Sex In Science Fiction

[Jaycinth]

I grew up with the tradition that sex has no place in Science Fiction writing, and it should not be in Fantasy especially "High Fantasy". I only agree with that some of the time.

What do you folks, purists and purile - ists alike think?

[fedorable1]

I don't really agree with that. I think sex is like violence. It's something that people do, no matter what time period it is. People have been doing it since the dawn of time, and there's no reason to think that they wouldn't in the future.

An exception might be in a future where reproduction is restricted/legalized/banned, or have some other limitation. Maybe in the future humans are naturally sterile, and depend on specific machines to reproduce us.

Like all things, it depends on the context. If aliens or dragons are invading and the world is searching for a weapon to defeat them, and them bam! Gratuitous sex scene. That doesn't bode well. If the main characters have been in love for some time and you have a decent, brief passage about love-making I'm sure it could pass if done well.

But in general, no matter what the genre, sex (or any subject) could fit if there's a reason.

[CaitlinK18]

I'm writing high fantasy right now and there's a ton of sex...of course, much of it is linked to cult activity and sex is one of the ways they show their, erm, devotion.

I think sex and erotica are different. The sex scenes in my WIP are not erotic or romantic--they're showing how evil some characters are. Later, when the (anti)hero and heroine get together, there will be a romantic love scene.

Sex is human, and I think if it's done well it can be put into any type of fiction.

[James D. Macdonald]

"No Sex in Science Fiction" hasn't been the rule since Bug Jack Barron (and the complete works of Philip Jose Farmer).

[sassandgroove]

COrdelia's Honor by Bujold handled it well. (It's the first that came to mind.) Like Caitlin said, it is something people do. There is a line though b/w mentioning it and erotica, though.

[veinglory]

I think there has always been a range including yellowbacks of SF erotica. Even the classics had some nubiles and implied sex and a few included sex scenes as I recall.

For me the main issue is not to surprise the reader. Books with explicit sex in them should be marketed to mature readers and clear signals give as to wehther it is a little sex as the plot requires or a full blown orgy-a-tron.

Otherwise the 'no sex please we're sf geeks' rule should go the way of other limitations--more diversity means more readers. (And less of me throwing books out the window because they are yet another steeenking pile of misogynist pseudoscience).

[pconsidine]

Sex should be treated the same regardless of genre - if it's relevant to the plot, put it in. If it's just for the hell of it, leave it out.

[Jaycinth]

A suggestion came from a non AW reader that "Your boooks would sell if you put a lot more sex in them."

Any story with people in it is bound to have sex somewhere. After all, the people got there somehow. However, when Jane and Dick are runnning from aliens, it does not make sense.


Quote:""No Sex in Science Fiction" hasn't been the rule since Bug Jack Barron (and the complete works of Philip Jose Farmer)." Unquote.

Am I really that old?

[sassandgroove]

I am tempted to remove my post now, Veinglory said it so much better. :)

[Jamesaritchie]

How much sex, and how blatant the sex, depends on the writer and the audience, rather than the genre.

Now, personally, too much sex in a novel bothers me becuase it can too easily interfere with the story. Except when it's really well done and a necessary part of the story. Real people generally take a crap every day, too, but I'd rather that be off stage, as well, unless the writer can convince me the story must have it.

Again personally, I've tried to read more than a few modern books that were labelled "erotica," and I've yet to find one that had any distinction at all from porn that I could see. On the other hand, I find some of the more classic erotica extremely well written.

But now and then I'll pick up a novel with pretty graphic sex, and it all works together, it's all part of a seamless whole, and the read is great.

I don't think it's ever a good idea to include sex because you think it will make the novel sell better. Odds are you'll write a novel that won't sell at all. Whatever teh genre, the right way to write a novel is to tell the best story you can tell, and fill it with the best characters you can create, and let the story take its natural course. If this means sex, it should always be because you want it there, and because the story demands it, and never, ever because you have the thought "You know, if I put a steamy sex scene in right about here, more people will buy the novel."

[Zolah]

Only one thing to say here:

Ursula K Le Guin.

[MarkPettus]

Even Asimov's robots had sex.

