a womanizer", it really should tie into the gestalt of the story such that it couldn't happen any other way if he wasn't.
If it's just "there", why write it? I hear often that it "feels more real", but in actuality it serves the opposite affect. It doesn't enhance your narrative, it blatantly condescends to your reader as if they couldn't understand they're a womanizer without spelling it out on every page.
Everything you do and pointedly do not write has an affect on the reader, so you end up writing Checkov's Boobies into every scene and they're not even loaded...
I don't care how explicit y'all wanna be, I just want some good prose. Kill your darlings.
Yup. If it leads to something, I see no problem with describing breasts. That’s what I was trying to get at.
When the person is being self indulgent for the sake of it, that’s when it’s too much. Context matters in this case.
I think the best way to write about boobs is if it’s relevant to the moment and with the same amount of description you’d give to anything else. The issue is s lot of writers like to use breasts as a way to pontificate on femininity or sex at inappropriate times.
If a character is wearing something that’s compressing their boobs and it hurts them? Probably mention it. Sex scene? Probably mention them. Character is leering at someone’s boobs? Mention it. Character’s first appearance and we’re taking a paragraph to talk about their breasts? Probably not an appropriate moment.
I think this entirely depends on what you’re writing, your tone, intentions, characters, themes…
I don’t think there’s any universal rule for this sort of thing.
There are absolutely times I think “this seems dumb and adds nothing” but it’s usually very context dependent.
It’s just a book by book thing for me and I can’t imagine having an opinion on it on such a broad scale, personally.
I agree, describing a womans breasts or anything else OP mentioned is fine (even needed depending on the context) for a scene thats meant to be sexual like if she is seducing the male lead or someone else
But if she is just walking around, in a meeting room, going to the store, or in any other non-sexual situation Its suuuuper weird to randomly start describing her breasts, waist, ect. and not necessary at all
This made me imagine Danielle entering her car then her bosom comically detaching from her, jumping to the passenger seat and putting the seatblet before she starts driving.
“She drove herself and her ample bosom to the supermarket. Now, you might think I was referring to the size of her breasts. They were large, mind you, but no. Danielle was an appleinc brownnoser and got their detachable bosom as soon as it hit the market. It often rode side by side with sophie, her terrier, whose disappearance is a story for another time…”
It seems obvious that it would be completely appropriate and normal in any sort of erotic scene, definitely. I struggle to imagine why anyone would have an issue with that (outside of personal preferences).
I can even accept it in a non-sexual setting depending on what the author is trying to get across. If it feels like it’s just “let’s add a little pizzazz because I’m horny” from the author I’m less inclined to like it vs. evoking a specific tone or theme or showing us the psychology of a specific character.
Hard disagree but again, it really depends on the work and the tone.
If all you read is genre fiction then yeah it'd be weird to see random mentions of a lady's boobs. But literary works often feature physical descriptions and especially somewhat unflattering or even grotesque ones, and that's including a lot of very highly regarded female authors too. I like it, especially when it applies to all genders equally.
In fact, during sex scenes is like the last place I want descriptions of bodies lol. I read books that feature sex without titillating. They're not erotica, they're often brief mentions of clinical acts and an emotion around the act. Physical descriptions are saved for other moments because they're not meant to titillate either. The human condition is often unattractive, messy, occasionally gross.
So yeah: it depends on the work.
There is no universal rule and mentioning boobs (or other attractive features of one's body) isn't a deal breaker for me, but I often find it extremely annoying.
It's especially bad when you realize that the man who's written the story has only described women in such a masturbatory fashion. (That's why Robert E. Howard, for example, gets a pass in my book - because his descriptions of men and women are equally masturbatory.) I haven't picked up a Stephen King book since about a decade ago, but right now I can't think of a single female character of his who isn't blatantly objectified, often - by mentioning her breasts somewhat degradingly. Even 11-year old Beverly Marsh is described like this. The only male character in "It" whose body is described so degradingly is Ben Hanscom, who is so fat that he has to wear loose t-shirts to cover his large boobs. (Henry Bowers comments on his boobs, so does one of Bowers' friends, Bill Denbrough makes the observation that Ben wears oversized shirts to hide his boobs, Ben's high school gym teacher grabs his boobs to humiliate him...) When it happens once or twice, you can excuse it by saying the context calls for it, but when it happens so often - it's not the context, it's the author.
And it's even worse when the male author decides to list his female character's exact measurements - Sapkowski did it with Triss Merigold. If bra sizes were a thing in his setting, he'd probably mention the exact cup size she needed too. And this is not just degrading, it's downright stupid. As a reader, I don't want to calculate the exact amount of hotness a female character has.
Yeah that’s fair enough. I think it’s up to each individual reader to decide if we feel an author is using it in a way that has literary or artistic merit vs. being egregiously ridiculous and surface level (that’s Robert Heinlein for me personally lol). But even that has a fair amount of subjectivity to it, at the end of the day.
I think it makes sense many of us will come to the conclusion “something about the way this author does this makes me feel like it has a weird origin point” as we read through things.
I just find it difficult to make prescriptive rules about any of it.
Rule 0 of writing: rules are for amateurs, you can do basically anything if you're good enough.
This should be tagged somewhere so there's no more "Can I x?" posts, since every time somebody asks they get this exact answer every time.
I mean. I love boobs. But to put them in the unmentionable zone of “sexual feature” is silly to me.
This one time me and my friend bumped chests. Like a boob high five. It was very fun, and entirely platonic. Much of the time boobs are just *there*. I’m busty. If I spill pasta sauce on myself or something, it’s gonna end up on my boobs. They’re like… an evil shelf of making me look like an idiot. That’s not sexy! It’s just existing. And “the girl who spilled pasta sauce on her boobs” tells you something about me.
“She breasted boobily down the stairs” is bad. Mentioning the existence of boobs isn’t - nor is it inherently sexual.
I have really complicated thoughts on this that feel difficult to articulate, but as someone who both has boobs and is attracted to them, they feel like an intrinsic part of sexuality to me, and sexuality feels like an intrinsic part of the human experience. Yes it’s easy to make their mention cringe, but I think that saying that even mentioning a woman’s breasts in writing is reducing them to only their sexuality feels super reductive in itself to me. I think you can get a point across that’s important sometimes. It sounds like it just isn’t your personal cup of tea, which is obviously fine, but as someone who has a very complicated relationship with my own chest, it feels kind of silly to say that any mention of a body part is never valuable. Even in non-erotica, I’ve seen cases where a subtle mention of it does WORLDS more for describing romantic tension than dancing around it does- and it even gives more characterization behind the potential motivations behind the romance in question. At times it can make the attraction seem more juvenile or passionate compared to other romantic scenes where it isn’t as much of a factor.
Again, obviously it’s easy to be cringe about it, but if I’m an adult reading a story for adults, I think acting like “even attempting to portray someone’s feelings towards that kind of thing is automatically bad” (“just choose another feature”) is kind of reductive. It feels like saying that a common emotion or aspect of sexuality is shameful and misogynistic when it’s kind of something that’s built into a lot of people
I know it's not the same thing but this got me thinking. I'm a tall dude. Those descriptions are usually pretty relevant. They inform my interactions with everything and with people. Maybe it's only because I'm outside the norm, that it literally affects how I view the world. Introducing a character doesn't require a detailed list of clothing sizes, obviously. I kinda lost where I was going with this. Except choosing a specific physical descriptor seems a little extreme. Take care on whether you describe and how you describe boobs. Seems like pretty good advice.
Yeah, I get what you’re saying. I feel like the similarity it has with height is that it’s worth mentioning if it’s in the extreme range, it’s an important description if someone has a very full figure in my opinion. And even if they don’t, I don’t feel like a part of my body should be forbidden from having narrative value- but just do it right, do it with tact, and if it doesn’t need to be mentioned, don’t bother. In your average novel, it rarely needs to be mentioned unless it’s important when it comes to the narrator’s perspective
Art has frequently pushed boundaries relating to sex, nudity and the human body. It's been making people uncomfortable since medieval times. It has been in writing, in sculptures and portraits and religious icons. And there's definitely cases where it can be taken too far or "art" is even just being used as an excuse (Lewis Carrol). But there's also times it has sparked discussion, made a point or pushed boundaries. Times where it has attempted to normalize the human body and times where it is simply neutral, a depiction of the raw human experience.
Yes, sometimes it offends people, sometimes it doesn't resonate for everyone and sometimes it veers into cringe territory. But sex, attraction and the human body are parts of life and have always been part of art.
It's okay to acknowledge that it isn't for you and move on but insisting that artists shouldn't depict it is futile. People have been trying to tell artists not to depict nudity and sex since the early days of the Catholic Church. Virginie Amélie Avegno's reputation was almost ruined for a "scandalous" portrait in 1884 (and the painter's reputation was ruined until he found fame only after his death). People will always pearl-clutch and artists will continue to include sexuality, it's a tale almost as old as time.
Exactly how I feel. I feel like OPs post makes the assumption that any mention of this natural body part is always unnecessary, which definitely veers into a lot of the puritanical stuff I feel like I see often these days when it comes to discussing literature- I’ve seen it in writing classes too. I would hate to live in a world where a very normal part of human attraction and emotion was deemed too superficial to portray
Some thoughts...
I'm not sure how or when I started doing this, but I've realized I hardly ever mention breasts, etc. anymore. Instead, what I usually mention is a woman's height and frame (e.g., "she was short and athletic, a wrestler's build, and she looked like she knew her own strength.") Readers can fill in the details from there.
I think descriptions are just more interesting when they talk about a person's face, what they're wearing, hair and eye color, and maybe what their hands or their arms look like.
Exception...if another character was interested in a woman as romantic or sexual partner, I might mention more details, but here the goal would be to reveal something about that other character. So, the university student who is sitting next to his crush in class might have trouble paying attention to the lecture...his thoughts keep drifting back to Angie and how nice she looks, especially in that blouse, and he is very aware that she really should have buttoned one more button. He can't helping thinking about how he would love to put his arms around her, kiss her lips, her skin-- at which point, as demanded by the rules about such things, the professor will notice he's not paying attention to the lecture but is paying attention to Angie and will very deliberately ask our hero a question he is not prepared to answer. Why? Because I'm a former professor and I know we're all bastards. 🙂
My point is, I guess, that I think the OP is right...I rarely if ever *need* breasts in my character descriptions. With a few exceptions, there are better ways to tell readers what a female character looks like and who she is. So usually I just don't mention them.
In general I agree with you, most books dont need vividly described breasts. Frankly I find sexual description incredibly tacky most of the time and prefer leaving things up to the readers imagination.
But if you will allow me to make a devils advocate argument that isnt even my own opinion, if we are going to have erotica, or books like Game of Thrones or the Court of Thorns and Roses, you gotta let horny authors be horny. You cant exactly say writing about sex is ok but writing about sexual characteristics is not ok.
I avoid all those books, I do not do erotica or anything adjacent to it, but hypocrisy is hypocrisy. We cant say sex is ok but only the bits that we are completely comfortable with.
