/lit/ - Literature

[Anonymous No.13242492]

Is there a difference between intimacy and smut? When does a story stop being a romance and start being pornographic?

[Anonymous No.13242742]

>>13242492
It usually goes along the lines of difference between "love" and "infatuation." Love has more of an infatuation with soul as well as body, whereas infatuation is usually just the body.

[Anonymous No.13242844]

When you read it, don you feel warmth in your heart, your crotch, or both?

[Anonymous No.13242901]

>>13242742
So your saying if the relationship described has just as much living together as loving together it is romance and not pornography? A story can have explicit and detailed sexual encounters and so long as they also involve walks on the beach and early morning drives it is not smut?
>>13242844
I am suggesting both, a romance story that also has explicit sexual description in it. Would it cease to be romance and turn to smut once a description of sex is added? And if so where would you draw the line?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!/qKRybJPyoB No.13242933]

>>13242901
There can be equal parts to a given story, but the audience may not be into the hybrid.
Someone looking for porn would be bored with all the plot and character development, and the romantic would probably be turned off at seeing Romeo getting a blowjob.
It’s possible, it’s just a genre risk

[Anonymous No.13242967]

>>13242933
The concern isn't marketability. I'm more interested in others perspective on when something stops being a romance story and starts being pornography. Your Romeo getting a blowjob example is perfect for this. If that classic story involved the deflowering of Juliet in gory detail, would it be smut? Certainly it would be seen differently but what would the difference be to you?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!/qKRybJPyoB No.13243056]

>>13242967
A graphic sex scene would turn it into an elaborate piece of pornography.
Subtle mention of sex, beautiful bodies in the moonlight, waking in the morning or middle of the night for more romantic dialogue, etc. and you’ve held onto a romance that just pushes the boundaries a bit

[Anonymous No.13243114]

For me the difference is that smut is, like porn, a perfect fantasy where nothing goes wrong and you are in a sex candyland. Even good sexual writing leaves room (sometimes) for feelings of alienation, disgust, shame, existential dread and so on. It still offers the full scope of human emotions.

Look at James Salter, he has written some graphic scenes of great sex but there's room for darkness too, and while the best sessions he depicts are pretty great he describes intimacy as something that can both bring people closer together and keep them apart, sex isn't a great magical thing every time. It can be romantic and spiritual fulfillment but also just getting an itch scratched or using each other.

This is of course my opinion. Some people think any (excerpt of) writing aiming to turn people on is pornography, I find that kind of prudish honestly.

[Anonymous No.13243167]

>>13243056
>>13243114
Also to answer this, if it was well-done it wouldn't make me look any differently at the story. It was a different time back then and writing openly about this stuff was obviously not done, but within context Shakespeare (whose pen name is probably a joking reference to masturbation) was actually pretty tongue in cheek about sexuality, Juliet does make a dick joke at some point too. To a modern audience taking everything at face value and used to much more explicit stuff it reads demure, to people at that time it was definitely clear that Romeo and Juliet wanted to fuck.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!/qKRybJPyoB No.13243181]

>>13243114
>Some people think any (excerpt of) writing aiming to turn people on is pornography, I find that kind of prudish honestly.
I agree with you.
A good romance can’t take you up to this turned on point and let you decide to keep reading or go off somewhere private for a bit

[Anonymous No.13243185]

>>13243056
>elaborate pornography
I chuckled, but really is there a difference then?
>>13243114
So long as realism rules it is not smut? Gorily detailed sex is still romance so long as it does not gloss over the truth of intimacy?
>>13243167
I refuse to believe anyone pubescent does not understand the intentions of the two lovers.

[Anonymous No.13243196]

lol when your peepee get hard duh

[Anonymous No.13243201]

>>13243196
Your penis does not become erect when romance is involved?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!/qKRybJPyoB No.13243225]

>>13243167
>Some people think any (excerpt of) writing aiming to turn people on is pornography, I find that kind of prudish honestly.
I agree with you.
A good romance can take you up to this turned on point and let you decide to keep reading or go off somewhere private for a bit

>>13243185
A classy romance will avoid the genitalia and bodily fluids. An old fashioned romance will avoid the period of nudity.
I’m including nudity in one of my stories, but the sex isn’t important to the story. The reader can well imagine what goes on between scenes

[Anonymous No.13243236]

>>13243185
For me yes. It's not about amount of detail, it's about whether the writer shows what real sexuality/intimacy is like or provides a glorified image just meant to be hot.

Eh, I don't think anyone really implies there's no lust, just that the fact that in the day and age it was more obvious is easily lost on a modern reader.

[Anonymous No.13243265]

>>13243225
>can well imagine
Then for you it is a concern of imagination. So if I wrote "the two of them made love that night" it would be romance but if I wrote "his penis entered her and split her hymen in two before he pushed his semen into her womb" it would be smut? If that is the case, where do you draw the line at description?
>>13243236
>modern readers
I could care less about that kind of thing. I assume I am talking to writers and really my assumption is mostly correct is it not? So then for you it is realism, if I wrote "after she came on him she began giggling insistently which unnerved him" to you the description of their orgasm is not smut because the unexpected truth came piercing through?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!/qKRybJPyoB No.13243319]

>>13243265
I said where. I would personally dislike the piece if it crossed that line. A simple romance I can take, but penis, straight people sex? Yuck. I’ve started some junky sci-fi books and tossed them aside for that shit.

[Anonymous No.13243332]

>>13243319
>straight people sex
So is your concern heterosexual? If it was two men would you feel less that it is smut? I find that to be some powerful bias if it is the case.

[Anonymous No.13243367]

>>13243265
I am a writer, still a writer wants to be read.

In general yeah. Of course it needs to be well done to sell me on it, but that applies to every piece trying to evoke strong emotions. It's easier to leave out the peaks and lows and keep it more steady/subtle.

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!/qKRybJPyoB No.13243380]

>>13243332
I’m just saying I can take a romance if it stays classy. Memoirs of Hadrian for instance. It only implies the sexual relationship, but layers on the love he had for Antinous. The effect was lovely. It would have stunk to see passages about man on man sex.

[Anonymous No.13243428]

>>13243367
If there are peaks does it fall into smut then? If I involve a scene that invokes near perfection in sex and intimacy than is the rest of the work changed?
>>13243380
So a page or two on sexual relations makes it pornography the? If I had a paragraph on the feel of his lips, the taste of her vulva, it is smut?

[Anonymous No.13243454]

>>13242492
after I've cum

[Anonymous No.13243470]

>>13243454
Seems rather forced. Is then my picture pornography if you are capable of pleasuring yourself to it?

[« Ƹ̵̡Ӝ̵̨̄Ʒ » !!/qKRybJPyoB No.13243509]

>>13243428
>taste of her vulva
Again I say it. You stray to the genitalia and bodily fluids, you are into “pornography”. It’s not a judgment, I’d like some lesbian porn slipped into a good book, but others may not.

[Anonymous No.13243525]

>>13243509
Alright, if I disguised the genitals as something else then would it be smut? If I described the taste of her flower, the taste of his meat. Would metaphor/analogy change your perspective?