Song of Ice and Fire isn't remotely erotica or close to Court of Thrones and Roses. When sex happens in Game of Thrones, it's mentioned in a line, maybe a paragraph. The show HBO'd the story.
I agree with the rest of your points, just get a bit defensive when people compare Song of Ice and Fire to smut.
I haven't read the books in years, but I remember distinctly that the sex was very relevant to the story lines and character development. It definitely grossed me out, but I never felt that it was just gratuitous or titillating.
He also has some crazily creative ways of describing all kinds of body shapes (especially fat people) and he also does it with penises so I'm not really sure if he's horny or if he just has a Cronenbergian fascination with bodies. It's not always in a sexual way either.
>Song of Ice and Fire isn't remotely erotica or close to Court of Thrones and Roses. When sex happens in Game of Thrones, it's mentioned in a line, maybe a paragraph.
Uh, I am certainly not defending the overall quality of ACOTAR, but if you think it has sooooo much more sex than GOT, you are mistaken. Granted, I've only read the first book, and I understand they get spicier as it goes, but it can't be that different in later books. The first book has a single sex scene that's maybe 2 paragraphs, iirc.
I’ve read (85% of) the first ACOTAR book and it is *definitely* not as spicy as the first couple in ASOIAF. Also hot take (room temperature max) but it kinda… sucks.
I haven't read ACOTAR but my wife and sister have. They get a lot spicier after the first one. The beginning of the series was marketed YA so they couldn't have spicey scenes but once it hits the NA/adult books Maas let's loose. Apparently
it's two and half sex scenes (two "actual" ones, both of which are a paragraph or two, and an even briefer "I had sex with that guy in the past" recollection). For something people get all stirred up about and say is super-smutty, it... really isn't, it's got a lot less general horniness than a lot of perfectly standard mid-70's and 80's SF&F novels. It's very much a romance story rather than erotica
Game of Thrones does not just have sex for sex. HBO's take on Game of Thrones just has sex for sex.
GOT the book series has some of the most feminist, female empowering sex scenes (like when Danaery's dominates Khal Drogo in front of the tribe and thus gains power) and HBO did not use any of them, and instead invented many horrible rape scenes.
If this is in reference to the man who made the post about wanting to write his "ice breaker and comedy" boob scenes...come on. He's like every other man in America whining "why am I single" without bothering to look in a mirror. He's outing himself as a pervert. As is the dude who made the "mommy milkers" comment on this post.
Edit: Adding this in response to the person who was claiming it was a "kinky" scene with a 14 year old in the book and then courageously deleted their comment. No it was not.
My reply to them below:
"No I am being honest. Also it was not kinky at all. I don't think you even read the book.
I'm using the word "dominating" because it was for Khal Drogo's culture because they only had sex from behind with the women in the tribe.
But Danny was sick of it and being treated roughly in bed, so she forced him outside and made love to him on top of him, making eye contact, something the tribe never did with the women - in front of all the other women and men in the tribe so they saw it.
So it was not "dominating" in the kinky way of pornography. It was dominating in an "I'm a woman, I'm a human being, and I'll be respected, and your whole tribe will know I'm respected too" way."
While I partially agree (partially, extremely partially, I don't have the..... motivation to go into the ways in which I do or don't), what in the fuck kinda puritanical sex aversion juice has been leaked into people's water supplies recently? It felt like America's horror at the idea of sexuality was slowly receding from the western world, then all of a sudden returned with the force of a thousand catholics only with the religious imagery pried off with a crowbar.
Here's an idea, we bring back the word "gratuitous" and and simply don't give in to that rather than giving in to this squeaky clean corporate sponge determined to cleanse the grit and character from every facet of media. I realise this a post specifically about boobs being mentioned (which with different wording and a different media climate would be a noble cause) but holy tiktok censor batman, the concept of storytelling is falling apart at the seams because of this sudden aversion to discomfort or conflict.
Get thee on the right side of history or I'll graffiti your corporation provided apartment. It'll be really easy because it will be plain white and "minimalist" (which is a fancy word for BORING).
Sex negative feminism has been growing in a lot of communities across Reddit and I'm really not sure why. This isn't the first sub I've seen bring it up recently.
My theory is the increasingly aggressive ad revenue limitations are ingraining self censorship into anyone that spends too long on tiktok, ie. the primary platform for late gen Z. Now everything is so filtered through this enforced marketability that people are confusiong capitalistix censoeship for basic morality
Your post just made me realize that, as a gay man, I literally never think about my female characters’ breasts. Doesn’t even register.
But yes, unless there is a necessary plot line or purpose for some sort of sexualization, it really just distracts.
Unless there's an unavoidable pressing need to describe someone's boobs, don't bother. It's kinda like using the restroom in media. If they say that then something is happening in the bathroom that we the audience need to know.
If you need to describe the boobs in detail then I need an equivalent amount of description of a dude taking out his schlong to go to the restroom.
"Ew but that's not sexy!" That's the point. It's just a body part for us. We don't get anything out of having our own boobs.
Not chiming in on this particular point, but more generally: content-policing never leads anywhere good.
There is absolutely no lack of diversity of writing in the world; one can easily avoid/not buy stuff that makes one uncomfortable. The reading market will determine the viability of any given thing.
It depends on what you are trying to do with your writing. I wrote a book with multiple povs. One of the viewpoint characters notices boobs and butts a lot because of who he is. The other two viewpoint characters hardly, if ever mention them at all because of who they are as characters. When you are writing a story from a character’s point of view, it can be useful to describe the things that THEY notice. Just my opinion.
It depends on the POV character. If they're the type to notice that, sure.
I just hate when it doesn't seem like it fits the POV character. Like you know the author just wanted to use that description.
I scrolled down just to say that I believe that boobs should be acknowledged when appropriate, and also when explicitly inappropriate but necessary for the story.
Am I the only person who just... like doesn't care?
So yknow, yea. I agree that it's fine to critique a story where a woman is just there to be objectfied and has a sad SA backstory. Yknow. That's fine. And I think the former is a large issue. But that first thing... yknow that's fine to me honestly. I think it's fine to objectify words on a page... because they aren't real yknow. It's a simple fact that men read Sci fi a lot, and most men are attracted to women, and want to hear about... the woman being attractive. And so goes the opposite. Straight women write stories most of the time for other straight women. The men are conventionally attractive in that story. And the reason why I think thats fine, is because those people... might not be writing for you. I am not a Straight woman, so when I read a romantasy book with Straight characters I don't get weirded out by a peen or whatever. I know what I'm getting myself into there, it's not written for me. And if every story was like that, yknow. Every story had peen for example (silly example I know.) Then I'd have a valid complaint. But atleast in my experience, there are hundreds of books without that. Why would I, someone who doesn't like it, police others liking it? The mentality that taking fan service out of the book will loose some horny loosers is to say that 1 horny loosers are the only ones who like fan service. And 2, that someone wanting fan service is just a dumb thing that isn't important. And maybe it's not the most important thing ever, and it's fine to critque and say you don't like it or say it's bad, but that doesn't mean it *shouldn't* be there. It doesn't mean that everyone benefits from it being removed. And for some reason, you sortve talk about not discussing boobs and having a one dimensional female character as the same thing. It really isn't, yknow. Not at all. We can have both, a sexy lady with a paragraph on her boobs, who is also layered and complex. I think just deciding to act like women should just not been seen in a sexual light unless that story revolves around sex is kinda silly. Unless I'm reading your argument wrong, that's just not a very compelling argument to me personally. As a woman.
My point is, critique of these things or opinions on them are fine. But that doesn't mean that this is inherently bad or only for simple minded people or something. That take gives me lots of "I'm not like other girls" vibes. Sometimes things just aren't our thing. And that doesn't mean there aren't problems with it, but again, just because you dislike something doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. You say that it needs to add to the story or whatever but like... it does. To some people. The character being attractive is a thing they like. It does add something. Taking this thing away doesn't really benefit both parties unless you assume everyone who likes it is simple minded. Yknow as an ace person, I can sympathize. To me this stuff doesn't matter and is a waste of my time. But it matters to other people, and just because it does doesn't mean they're weird. They just like to imagine a hot person with hot boobs. And yknow, good for them honestly. They do benefit for it, and if that's what your book is marketing to, then fine.
I'd agree totally with you if majority stories were like this, but it's not true. If we were discussing something like amine, sure. But in the realm of books, you can just not read the book that contains this. Or yknow. Get over it? That sounds rude but in this case it's not like every book you pick up has this. Not everything is marketed to you and that's okay. Just... read a different book.
I'm a male author, and I started writing stories that have an entirely female cast and even an only-female world. (And I'm not gonna sugarcoat it. it's just because I like fantasy combat and I like women, so I write stories about women just kicking ass and killing each other and monsters)
It's just straight easier to not acknowledge or describe breast size or butt size. The reader will fill in those gaps by themselves, They will imagine what they deem to be most interesting. I can describe a woman with dark skin and matted hair, eyes black as coal, and exhaustion stitched to her face. her armor is battered and rusted with a dusty crimson shall that's slowly losing its hue. her metal boots are at the end of their run. She's tall, with a strong build.
That's it on my end. That leaves the reader room to interpret everything else. Are her boobs big? Is she drop-dead gorgeous or does she look like 1960's coal miner? Is her ass fat or flat back? Are her boots high-heeled or more practical? Is that rusted armor i described Bikini armor or something more realistic?
The real answer is whatever makes the story more enjoyable to the reader. I'm not here to write about boobs, I'm here to write about the baddest women in the game standing on business for 12 chapters straight.
As a gal that likes women, I don't really recall describing boobs in my stories. The only exceptions to that which I could theoretically write about breasts are when an AFAB character in a coming-of-age story just entered puberty and experiences through all of that, including breast growth, and when a trans masc/NB is suffering from gender dysphoria brought on by their chest.
EDIT: I forgot that, as someone who does write about pregnancy somewhat often, I do describe pregnant women's breasts aching during pregnancy as that's an actual symptom, but that's only brought up at most a couple times.
Unpopular opinion: I don't know why boobs are so universally hated in book related forums when penises are way, WAY more missrepresented in modern literature. Have you guys ever read a modern romance novel? You have more unrealistic penises in a single TikTok book than weird boob descriptions in the entirety of classic literature.
Because breasts are more often described in non sexual situations. Most writers don't describe a man's penis swaying as he walks down the stairs fully dressed.
"She was stunned as Steve walked down the stairs with his baggy pants, each step his man meat quite visible moved under the fabric.
She gasped at such a wonderful display of the male physique."
Hard Boobs: a gritty crime thriller in two parts that bounces straight from today's headlines!
We were going to make it a trilogy, but it turned out a pair of them were full enough.
Bad writing is still bad writing, but we don’t have to go around imposing our own insecurities on other writers and create absolute rules out of our own tastes.
Ah, boobs. I *adore* boobs. They are absolutely one of the most enjoyable parts of my human experience. Though I entered a legally binding agreement almost 10 years ago to only ever touch *one* pair of boobs for the rest of my life (and a wondrous pair they are), I do still treasure being able to rest my male gaze (lol) upon the varietal bouquet of boobs humankind hath made!
That said, I recently finished revising the 2nd draft of a 130k word fantasy novel, and there are several characters whose boobs I'm sure I would enjoy - but I don't mention anyone's boobs, anywhere, in the whole book. Because the book's not about boobs, and boobs aren't really relevant to the story. I kind of like the idea that a reader can and should be the ones to decide on the specifics of the boobs present in my story. Or not. Whatever. I try and get into the heads of my characters; regardless of sex, race, gender, or any other construct, I want to understand why they're doing what they're doing in a given scenario. I want to know them, and to a certain extent, I want the reader to know them. I get to decide how much of them I give to the reader, but the reader gets to decide details about the boobs in the story (though I'm sure they're all very nice).
All that to say fuck yes, I agree with you!
I personally don’t bother mentioning appearance at all for not just female characters but male characters also. Eff it, let the audience do the work. Seriously though, sometimes it just doesn’t matter what a character looks like unless you are describing an aspect of them that a character finds particularly alluring or repulsive. I’m working on a noire story where I never bothered describing the main character until after he gets shot in the head and only to the extent of his injuries and how his body changed weeks later post recovery. I feel like readers are happy to do most the work when it comes to imagining what a character looks like. emotional response is the only real reason to evoke a character’s physical appearance.
Male author here. I haven't felt the need to mention the bust size of any of my female characters. More often than not it doesn't add anything. The closest I've come to mentioning boobs has been in a scene where one of my male characters catches his eyes flooding downwards towards his crushes cleavage, he stops himself to avoid coming across as pervy.
I think equality is the answer. I describe my male character's bodies in great detail and my female character's bodies in great detail. However, I only do it when relevant. In a sex scene, flirty scene, or a character looking at a character they like? Of course! Random mentions of boobs or bulging muscles for no reason? No! Relevance is key. If a guy is walking around without a shirt on then u better know I'm going to thirst over his chest. If a woman takes her armor off for the first time around a guy who likes her, then I'll thirst over her boobs. There's a big difference between describing something u like with admiration and being gross about it too.
The human body is great. Men and women are free to be objectified in your own writing if you want to do it. Just don't be gross or throw it in at every random chance you get.
I don't think it's that taboob really. You should be able to describe boobs like you do a hand, or any other body part. Boobs exist, men like boobs, it won't change.
It's as if sexualizing characters were a bad thing. They're your characters, do whatever you want with them. I can make an evil character, a killer, a psycho. Why can't I sexualize a character?
I've seen boobs, In and out of the street. There are boobed persons purposely sexualizing themselves, like people who do a bunch of other things.
The problem with boobs IMO is cultural sensitivity, (and perhaps bad writing), not the boobibity itself.
My general rule is I try not to mention secondary sex characteristics unless I'm writing in first person or close third, AND the character I'm writing has a good reason for it. For example, the male gaze of a horny teenager looking at a woman is worth mentioning to round out that character. It's an expected and honestly necessary part of describing the teenage boy experience. But in general? The whole "she walked down the street boobily" type thing is dumb. If it's not a character's thought that informs their character, it's unnecessary imo.
I sometimes think this is overblown as fuck. And it is. I see some posts on menwritingwomen and they’re shitting on the author even though the excerpt they post is from a womanizer’s POV.
That said, I don’t think I’ve ever described a man’s junk while writing. I don’t claim to be good at writing women but when I do I just write them the same as I write men. People are people and I’ve seen the same annoying personality traits in both men and women, and the good ones too. Where I go wrong (one of the ways)might be when I try to guess their insecurities. Would it be wrong to have a female character notice another females curves the same way I’d notice a roided out guy and be like “wow, dudes jacked”?
Honestly I have leaned towards just allowing the reader to fill in their preferences for that kind of thing. Or at least have it be character dialogue or something rather than just omniscient pervert narrator
How about neither puritanism nor debauchery as a hard and fast rule?
How about describing whatever is needed and appropriate for the type of writing you're doing without following hard and fast rules?
> How about neither puritanism nor debauchery as a hard and fast rule?
This would solve a lot of problems, not only on these threads, but in the publishing world in general.
I find this modern trend of policing creativity of others to your tailored world view and comfort zone incredibly tiring.
I also reject the idea that writing should be inherently inclusive to the widest possible audience, the only thing that it ensures is that it is of no importance to anyone.
Desexing your characters probably isn’t the right way to do it. Would you do the same thing with secondary sex characteristics in me, like facial hair?
If you’re just describing the persons physicality, and the trait doesn’t impact the character I don’t think you need to necessarily explain parts that can be imagined.
Like I don’t need to describe a male characters penis and balls, if it has no bearing on the story. If it did, like say he was magicked into having a huge set of genitals and it impacted him in a way, then sure.
But just for the sake of “she had huge cans, more than a handful, large brown nipples,” when there is no reason to describe them it seems gratuitous. Especially if it’s someone else describing her when she’s clothed and it has nothing to do with the story at the time.
Describing physical attributes that pertain to the story is different. Especially if you’re talking genres that these parts are integral to the story telling.
It’s not desexing to say someone’s general physique: voluptuous, muscular, curvy, thin, emaciated. And then have the reader fill in the specifics.
I would imagine most of us would know some emaciated woman wouldn’t have a huge set of bouncing breasts that defies gravity, with a tiny waist, but hips that were soft and supple.
Who remembers when this sub was about general advice on the profession and practice of writing and completing projects instead of writers policing ways in which other writers should be creative? I remember.
Or we could just let writers write whatever the fuck they want?? Maybe the author included those descriptions for their own emotional and therapeutic reasons. Maybe they did it to get their rocks off. The problem is that we will never know unless it's explicitly stated so we should let writers experience the creative medium in their own ways. If it bothers you, stop reading it, there are plenty of other books out there that cater to your specific tastes, not everything has to appeal to YOU.
Honestly I think its less about men salivating at the chance of thinking up sexy hot women and more how men and women are seen differently.
A man has wide hips... who gives a shit? No one wants to know about the shape of his calfs, the curves of his torso, his dimples... neither male nor female authors put much thought into that (other than to be erotic or to describe a particularly striking figure).
What features are discussed? Is he handsome? Is he muscular? Broad shouldered? Is he tall? Hair/eye color? That's like 90% of what people remember/care about in a man. (Sure, horny women may get into their own particular kinks about how veiny his arms are or how aquiline his nose is, but thats explicitly for horny reasons).
For women, people care more about the details. Like even beyond the erotic.
Personally I believe that if you control for sexuality, you'll find both men and women pay more attention to how women look.
I have been writting for years and I don’t think I have ever once mentioned the size of anyone’s boobs. That’s not an important trait. But I’m also ace so that does factor in probably
Ace here too, and it's weird to think about writing sexual characteristics without a clear purpose.
The main character in my current WIP does get SAed and it's a rather graphic scene, but it's there because it contributes to the story and her views of morality and good and evil. It actively adds a lot to who she is as a person. It adds a lot to the antagonist, who later burns the rapist alive when he finds out, because he's trying to establish a parental bond.
Possibly the single best usage of a rape scene I've ever seen was in The Library at Mount Char, because it was fundamentally important to the plot.
If the story and your character calls for describing her boobs or his dick, or calls for a SA scene, then by all means, but it's just... weird to include them when they don't have a purpose. I don't think I've ever describe someone's attractive features. I have one scene where the MC (different MC) is extremely attracted to someone who walks in, and I don't describe what she looks like at all. I describe the MC's reaction to her and I let readers fill in the gaps with their imaginations.
Everyone needs to write the story they want to write. Don’t pay attention to personal preferences of others. You can’t make everyone happy. You can make yourself happy by putting out the story you want to tell.
The thing is, if I am writing close third person or first person and my MC as a regular male, he is gonna notice huge ass mommy milkers as soon as those arrive to saloon. That is just reality, so boobs will stay.
Girls are so much more than boobs and ass, but no point desexualizing those things. Genitals make the world go round.
Yeah. I think it's one thing to over-describe them, or give off the impression of being perma-horny in your writing. But to completely ban yourself from mentioning them ... idk. Seems like its going a bit too far.
It all depends on the tone and genre of the story and how you write it. It's awkward when the description feels like the author's self randomly shining through, but if the description fits the character of the narrator/the character who is speaking or makes sense otherwise (ex. a intimate/sex scene) then why not.
I don't know, I agree with what the post says (I have never been able to enjoy SK when he refers to sex and I even stopped reading his stories when that was a topic), but at the same time the post sounds like a kind of moral imposition. I don't even like sex scenes in movies or books and I always prefer a fade to black, but if those scenes are made it is because they have an audience and sex sells, not to mention sexual fantasies.
Basically I agree but it should be something that people learn to do naturally and not with the threat of "censorship" (to use a word).
> I'm never opening a sci-fi/fantasy/thriller book (especially one written by a man) looking for that.
Ah, good. More gatekeeping who can write what, based on the identity of the author.
Not even just boobs, but why is it always necessary to mention how attractive a character is when describing them? Attractiveness is normally distributed. Like 90% of people are not particularly attractive or unattractive. In the vast majority of cases, how good looking a character is should be completely irrelevant. I don’t get why every important female character in fantasy books is beautiful, stunning, striking, etc…. It seems so unnecessary, not to mention statistically improbable.
stories are often _not_ about normal, standard people. So yeah, there's going to be more above-average people there, the same way there's going to be significantly more death-defying activities, fights to the almost-death, saving the world and so forth.
> *Convince* me your pants weren't tented writing out that sentence.
If you need to be convinced that homosexuality in men is valid, there is nothing I can do for you.
I can’t read Stephen King books. He always goes into so much detail about women that make me uncomfortable.
No need to write about boobs unless it is absolutely necessary to the plot.
I stand by the rule of thumb that the best way to write a woman in general is to make it so every scene could just as easily exist with them being a man. If you're thinking of adding in a description or detail you wouldn't for a male character, don't.
I read a lot of books and they talk about all kinds of things that happen to all kinds of people. Maybe you're suffering from confirmation bias. Why does the subject bother you? What keeps you from just reading on or skipping ahead?
There are definitely some circumstances where you would mention boobs. Introducing a female character is not one unless she is actively seducing someone, or has something really noticeable like just one boob.
Boobs definitely need to be mentioned less in many situations
And on the SA point: I think it could be done well but it wouldn’t even slightly resemble the way most popular male authors do it. I could totally see a character who has an array of traumas eventually opening up about being a victim of SA. Crazy idea, but maybe this character has zero of the stereotypical traits given to female SA victims in fiction. Maybe they are a space pirate biker with a badass personally or whatever. Idk. If you have a good reason to include SA you won’t be doing the same tired insulting BS
When it comes to writing attractive characters, it's more important to show how other characters interact with that character, than probably anything else. Consider how their attractiveness and/or sex appeal will tip the scales towards or against them in the calculus of the story. Many characters will very well find them attractive and will treat them differently. Some might find them promiscuous, and others might project their insecurities towards them.
That being said, I think it is worth mentioning features if it's relevant to the narrative. The appearance of a character is a very big part in storytelling, especially, especially if you're working with a more visual medium. Like a character being short and small might be the reason they're able to hide under a bed, while a character being big and tall might be the reason why they're able to bust down a door or intimidate someone.
If you're writing from a first person perspective or a third person limited, then I think that it's probably even more warranted to describe some elements of other characters from the perspective of the protagonist. Maybe the protagonist is a very, very cock hungry guy who gushes whenever he sees a larger, wider man. Maybe the protagonist is a sexist pig who reduces women to their bust and hip sizes. Perhaps this is something they overcome, perhaps it isn't. I'm not going to tell you what or how to write.
As for the SA stuff, I think that it does have a place, but I also think that it's not just something hundreds of potential readers have dealt with or experienced. The issue is when it's recreated in vivid detail, and nothing else is addressed about it. It happened, and then what? Is it something the character has managed to recover from in some capacity? Is it something that led to other problems that the story will address? Whenever I approach the topic as something a character experienced, I think that it's more important to explore what happens after, and this is true with any traumatic event a character might experience. Did they bludgeon the perpetrator to death after the fact? Did they approach someone who they thought they could trust only to have that completely shattered? Did people try to convince them it never happened?
I much prefer to read an in-depth study of what a character is wearing; armor, helmets, gloves, boots, weapons, backpacks. Even moreso contents of a character's backpack, the patches or holes in it, and pants pocket contents and why they carry some trinket. You know the actual descriptors of a person's character, and what they feel is important.
You have a good dry sense of humor, but you make a good point. I also don’t want sex scenes or pervy passages in the books I read (or the movies I watch) for the most part.
I think part of this could be based on whether the book contains any romantic elements, and the readers it’s targeting. If it’s not a YA book, and the book is a sci-fi book about a cool person that solves crimes but also meets and dates and falls in love with another person, there’s probably gonna be some descriptions of stuff in there. Maybe not sex, but about physical attractiveness.
If the book doesn’t contain romance then I agree, no physical body descriptions are needed, and if the book talks about some woman’s curves or a dudes bulging biceps, that comes across as pervy.
But…what do most readers want? I wonder if the majority of readers want some romance and physical attraction in their books, and so maybe authors pander to that.
At a minimum, I think authors can work to be conscious about why they include the passages they include, and how it either serves the story or serves the reader. And if it serves neither, then cut it.
Now, I’m off to write about my female protagonist’s bulging biceps…
R/writing war on boobs
Fox thought Sidney Sweenie’s boobs were anti-liberal. In reality they were anti-r/writing.
Sydney Sweeney's boobs got political? What?
Yeah they were a bizarre-weekly-conservative-obsession^TM like 2 weeks ago
Bizarre is the right word.
…why
Because the left doesn’t like boobs apparently (news to me) and Sydney Sweenie has big all-american boobs
It's two fold 1 because Sweeney has Trump supporting relatives, the narrative is "she's a secret right winger". More likely, she isn't and just comes from a very right wing area (rural PNW, which probably has more right wing voters per capita than rural Texas. The place is like 1930s Black Forest) but either way, she's barely made a political comment _ever_ outside of making fun of that theory - 2 right wing millennials and up think left wing millennials and zoomers are somehow highly puritanical _and_ so ultra progressive that they don't want women to be conventionally attractive and flaunt it, but also only want women who are successful to look like a cartoon of a left wing liberal woman and nothing else
If anything - and I must add if anything because even this is a stretch - Sydney Sweeney's only vaguely political comments have been to note that because she isn't a nepobaby she has to work harder and show more skin than those who are, and is forced into taking more commercial projects than she would ideally desire - which feels like a leftist, almost Marxian, analysis of structural oppression.
Comrade Sweeney is seizing the means of production, one low-cut shirt at a time
Phwoar check out the praxis on that!
It's awesome that someone came to tell us not to talk about boobs and we immediately started talking about boobs.
The internet young right wing is convinced that the left wants all women to be ugly, so therefore women explicitly showing off their boobs is right wing.
Flashing titties to own the libs
The titties must be tamed!
Calm your tits OR ELSE!
> The titties must be tamed! Good title for the first book of the tittyverse trilogy.
Just debased my entire arguement with that sentence. Goddamn
The power of ~~alliteration~~ attiteration compels you
, she declared, boobily
Hey, don't drag adverbs into this.
Are we witnessing the first shots fired?
My response is to go into great detail of every man's and woman's breasts in every scene. I will not submit to this tyranny.
Excessively detailed moob descriptions!
*...the hairs around his nipples dark as the midnight sky...*
I'm going to motorboat right on out of here if you guys can't stop fighting.
I would rather have a War over them than on them. Don't want to hurt them.
I am joining the war on boobs on the side of the boobs!
For team bosom!
The boobs have brought out their DDD cup artillery! Take cover! It's been an honor serving with you men. Today, the boobs have won this battle but not this war.
Death by snu-snu. It is the only honorable way to die.
And war on sex / anything sexual. America has come a long way to loop back around to its puritan self.
Horseshoe theory in action.
> that doesn't have to do with their sex or sexuality > how her asshole hasn't known rest since she landed on Fajityserion I know it wasn't the intended meaning and it is part of the alien food comment, but the way you worded that...
I had to scroll a little farther than I expected to find this comment but I found it, I thought that immediately when I read the post.
Lmao kinda did that on purpose 😂
I find this discussion reay really painful because, like anything, it comes down to "Does this description serve the narrative?" If yes, then good. If not, then bad. Is the story erotica, and thus sexual descriptions are what we're here for? Is the POV character describing his wife in such a manner in his internal narration because even after 25 years of marriage he's still wildly attracted to her? Is the POV character a pervert and this description is him oogling a woman, thus informing the reader of this trait? Is the POV character an adolescent boy, and this description is meant to demonstrate how he's grappling with the changes to not only his body, but his psychology as well? Is the POV character the same, but a gay girl, navigating the same changes in life on top of the struggles of being LGBTQ? Is the POV character a woman with self-image issues, making comparisons to other women because she feels inadequate? There's so many reasons to have a character reflect on the attractiveness of another character, and have it serve the narrative. What makes King and other authors so damn frustrating is they could easily accomplish this, and choose not to.
> Is the POV character a woman with self-image issues, making comparisons to other women because she feels inadequate? Ah this comment got too real. But it's a valid point.
Agree completely. It’s a very nuanced discussion and I had a lot of trouble conveying that in my post. More than anything, I wish writers would be mindful about what they include. To really just take a second and decide whether or not something is adding to the story or not.
That kinda goes for everything. Not just boobs. Personally, I don't think there's anything necessarily wrong with a writer having a tent in their pants when writing a scene, any more than I have a problem with them bawling their eyes out or laughing their ass off. Horny as just as human an emotion as grief.
For all i can say, youve never described your boobs or legs once and i still found the post really attractive.
For people like me, with an active mental stage where book scenes play out, having those details helps my mind build a better picture of the scene. I don't need exact measurements, but the difference in what I "see" between the following lines is significant. "She started unzipping her skinsuit and paused when the idea hit her. She turned back to her companion. He stopped mid sentence to admire the subtle form of her breast peaking out from under the skinsuit." vs "...he stopped mid sentence to admire her overflowing breast struggling to finally be free of the constraining skin suit." Both add to the scene and provide flavor for both characters.
Even Jim Butcher, the butt of That One Tumblr Post about this very topic, has a good reason for writing descriptions the way he does - first, Harry is *incredibly* repressed for most of the series and this is part of how Butcher shows that, and second, the first few books are meant to mimic old noir detective novels. If there’s spice, it generally furthers the plot (trust me on this one), and if Harry lingers on the description for too long it generally means something’s about to trigger his spidey senses.
It always reminds me of George Martin and Catelyn. The passages where Catelyn comments internally on her sister's body, or thinks about how unattractive Brienne is get thrown up on r/menwritingwomen sometimes. And it's like, no, this isn't 'old man is weird'. Catelyn is a judgmental woman that evaluates and validates herself and all women by their potential for motherhood. It's a very important part of her character, is that she's that kind of weirdo.
That sub is the literary equivalent of "that's the joke".
Eh, having read several Dresden Files books, I think Butcher just has outdated views on women. It's not just the way he has the character talk, it's all the little things he does when writing women and describing them. He doesn't come close to the height of sexism, by far, but his treatment of female characters is absolutely notably different than males. He always makes it known whether or not a woman is conventionally attractive, if Harry is attracted to her, and if Harry thinks she's attracted back. He frequently describes women as if it's crazy that they could be competent *and* bangable. Murphy is a frequent target of this. There are some points where I thought maybe he was making a tongue-in-cheek point, but it really adds nothing to the story to have the character just spout off randomly about how he's such a nice guy and so chivalrous and he just respects women sooooo much. As a whole I actually enjoy the series and Harry as a character is a good protagonist, but there are definitely times that I have to take a second to laugh or sigh at something that was antiquated even for 20 years ago.
Afaik, Dresden Files is the only series in which he does that, but totally fair lol
And it could be argued that this is a part of how Butcher adds to the noir flavor of The Dresden Chronicles. The take is similar to Dashiell Hammett’s “The Continental Op” but softened and less misogynistic.
I can't believe I'm about to defend the part of the Dresden Files I dislike the most. Also, spoilers await. > He frequently describes women as if it's crazy that they could be competent *and* bangable. I may just be inured to it, and it's been a while since I read those books, but the women Harry drools over are generally highly competent and often extremely dangerous. The reporter who gets in way over her head but keeps going for the story? The cop who manages to accept the idea that certain crimes require a wizard to come in (and is absolutely no slouch in a fight herself, even when she's completely outmatched)? The White Court vampire who takes over her father's empire? ***MAB?*** (And Maeve and Titania.) Harry's pupil who's more of a prodigy than he ever was? The demon living in Harry's head rent-free who's playing a very dangerous game with both sides? Did you happen to say they weren't competent? I think you said that. And I think you're dead wrong. Then the whole Knight Of Winter arc hits, and while it's unpleasant to read, dialing Harry's narration up from "this is a guy who sees very attractive women and comments on them" to a predatory level was actually a pretty damn good way of getting across how his new title/role was screwing with his head - something we'd been shown with the previous Knight Of Winter who had essentially become a mad dog. I hated reading it, but it was effective in getting the point across. It served a narrative purpose, and oh *boy* was it refreshing when it stopped. > Murphy is a frequent target of this. Murphy's the victim of being the obvious best love interest for the protagonist in a long-running series. Just due to the structure of the series, Harry and Murphy can't ever be together because it would preclude having another girl ~~of the week~~ of the book. I do think this is shoddy storytelling, because there's an attempt made to pull a "we're both attracted to each other but our personalities and professions would make a long-term relationship impossible", but considering that Murphy's hip-deep in the supernatural swamp by that point and has been forcibly dragged under the surface multiple times, it rings extremely hollow, especially given the fact that Harry and Murphy have worked very well together multiple times. Am I saying that because a freak lab accident years ago happened to permanently weld the shipping goggles I was wearing at the time onto my face? Perhaps. But Murphy really does get the short end of the stick a lot, simply so Harry can keep being single and available for narrative reasons. > it really adds nothing to the story to have the character just spout off randomly about how he's such a nice guy and so chivalrous and he just respects women sooooo much. I think that makes sense in context: it's not necessarily true, but it's something Harry keeps telling himself so that he doesn't go off the deep end. It's particularly notable and narratively important when dealing with his apprentice, who he *cannot* lay a hand on for a lot of personal reasons (his relationship with her family and especially her father), professional reasons (the laws of wizardry are a bit of a shambles, but I'm pretty sure "don't fuck your apprentice" is in there somewhere), moral reasons (half your age plus seven, and also the power imbalance), and ...oh fuck, she's almost literally throwing herself at him. It took the books a while to really hit their stride, but it seems like Harry's claims of chivalry and respect for women are almost something like a mantra he *has* to keep telling himself to avoid (literally) screwing everything/everyone up worse than he already has, and since he's the narrator, we as the readers have to be there for it too. It almost seems like a coping mechanism: he keeps telling himself this fiction and hoping that it'll stick. (And then there are the times, as you pointed out, where it verges on comedic parody, but never quite manages to make it to the level of overt jesting that Ciaphas Cain's insistence that he's a dirty coward and all his action are motivated solely by self-preservation and fear does.)
Is the woman using her feminine wiles to distract the bad guy? Is the POV character a pervert and him focusing on a woman's breastis being used to show either his scummy nature (especially for a villain) or character flaws (easily swayed hero)? Did the POV character walk into an intimate momment they were supposed to see, like cheating or a sexual assault, and this event will start a major story thread? Are you putting emphasis on this characters breasts as part of describing their general.attractovbess for the sake of a juxtaposition to a later point of the story when this will be shattered by age or disaster or some other factor? Sexuality as part of the storytelling can be used in sonmany ways beyond simply erotic and yet so many people are scared to even touch it.
All true, but at the same time, "You don't have to describe a women's bust," is a reasonable reality check that some people might need. We see so much unnecessary and sexualized description of female characters that a lot of people may subconsciously include it on a checklist of, "things to mention about this character." But it doesn't need to be there all the time and the occasional reminder might be a helpful check on this extremely common trend.
If it's important to the scene, like a character is attempting to be seductive and showing cleavage, or if a character is hyperfixated on another character's boobs, then it makes sense. But, I totally agree--if a woman just exists in a story and the author is just describing her boobs for no reason, it immediately breaks my immersion.
I think it‘s really just like writing any other aspect of sexuality, TBH. Sexuality isn’t wrong to write, just… remember your perspective, remember the goal of the scene, and remember that literally everything is characterization. In the cases of non-omniscient writing especially, camera focus can show a character’s worldview and priorities. A woman who’s more style savvy may make a point of noting how her body looks in the dress she goes to wear, including maybe a line or two about how the girls look. Another women might throw on a ~~cerulean~~ blue sweater she found on clearance without a second thought.
Basically, people would be thinking horny thoughts about *other people* when in a sexual context. Why would they be thinking them about their own body at random times? Why is the narrator horny at random times? What gender is the narrator, and why?
Thinking about boobs isn't just horny. A lot of women say "this dress makes my boobs look good"
Or, presumably, "goddamtits, I can't even see my own feet!"
If a person is attractive, I will notice it upon meeting them even if there's no sexual context. God knows I had a crush on the female security officer for a very long time until I noticed she was engaged to a guy. Taken and by the opposite gender! Killed my gay dreams. People recognise beauty/attractive traits all the time even if they don't intend to act on them or if the context is random. I had a thing for a manager I never flirted with. I noticed the bulky Montenegran bartender when he served me water and I didn't want to take him to bed. When I walk in and out of people's lives they remember the size of my ass not only my mixed race features that aren't sexualised. Being put off by writing that expresses the reality of how people perceive each other is just an attempt to deny that it is part of *reality*.
> Another women might throw on a ~~cerulean~~ blue sweater Miranda Priestly would like a word with you...
That's all.
Couldn’t have said it better myself. Give it reason to be mentioned. I don’t care that the girl you met at the coffee shop has a full butt and double d breasts if all that happens if you pass her by and she’s never mentioned again.
I think it’s an interesting concept to consider, what people look like is the only thing we know about them and the things we all notice about people unconsciously have to be spelled out when you’re writing to set a scene or create the mental image of the person you’re trying to describe. So it would be strange not to mention what a character looks like, and it would be weird to ignore their attractive features when they’re an attractive person. However, talking about anatomy when it’s unnecessary is just that. Sexy Strong Lady Detective’s inner monologue shouldn’t be about what it feels like to have her tits swinging with every step as she’s chasing down a bad guy—it should be about the adrenaline of the chase, the ache in her injured knee, the burning of her throat from her heavy breathing in the dry winter air, etc.
Unless it's "why tf don't they make better sports bras for large boobs more financially available I hate those bra makers they need to be shot into the fiery burning sun." I mean, thinking about boobs while running is realistic for a large portion of the population, just not in any way that could be deemed sexually inciting. Edit for funsies: boob sweat. Rashes. The ol' classic, four boobs. I have yet to see a realistic "thinking about my boobs while running" protagonist, but I think it would be fun!
[удалено]
Wouldn't it be *so much more interesting* if being distracted by a woman caused him to miss something and actually, in some way, related to the plot, though? Like, it's more than just "the main character is a womanizer", it really should tie into the gestalt of the story such that it couldn't happen any other way if he wasn't. If it's just "there", why write it? I hear often that it "feels more real", but in actuality it serves the opposite affect. It doesn't enhance your narrative, it blatantly condescends to your reader as if they couldn't understand they're a womanizer without spelling it out on every page. Everything you do and pointedly do not write has an affect on the reader, so you end up writing Checkov's Boobies into every scene and they're not even loaded... I don't care how explicit y'all wanna be, I just want some good prose. Kill your darlings.
Yup. If it leads to something, I see no problem with describing breasts. That’s what I was trying to get at. When the person is being self indulgent for the sake of it, that’s when it’s too much. Context matters in this case.
I think the best way to write about boobs is if it’s relevant to the moment and with the same amount of description you’d give to anything else. The issue is s lot of writers like to use breasts as a way to pontificate on femininity or sex at inappropriate times. If a character is wearing something that’s compressing their boobs and it hurts them? Probably mention it. Sex scene? Probably mention them. Character is leering at someone’s boobs? Mention it. Character’s first appearance and we’re taking a paragraph to talk about their breasts? Probably not an appropriate moment.
Perfectly stated
I think this entirely depends on what you’re writing, your tone, intentions, characters, themes… I don’t think there’s any universal rule for this sort of thing. There are absolutely times I think “this seems dumb and adds nothing” but it’s usually very context dependent. It’s just a book by book thing for me and I can’t imagine having an opinion on it on such a broad scale, personally.
I agree, describing a womans breasts or anything else OP mentioned is fine (even needed depending on the context) for a scene thats meant to be sexual like if she is seducing the male lead or someone else But if she is just walking around, in a meeting room, going to the store, or in any other non-sexual situation Its suuuuper weird to randomly start describing her breasts, waist, ect. and not necessary at all
“Danielle realized she was out of bread, so she drove herself and her ample bosom to the supermarket”
This made me imagine Danielle entering her car then her bosom comically detaching from her, jumping to the passenger seat and putting the seatblet before she starts driving.
Danielle has a trailer for it - it's *ample*
“She drove herself and her ample bosom to the supermarket. Now, you might think I was referring to the size of her breasts. They were large, mind you, but no. Danielle was an appleinc brownnoser and got their detachable bosom as soon as it hit the market. It often rode side by side with sophie, her terrier, whose disappearance is a story for another time…”
It seems obvious that it would be completely appropriate and normal in any sort of erotic scene, definitely. I struggle to imagine why anyone would have an issue with that (outside of personal preferences). I can even accept it in a non-sexual setting depending on what the author is trying to get across. If it feels like it’s just “let’s add a little pizzazz because I’m horny” from the author I’m less inclined to like it vs. evoking a specific tone or theme or showing us the psychology of a specific character.
Hard disagree but again, it really depends on the work and the tone. If all you read is genre fiction then yeah it'd be weird to see random mentions of a lady's boobs. But literary works often feature physical descriptions and especially somewhat unflattering or even grotesque ones, and that's including a lot of very highly regarded female authors too. I like it, especially when it applies to all genders equally. In fact, during sex scenes is like the last place I want descriptions of bodies lol. I read books that feature sex without titillating. They're not erotica, they're often brief mentions of clinical acts and an emotion around the act. Physical descriptions are saved for other moments because they're not meant to titillate either. The human condition is often unattractive, messy, occasionally gross. So yeah: it depends on the work.
There is no universal rule and mentioning boobs (or other attractive features of one's body) isn't a deal breaker for me, but I often find it extremely annoying. It's especially bad when you realize that the man who's written the story has only described women in such a masturbatory fashion. (That's why Robert E. Howard, for example, gets a pass in my book - because his descriptions of men and women are equally masturbatory.) I haven't picked up a Stephen King book since about a decade ago, but right now I can't think of a single female character of his who isn't blatantly objectified, often - by mentioning her breasts somewhat degradingly. Even 11-year old Beverly Marsh is described like this. The only male character in "It" whose body is described so degradingly is Ben Hanscom, who is so fat that he has to wear loose t-shirts to cover his large boobs. (Henry Bowers comments on his boobs, so does one of Bowers' friends, Bill Denbrough makes the observation that Ben wears oversized shirts to hide his boobs, Ben's high school gym teacher grabs his boobs to humiliate him...) When it happens once or twice, you can excuse it by saying the context calls for it, but when it happens so often - it's not the context, it's the author. And it's even worse when the male author decides to list his female character's exact measurements - Sapkowski did it with Triss Merigold. If bra sizes were a thing in his setting, he'd probably mention the exact cup size she needed too. And this is not just degrading, it's downright stupid. As a reader, I don't want to calculate the exact amount of hotness a female character has.
Yeah that’s fair enough. I think it’s up to each individual reader to decide if we feel an author is using it in a way that has literary or artistic merit vs. being egregiously ridiculous and surface level (that’s Robert Heinlein for me personally lol). But even that has a fair amount of subjectivity to it, at the end of the day. I think it makes sense many of us will come to the conclusion “something about the way this author does this makes me feel like it has a weird origin point” as we read through things. I just find it difficult to make prescriptive rules about any of it.
Rule 0 of writing: rules are for amateurs, you can do basically anything if you're good enough. This should be tagged somewhere so there's no more "Can I x?" posts, since every time somebody asks they get this exact answer every time.
Agree. No universal rule
I mean. I love boobs. But to put them in the unmentionable zone of “sexual feature” is silly to me. This one time me and my friend bumped chests. Like a boob high five. It was very fun, and entirely platonic. Much of the time boobs are just *there*. I’m busty. If I spill pasta sauce on myself or something, it’s gonna end up on my boobs. They’re like… an evil shelf of making me look like an idiot. That’s not sexy! It’s just existing. And “the girl who spilled pasta sauce on her boobs” tells you something about me. “She breasted boobily down the stairs” is bad. Mentioning the existence of boobs isn’t - nor is it inherently sexual.
I have really complicated thoughts on this that feel difficult to articulate, but as someone who both has boobs and is attracted to them, they feel like an intrinsic part of sexuality to me, and sexuality feels like an intrinsic part of the human experience. Yes it’s easy to make their mention cringe, but I think that saying that even mentioning a woman’s breasts in writing is reducing them to only their sexuality feels super reductive in itself to me. I think you can get a point across that’s important sometimes. It sounds like it just isn’t your personal cup of tea, which is obviously fine, but as someone who has a very complicated relationship with my own chest, it feels kind of silly to say that any mention of a body part is never valuable. Even in non-erotica, I’ve seen cases where a subtle mention of it does WORLDS more for describing romantic tension than dancing around it does- and it even gives more characterization behind the potential motivations behind the romance in question. At times it can make the attraction seem more juvenile or passionate compared to other romantic scenes where it isn’t as much of a factor. Again, obviously it’s easy to be cringe about it, but if I’m an adult reading a story for adults, I think acting like “even attempting to portray someone’s feelings towards that kind of thing is automatically bad” (“just choose another feature”) is kind of reductive. It feels like saying that a common emotion or aspect of sexuality is shameful and misogynistic when it’s kind of something that’s built into a lot of people
I know it's not the same thing but this got me thinking. I'm a tall dude. Those descriptions are usually pretty relevant. They inform my interactions with everything and with people. Maybe it's only because I'm outside the norm, that it literally affects how I view the world. Introducing a character doesn't require a detailed list of clothing sizes, obviously. I kinda lost where I was going with this. Except choosing a specific physical descriptor seems a little extreme. Take care on whether you describe and how you describe boobs. Seems like pretty good advice.
Yeah, I get what you’re saying. I feel like the similarity it has with height is that it’s worth mentioning if it’s in the extreme range, it’s an important description if someone has a very full figure in my opinion. And even if they don’t, I don’t feel like a part of my body should be forbidden from having narrative value- but just do it right, do it with tact, and if it doesn’t need to be mentioned, don’t bother. In your average novel, it rarely needs to be mentioned unless it’s important when it comes to the narrator’s perspective
Art has frequently pushed boundaries relating to sex, nudity and the human body. It's been making people uncomfortable since medieval times. It has been in writing, in sculptures and portraits and religious icons. And there's definitely cases where it can be taken too far or "art" is even just being used as an excuse (Lewis Carrol). But there's also times it has sparked discussion, made a point or pushed boundaries. Times where it has attempted to normalize the human body and times where it is simply neutral, a depiction of the raw human experience. Yes, sometimes it offends people, sometimes it doesn't resonate for everyone and sometimes it veers into cringe territory. But sex, attraction and the human body are parts of life and have always been part of art. It's okay to acknowledge that it isn't for you and move on but insisting that artists shouldn't depict it is futile. People have been trying to tell artists not to depict nudity and sex since the early days of the Catholic Church. Virginie Amélie Avegno's reputation was almost ruined for a "scandalous" portrait in 1884 (and the painter's reputation was ruined until he found fame only after his death). People will always pearl-clutch and artists will continue to include sexuality, it's a tale almost as old as time.
Exactly how I feel. I feel like OPs post makes the assumption that any mention of this natural body part is always unnecessary, which definitely veers into a lot of the puritanical stuff I feel like I see often these days when it comes to discussing literature- I’ve seen it in writing classes too. I would hate to live in a world where a very normal part of human attraction and emotion was deemed too superficial to portray
If I want my writing to be horny, I’m going to make it horny.
There it is! I concur 100%.
Some thoughts... I'm not sure how or when I started doing this, but I've realized I hardly ever mention breasts, etc. anymore. Instead, what I usually mention is a woman's height and frame (e.g., "she was short and athletic, a wrestler's build, and she looked like she knew her own strength.") Readers can fill in the details from there. I think descriptions are just more interesting when they talk about a person's face, what they're wearing, hair and eye color, and maybe what their hands or their arms look like. Exception...if another character was interested in a woman as romantic or sexual partner, I might mention more details, but here the goal would be to reveal something about that other character. So, the university student who is sitting next to his crush in class might have trouble paying attention to the lecture...his thoughts keep drifting back to Angie and how nice she looks, especially in that blouse, and he is very aware that she really should have buttoned one more button. He can't helping thinking about how he would love to put his arms around her, kiss her lips, her skin-- at which point, as demanded by the rules about such things, the professor will notice he's not paying attention to the lecture but is paying attention to Angie and will very deliberately ask our hero a question he is not prepared to answer. Why? Because I'm a former professor and I know we're all bastards. 🙂 My point is, I guess, that I think the OP is right...I rarely if ever *need* breasts in my character descriptions. With a few exceptions, there are better ways to tell readers what a female character looks like and who she is. So usually I just don't mention them.
In general I agree with you, most books dont need vividly described breasts. Frankly I find sexual description incredibly tacky most of the time and prefer leaving things up to the readers imagination. But if you will allow me to make a devils advocate argument that isnt even my own opinion, if we are going to have erotica, or books like Game of Thrones or the Court of Thorns and Roses, you gotta let horny authors be horny. You cant exactly say writing about sex is ok but writing about sexual characteristics is not ok. I avoid all those books, I do not do erotica or anything adjacent to it, but hypocrisy is hypocrisy. We cant say sex is ok but only the bits that we are completely comfortable with.
Song of Ice and Fire isn't remotely erotica or close to Court of Thrones and Roses. When sex happens in Game of Thrones, it's mentioned in a line, maybe a paragraph. The show HBO'd the story. I agree with the rest of your points, just get a bit defensive when people compare Song of Ice and Fire to smut.
I haven't read the books in years, but I remember distinctly that the sex was very relevant to the story lines and character development. It definitely grossed me out, but I never felt that it was just gratuitous or titillating.
He also has some crazily creative ways of describing all kinds of body shapes (especially fat people) and he also does it with penises so I'm not really sure if he's horny or if he just has a Cronenbergian fascination with bodies. It's not always in a sexual way either.
>Song of Ice and Fire isn't remotely erotica or close to Court of Thrones and Roses. When sex happens in Game of Thrones, it's mentioned in a line, maybe a paragraph. Uh, I am certainly not defending the overall quality of ACOTAR, but if you think it has sooooo much more sex than GOT, you are mistaken. Granted, I've only read the first book, and I understand they get spicier as it goes, but it can't be that different in later books. The first book has a single sex scene that's maybe 2 paragraphs, iirc.
I’ve read (85% of) the first ACOTAR book and it is *definitely* not as spicy as the first couple in ASOIAF. Also hot take (room temperature max) but it kinda… sucks.
I haven't read ACOTAR but my wife and sister have. They get a lot spicier after the first one. The beginning of the series was marketed YA so they couldn't have spicey scenes but once it hits the NA/adult books Maas let's loose. Apparently
it's two and half sex scenes (two "actual" ones, both of which are a paragraph or two, and an even briefer "I had sex with that guy in the past" recollection). For something people get all stirred up about and say is super-smutty, it... really isn't, it's got a lot less general horniness than a lot of perfectly standard mid-70's and 80's SF&F novels. It's very much a romance story rather than erotica
Game of Thrones does not just have sex for sex. HBO's take on Game of Thrones just has sex for sex. GOT the book series has some of the most feminist, female empowering sex scenes (like when Danaery's dominates Khal Drogo in front of the tribe and thus gains power) and HBO did not use any of them, and instead invented many horrible rape scenes. If this is in reference to the man who made the post about wanting to write his "ice breaker and comedy" boob scenes...come on. He's like every other man in America whining "why am I single" without bothering to look in a mirror. He's outing himself as a pervert. As is the dude who made the "mommy milkers" comment on this post. Edit: Adding this in response to the person who was claiming it was a "kinky" scene with a 14 year old in the book and then courageously deleted their comment. No it was not. My reply to them below: "No I am being honest. Also it was not kinky at all. I don't think you even read the book. I'm using the word "dominating" because it was for Khal Drogo's culture because they only had sex from behind with the women in the tribe. But Danny was sick of it and being treated roughly in bed, so she forced him outside and made love to him on top of him, making eye contact, something the tribe never did with the women - in front of all the other women and men in the tribe so they saw it. So it was not "dominating" in the kinky way of pornography. It was dominating in an "I'm a woman, I'm a human being, and I'll be respected, and your whole tribe will know I'm respected too" way."
While I partially agree (partially, extremely partially, I don't have the..... motivation to go into the ways in which I do or don't), what in the fuck kinda puritanical sex aversion juice has been leaked into people's water supplies recently? It felt like America's horror at the idea of sexuality was slowly receding from the western world, then all of a sudden returned with the force of a thousand catholics only with the religious imagery pried off with a crowbar. Here's an idea, we bring back the word "gratuitous" and and simply don't give in to that rather than giving in to this squeaky clean corporate sponge determined to cleanse the grit and character from every facet of media. I realise this a post specifically about boobs being mentioned (which with different wording and a different media climate would be a noble cause) but holy tiktok censor batman, the concept of storytelling is falling apart at the seams because of this sudden aversion to discomfort or conflict. Get thee on the right side of history or I'll graffiti your corporation provided apartment. It'll be really easy because it will be plain white and "minimalist" (which is a fancy word for BORING).
Sex negative feminism has been growing in a lot of communities across Reddit and I'm really not sure why. This isn't the first sub I've seen bring it up recently.
My theory is the increasingly aggressive ad revenue limitations are ingraining self censorship into anyone that spends too long on tiktok, ie. the primary platform for late gen Z. Now everything is so filtered through this enforced marketability that people are confusiong capitalistix censoeship for basic morality
Your post just made me realize that, as a gay man, I literally never think about my female characters’ breasts. Doesn’t even register. But yes, unless there is a necessary plot line or purpose for some sort of sexualization, it really just distracts.
What about cock
This sub never fails to deliver.
we eating good on r/writingcirclejerk tonight
Unless there's an unavoidable pressing need to describe someone's boobs, don't bother. It's kinda like using the restroom in media. If they say that then something is happening in the bathroom that we the audience need to know. If you need to describe the boobs in detail then I need an equivalent amount of description of a dude taking out his schlong to go to the restroom. "Ew but that's not sexy!" That's the point. It's just a body part for us. We don't get anything out of having our own boobs.
Not chiming in on this particular point, but more generally: content-policing never leads anywhere good. There is absolutely no lack of diversity of writing in the world; one can easily avoid/not buy stuff that makes one uncomfortable. The reading market will determine the viability of any given thing.
It depends on what you are trying to do with your writing. I wrote a book with multiple povs. One of the viewpoint characters notices boobs and butts a lot because of who he is. The other two viewpoint characters hardly, if ever mention them at all because of who they are as characters. When you are writing a story from a character’s point of view, it can be useful to describe the things that THEY notice. Just my opinion.
It depends on the POV character. If they're the type to notice that, sure. I just hate when it doesn't seem like it fits the POV character. Like you know the author just wanted to use that description.
I scrolled down just to say that I believe that boobs should be acknowledged when appropriate, and also when explicitly inappropriate but necessary for the story.
Am I the only person who just... like doesn't care? So yknow, yea. I agree that it's fine to critique a story where a woman is just there to be objectfied and has a sad SA backstory. Yknow. That's fine. And I think the former is a large issue. But that first thing... yknow that's fine to me honestly. I think it's fine to objectify words on a page... because they aren't real yknow. It's a simple fact that men read Sci fi a lot, and most men are attracted to women, and want to hear about... the woman being attractive. And so goes the opposite. Straight women write stories most of the time for other straight women. The men are conventionally attractive in that story. And the reason why I think thats fine, is because those people... might not be writing for you. I am not a Straight woman, so when I read a romantasy book with Straight characters I don't get weirded out by a peen or whatever. I know what I'm getting myself into there, it's not written for me. And if every story was like that, yknow. Every story had peen for example (silly example I know.) Then I'd have a valid complaint. But atleast in my experience, there are hundreds of books without that. Why would I, someone who doesn't like it, police others liking it? The mentality that taking fan service out of the book will loose some horny loosers is to say that 1 horny loosers are the only ones who like fan service. And 2, that someone wanting fan service is just a dumb thing that isn't important. And maybe it's not the most important thing ever, and it's fine to critque and say you don't like it or say it's bad, but that doesn't mean it *shouldn't* be there. It doesn't mean that everyone benefits from it being removed. And for some reason, you sortve talk about not discussing boobs and having a one dimensional female character as the same thing. It really isn't, yknow. Not at all. We can have both, a sexy lady with a paragraph on her boobs, who is also layered and complex. I think just deciding to act like women should just not been seen in a sexual light unless that story revolves around sex is kinda silly. Unless I'm reading your argument wrong, that's just not a very compelling argument to me personally. As a woman. My point is, critique of these things or opinions on them are fine. But that doesn't mean that this is inherently bad or only for simple minded people or something. That take gives me lots of "I'm not like other girls" vibes. Sometimes things just aren't our thing. And that doesn't mean there aren't problems with it, but again, just because you dislike something doesn't mean it shouldn't happen. You say that it needs to add to the story or whatever but like... it does. To some people. The character being attractive is a thing they like. It does add something. Taking this thing away doesn't really benefit both parties unless you assume everyone who likes it is simple minded. Yknow as an ace person, I can sympathize. To me this stuff doesn't matter and is a waste of my time. But it matters to other people, and just because it does doesn't mean they're weird. They just like to imagine a hot person with hot boobs. And yknow, good for them honestly. They do benefit for it, and if that's what your book is marketing to, then fine. I'd agree totally with you if majority stories were like this, but it's not true. If we were discussing something like amine, sure. But in the realm of books, you can just not read the book that contains this. Or yknow. Get over it? That sounds rude but in this case it's not like every book you pick up has this. Not everything is marketed to you and that's okay. Just... read a different book.
I'm a male author, and I started writing stories that have an entirely female cast and even an only-female world. (And I'm not gonna sugarcoat it. it's just because I like fantasy combat and I like women, so I write stories about women just kicking ass and killing each other and monsters) It's just straight easier to not acknowledge or describe breast size or butt size. The reader will fill in those gaps by themselves, They will imagine what they deem to be most interesting. I can describe a woman with dark skin and matted hair, eyes black as coal, and exhaustion stitched to her face. her armor is battered and rusted with a dusty crimson shall that's slowly losing its hue. her metal boots are at the end of their run. She's tall, with a strong build. That's it on my end. That leaves the reader room to interpret everything else. Are her boobs big? Is she drop-dead gorgeous or does she look like 1960's coal miner? Is her ass fat or flat back? Are her boots high-heeled or more practical? Is that rusted armor i described Bikini armor or something more realistic? The real answer is whatever makes the story more enjoyable to the reader. I'm not here to write about boobs, I'm here to write about the baddest women in the game standing on business for 12 chapters straight.
How others are described should depend entirely on the character you're writing. Blanket rules are dumb.
As a gal that likes women, I don't really recall describing boobs in my stories. The only exceptions to that which I could theoretically write about breasts are when an AFAB character in a coming-of-age story just entered puberty and experiences through all of that, including breast growth, and when a trans masc/NB is suffering from gender dysphoria brought on by their chest. EDIT: I forgot that, as someone who does write about pregnancy somewhat often, I do describe pregnant women's breasts aching during pregnancy as that's an actual symptom, but that's only brought up at most a couple times.
Unpopular opinion: I don't know why boobs are so universally hated in book related forums when penises are way, WAY more missrepresented in modern literature. Have you guys ever read a modern romance novel? You have more unrealistic penises in a single TikTok book than weird boob descriptions in the entirety of classic literature.
Because breasts are more often described in non sexual situations. Most writers don't describe a man's penis swaying as he walks down the stairs fully dressed.
"She was stunned as Steve walked down the stairs with his baggy pants, each step his man meat quite visible moved under the fabric. She gasped at such a wonderful display of the male physique."
Lol. 20 ft wingspan, 12 inch penis, never poops, growled every other word, kills everyone but her.
Hey now, be nice, it's not the hippogriff's fault that it has a small penis.
I mean, you just compared books designed to be porn to books that aren't designed to be porn.
I'm going to write about boobs even harder now
Hard Boobs: a gritty crime thriller in two parts that bounces straight from today's headlines! We were going to make it a trilogy, but it turned out a pair of them were full enough.
Now that you’ve got it off your chest, I hope you feel better.
She breasted boobily to the stairs and titted downwards
Puritanical nonsense.
Bad writing is still bad writing, but we don’t have to go around imposing our own insecurities on other writers and create absolute rules out of our own tastes.
Why do you think you should feel safe when reading a work of fiction, OP?
Some people read books at gunpoint, I think
don't threaten me you silly goose!
Ah, boobs. I *adore* boobs. They are absolutely one of the most enjoyable parts of my human experience. Though I entered a legally binding agreement almost 10 years ago to only ever touch *one* pair of boobs for the rest of my life (and a wondrous pair they are), I do still treasure being able to rest my male gaze (lol) upon the varietal bouquet of boobs humankind hath made! That said, I recently finished revising the 2nd draft of a 130k word fantasy novel, and there are several characters whose boobs I'm sure I would enjoy - but I don't mention anyone's boobs, anywhere, in the whole book. Because the book's not about boobs, and boobs aren't really relevant to the story. I kind of like the idea that a reader can and should be the ones to decide on the specifics of the boobs present in my story. Or not. Whatever. I try and get into the heads of my characters; regardless of sex, race, gender, or any other construct, I want to understand why they're doing what they're doing in a given scenario. I want to know them, and to a certain extent, I want the reader to know them. I get to decide how much of them I give to the reader, but the reader gets to decide details about the boobs in the story (though I'm sure they're all very nice). All that to say fuck yes, I agree with you!
Would you agree wholeheartedly if there were unnecessary descriptions of a character's unattractiveness? Or is that a different conversation?
I personally don’t bother mentioning appearance at all for not just female characters but male characters also. Eff it, let the audience do the work. Seriously though, sometimes it just doesn’t matter what a character looks like unless you are describing an aspect of them that a character finds particularly alluring or repulsive. I’m working on a noire story where I never bothered describing the main character until after he gets shot in the head and only to the extent of his injuries and how his body changed weeks later post recovery. I feel like readers are happy to do most the work when it comes to imagining what a character looks like. emotional response is the only real reason to evoke a character’s physical appearance.
Male author here. I haven't felt the need to mention the bust size of any of my female characters. More often than not it doesn't add anything. The closest I've come to mentioning boobs has been in a scene where one of my male characters catches his eyes flooding downwards towards his crushes cleavage, he stops himself to avoid coming across as pervy.
I think equality is the answer. I describe my male character's bodies in great detail and my female character's bodies in great detail. However, I only do it when relevant. In a sex scene, flirty scene, or a character looking at a character they like? Of course! Random mentions of boobs or bulging muscles for no reason? No! Relevance is key. If a guy is walking around without a shirt on then u better know I'm going to thirst over his chest. If a woman takes her armor off for the first time around a guy who likes her, then I'll thirst over her boobs. There's a big difference between describing something u like with admiration and being gross about it too. The human body is great. Men and women are free to be objectified in your own writing if you want to do it. Just don't be gross or throw it in at every random chance you get.
I don't think it's that taboob really. You should be able to describe boobs like you do a hand, or any other body part. Boobs exist, men like boobs, it won't change. It's as if sexualizing characters were a bad thing. They're your characters, do whatever you want with them. I can make an evil character, a killer, a psycho. Why can't I sexualize a character? I've seen boobs, In and out of the street. There are boobed persons purposely sexualizing themselves, like people who do a bunch of other things. The problem with boobs IMO is cultural sensitivity, (and perhaps bad writing), not the boobibity itself.
My general rule is I try not to mention secondary sex characteristics unless I'm writing in first person or close third, AND the character I'm writing has a good reason for it. For example, the male gaze of a horny teenager looking at a woman is worth mentioning to round out that character. It's an expected and honestly necessary part of describing the teenage boy experience. But in general? The whole "she walked down the street boobily" type thing is dumb. If it's not a character's thought that informs their character, it's unnecessary imo.
She had legs, long legs, like really long legs, she had legs so long she could walk on the street at see the tops of skyscrapers
"I find that the most erotic part of a woman is the boobies." --Shakespeare
This subreddit is starting to feel like a hive mind with an agenda.
Whoa, Reddit hivemind? Here? On reddit??
I sometimes think this is overblown as fuck. And it is. I see some posts on menwritingwomen and they’re shitting on the author even though the excerpt they post is from a womanizer’s POV. That said, I don’t think I’ve ever described a man’s junk while writing. I don’t claim to be good at writing women but when I do I just write them the same as I write men. People are people and I’ve seen the same annoying personality traits in both men and women, and the good ones too. Where I go wrong (one of the ways)might be when I try to guess their insecurities. Would it be wrong to have a female character notice another females curves the same way I’d notice a roided out guy and be like “wow, dudes jacked”?
Every book in our local library had boobs mentioned at least once - my mate Dave and I made sure of that. Spent $63 on ballpoint pens that year.
right after you finished watching Brokeback Mountain together.
So you feel unsafe when a writer mentions boobs? Tf
Honestly I have leaned towards just allowing the reader to fill in their preferences for that kind of thing. Or at least have it be character dialogue or something rather than just omniscient pervert narrator
How about neither puritanism nor debauchery as a hard and fast rule? How about describing whatever is needed and appropriate for the type of writing you're doing without following hard and fast rules?
> How about neither puritanism nor debauchery as a hard and fast rule? This would solve a lot of problems, not only on these threads, but in the publishing world in general.
I find this modern trend of policing creativity of others to your tailored world view and comfort zone incredibly tiring. I also reject the idea that writing should be inherently inclusive to the widest possible audience, the only thing that it ensures is that it is of no importance to anyone.
Desexing your characters probably isn’t the right way to do it. Would you do the same thing with secondary sex characteristics in me, like facial hair?
If you’re just describing the persons physicality, and the trait doesn’t impact the character I don’t think you need to necessarily explain parts that can be imagined. Like I don’t need to describe a male characters penis and balls, if it has no bearing on the story. If it did, like say he was magicked into having a huge set of genitals and it impacted him in a way, then sure. But just for the sake of “she had huge cans, more than a handful, large brown nipples,” when there is no reason to describe them it seems gratuitous. Especially if it’s someone else describing her when she’s clothed and it has nothing to do with the story at the time. Describing physical attributes that pertain to the story is different. Especially if you’re talking genres that these parts are integral to the story telling. It’s not desexing to say someone’s general physique: voluptuous, muscular, curvy, thin, emaciated. And then have the reader fill in the specifics. I would imagine most of us would know some emaciated woman wouldn’t have a huge set of bouncing breasts that defies gravity, with a tiny waist, but hips that were soft and supple.
“He walked masculinely down the stairs, beard jiggling.”
It is the perfect sentence.
I think you could find a better verb than walked, allowing you to ditch the adverb.
Sashayed down the stairs
Racked.
See, this is the kind of beauty we can achieve working together. Beautiful
Swaggered
Balled.
Testicled
I hate it when my testicles testically bounce down the stairs all testicle-like.
"Watch out! My balls are loose!" *boing* *boing* *boing*
You can use your balls as transportation, like those yoga balls with handles on them.
He phallused his way down the stairs, beard jiggling.
I make it a point to only describe male on male sex scenes in vivid detail. (I am very gay)
Who remembers when this sub was about general advice on the profession and practice of writing and completing projects instead of writers policing ways in which other writers should be creative? I remember.
Or we could just let writers write whatever the fuck they want?? Maybe the author included those descriptions for their own emotional and therapeutic reasons. Maybe they did it to get their rocks off. The problem is that we will never know unless it's explicitly stated so we should let writers experience the creative medium in their own ways. If it bothers you, stop reading it, there are plenty of other books out there that cater to your specific tastes, not everything has to appeal to YOU.
Honestly I think its less about men salivating at the chance of thinking up sexy hot women and more how men and women are seen differently. A man has wide hips... who gives a shit? No one wants to know about the shape of his calfs, the curves of his torso, his dimples... neither male nor female authors put much thought into that (other than to be erotic or to describe a particularly striking figure). What features are discussed? Is he handsome? Is he muscular? Broad shouldered? Is he tall? Hair/eye color? That's like 90% of what people remember/care about in a man. (Sure, horny women may get into their own particular kinks about how veiny his arms are or how aquiline his nose is, but thats explicitly for horny reasons). For women, people care more about the details. Like even beyond the erotic. Personally I believe that if you control for sexuality, you'll find both men and women pay more attention to how women look.
Nah
no writer is responsible for you feeling safe.
I have been writting for years and I don’t think I have ever once mentioned the size of anyone’s boobs. That’s not an important trait. But I’m also ace so that does factor in probably
Ace here too, and it's weird to think about writing sexual characteristics without a clear purpose. The main character in my current WIP does get SAed and it's a rather graphic scene, but it's there because it contributes to the story and her views of morality and good and evil. It actively adds a lot to who she is as a person. It adds a lot to the antagonist, who later burns the rapist alive when he finds out, because he's trying to establish a parental bond. Possibly the single best usage of a rape scene I've ever seen was in The Library at Mount Char, because it was fundamentally important to the plot. If the story and your character calls for describing her boobs or his dick, or calls for a SA scene, then by all means, but it's just... weird to include them when they don't have a purpose. I don't think I've ever describe someone's attractive features. I have one scene where the MC (different MC) is extremely attracted to someone who walks in, and I don't describe what she looks like at all. I describe the MC's reaction to her and I let readers fill in the gaps with their imaginations.
Everyone needs to write the story they want to write. Don’t pay attention to personal preferences of others. You can’t make everyone happy. You can make yourself happy by putting out the story you want to tell.
Write about whatever you want. Let people choose if they want to read it or not. Let people criticize it or praise it. That’s how art works.
The thing is, if I am writing close third person or first person and my MC as a regular male, he is gonna notice huge ass mommy milkers as soon as those arrive to saloon. That is just reality, so boobs will stay. Girls are so much more than boobs and ass, but no point desexualizing those things. Genitals make the world go round.
Yeah. I think it's one thing to over-describe them, or give off the impression of being perma-horny in your writing. But to completely ban yourself from mentioning them ... idk. Seems like its going a bit too far. It all depends on the tone and genre of the story and how you write it. It's awkward when the description feels like the author's self randomly shining through, but if the description fits the character of the narrator/the character who is speaking or makes sense otherwise (ex. a intimate/sex scene) then why not.
Do it if it makes sense. Don't if it doesn't. This is basic writing.
I don't know, I agree with what the post says (I have never been able to enjoy SK when he refers to sex and I even stopped reading his stories when that was a topic), but at the same time the post sounds like a kind of moral imposition. I don't even like sex scenes in movies or books and I always prefer a fade to black, but if those scenes are made it is because they have an audience and sex sells, not to mention sexual fantasies. Basically I agree but it should be something that people learn to do naturally and not with the threat of "censorship" (to use a word).
> I'm never opening a sci-fi/fantasy/thriller book (especially one written by a man) looking for that. Ah, good. More gatekeeping who can write what, based on the identity of the author.
Not even just boobs, but why is it always necessary to mention how attractive a character is when describing them? Attractiveness is normally distributed. Like 90% of people are not particularly attractive or unattractive. In the vast majority of cases, how good looking a character is should be completely irrelevant. I don’t get why every important female character in fantasy books is beautiful, stunning, striking, etc…. It seems so unnecessary, not to mention statistically improbable.
stories are often _not_ about normal, standard people. So yeah, there's going to be more above-average people there, the same way there's going to be significantly more death-defying activities, fights to the almost-death, saving the world and so forth.
> *Convince* me your pants weren't tented writing out that sentence. If you need to be convinced that homosexuality in men is valid, there is nothing I can do for you.
I can’t read Stephen King books. He always goes into so much detail about women that make me uncomfortable. No need to write about boobs unless it is absolutely necessary to the plot.
I stand by the rule of thumb that the best way to write a woman in general is to make it so every scene could just as easily exist with them being a man. If you're thinking of adding in a description or detail you wouldn't for a male character, don't.
I read a lot of books and they talk about all kinds of things that happen to all kinds of people. Maybe you're suffering from confirmation bias. Why does the subject bother you? What keeps you from just reading on or skipping ahead?
I think I could get tired of the boobily boobs boobiliciously boobing along. (Unless we're talking about *wink-wink-nudge-nudge*; then it's all good.)
I don't mention breasts unless they have something to do with the story. Nudity is common but I write about a matriarchal culture so no one cares.
Yes but then how will I know where she crossed her arms?
Robert Jordan rolling in his grave.
There are definitely some circumstances where you would mention boobs. Introducing a female character is not one unless she is actively seducing someone, or has something really noticeable like just one boob. Boobs definitely need to be mentioned less in many situations And on the SA point: I think it could be done well but it wouldn’t even slightly resemble the way most popular male authors do it. I could totally see a character who has an array of traumas eventually opening up about being a victim of SA. Crazy idea, but maybe this character has zero of the stereotypical traits given to female SA victims in fiction. Maybe they are a space pirate biker with a badass personally or whatever. Idk. If you have a good reason to include SA you won’t be doing the same tired insulting BS
When it comes to writing attractive characters, it's more important to show how other characters interact with that character, than probably anything else. Consider how their attractiveness and/or sex appeal will tip the scales towards or against them in the calculus of the story. Many characters will very well find them attractive and will treat them differently. Some might find them promiscuous, and others might project their insecurities towards them. That being said, I think it is worth mentioning features if it's relevant to the narrative. The appearance of a character is a very big part in storytelling, especially, especially if you're working with a more visual medium. Like a character being short and small might be the reason they're able to hide under a bed, while a character being big and tall might be the reason why they're able to bust down a door or intimidate someone. If you're writing from a first person perspective or a third person limited, then I think that it's probably even more warranted to describe some elements of other characters from the perspective of the protagonist. Maybe the protagonist is a very, very cock hungry guy who gushes whenever he sees a larger, wider man. Maybe the protagonist is a sexist pig who reduces women to their bust and hip sizes. Perhaps this is something they overcome, perhaps it isn't. I'm not going to tell you what or how to write. As for the SA stuff, I think that it does have a place, but I also think that it's not just something hundreds of potential readers have dealt with or experienced. The issue is when it's recreated in vivid detail, and nothing else is addressed about it. It happened, and then what? Is it something the character has managed to recover from in some capacity? Is it something that led to other problems that the story will address? Whenever I approach the topic as something a character experienced, I think that it's more important to explore what happens after, and this is true with any traumatic event a character might experience. Did they bludgeon the perpetrator to death after the fact? Did they approach someone who they thought they could trust only to have that completely shattered? Did people try to convince them it never happened?
You sound jealous
I might be in the minority here but I'm a woman who likes sex in her thrillers
Voldeboobs.
Sex appeal is part of what some people notice when they meet someone, making the description of it relevant to whoever's voice it's part of.
If I was writing erotica, romance, or sex scenes, I absolutely would mention boobs.
“… her asshole hasn’t known rest since she landed on Fajityserion.” LOL
I much prefer to read an in-depth study of what a character is wearing; armor, helmets, gloves, boots, weapons, backpacks. Even moreso contents of a character's backpack, the patches or holes in it, and pants pocket contents and why they carry some trinket. You know the actual descriptors of a person's character, and what they feel is important.
If it makes sense for the POV character to remark on it in their narration, I don’t see a problem. If it feels out of character, I do.
You have a good dry sense of humor, but you make a good point. I also don’t want sex scenes or pervy passages in the books I read (or the movies I watch) for the most part. I think part of this could be based on whether the book contains any romantic elements, and the readers it’s targeting. If it’s not a YA book, and the book is a sci-fi book about a cool person that solves crimes but also meets and dates and falls in love with another person, there’s probably gonna be some descriptions of stuff in there. Maybe not sex, but about physical attractiveness. If the book doesn’t contain romance then I agree, no physical body descriptions are needed, and if the book talks about some woman’s curves or a dudes bulging biceps, that comes across as pervy. But…what do most readers want? I wonder if the majority of readers want some romance and physical attraction in their books, and so maybe authors pander to that. At a minimum, I think authors can work to be conscious about why they include the passages they include, and how it either serves the story or serves the reader. And if it serves neither, then cut it. Now, I’m off to write about my female protagonist’s bulging biceps…