[JackieG]

Personally, I get very uncomfortable reading about other people's sex lives in print. Feels voyeuristic or something. I'm a fan of the "implied" kind of stuff, but then that's only my view, and I suppose that has nothing to do with anything. :)

As far as sex in the genre, I agree that if it has anything to do with the plot, go with it. If it's sex for the sake of sex, then yuck. Anything for the sake of it is yuck to me, whether it's narration or conversation, or whatever. I skip it. Blah, blah, blah, get to the action again.

I also think that sexual tension is a terrific motivator to keep readers reading. To me, that means any break in the tension should come as late as possible in the story. Oh, how many tv series lost all kinds of ratings once the angsty-filled longing for one another was quenched.

[ChunkyC]

I like what you said about sexual tension, Jackie.

Anyway, I agree with the general consensus. Sex, like any other part of a story, should be germaine. Gratuitous anything in fiction should be cut. To paraphrase James A., everybody knows the Queen takes a dump every now and then, but unless someone planted a bomb in her toilet, I don't need to know the details.

[GabeWhite]

What's wrong with being gratuitous?

Seriously.

-Gabe

[trebuchet]

What's wrong with being gratuitous?

Nothing at all, I suppose. I write gratuitous stuff all the time. But I write it for me, then cut it. Why leave anything in the book that will derail the reader? If it doesn't advance the plot or the theme, keeping it in will weaken the book... just my opinion, of course. :)

[ChunkyC]

From Dictionary.com....
Unnecessary or unwarranted; unjustified: gratuitous criticism.
If something you've written can be defined as such, then it really doesn't need to be in there, does it? Like trebuchet said, it can derail the reader. The reader expects every word to mean something.

Thing is, we can come up with many justifications for the things we write. To set a mood or tone, to elicit a laugh, even choosing one word over another that means the same because the number of syllables imparts a rythmic quality to a sentence that is absent when the other is used.

As long as it has a purpose for being there, it's not gratuitous.

[triceretops]

"What are you looking at?" she husked, then shifted her legs.

Damn her allure! And damn her age! He leaned her down onto the mat and brought his lips to hers. She blew a hot, sultry breath across his cheek. He found her neck and snuggled his face in it. They kissed passionately for a long while, and he felt her hands exploring him. He fumbled with her cooling britches, and they gave way to splay apart, leaving her open and inviting.

He chanced a glance down and saw a pelvis that looked like a satin vice. He’d been right about her build all along. She was so fit and lovely it only made him feel like a thin-haired cherub that had no right to take in all the calories of this girlish piece of candy.

“Oh, Zaz, whatever took you so long,” she whispered.

Stupidity. That is what took him so long, he thought, as he ran his hands down her thighs. He wondered if it was true what they said about petite women, then decided he was fast approaching that trail’s end and would find out. He only hoped he didn’t bend or break something on that inviting fortress of pleasure. There was no need; his fingers found her hot and buttery.

His wrist com buzzed. He ignored it.

It went to screecher alarm; that was an emergency.

He caught his breath and answered, “What is it?”

“We have an urgent matter that needs attendance.” It was Samantha.

“Yeah, well right now so do I. What’s up?”

“We have some intruders in the compound.”

This is about as far as I ever let sex go in a science fiction story. I guess I take after Heinlein and Anderson--give em' a tease--bring em' right to brink, then snatch it away. I use a lot of inuendo and deliberate tease between the characters that gets maddening for the reader, but it's a great hook. WHEN IS THE AUTHOR EVER GOING TO LET THESE TWO SPANK THE MEAT?
Author: never

Tri

[MadScientistMatt]

There's more than one way to put sex in a novel. While putting explicit sex scenes in them is what first comes to mind, there's also showing your characters expressing sexual desires. For example, you won't find any explicit sex in Tolkien's Lord of the Rings. But you will find Sam thinking about how he wants to get back to the Shire and settle down with Rose, Arwin's love for Aragorn, and many other romantic subplots and romantically involved characters.

While a story with characters who all have absolutely no sexual interest would only make sense if they are androids or parthenogenic, whether you have any need to show sex scenes depends on their importance to the plot, and how well you can write them.

[inexperiencedinker]

The best full blown sex scenes in any book were done, imho, by Jean M. Auel. Not sci-fi, but I think genre is a moot point. She was gentle, inventive, and one of the few books that didn't make me feel like a voyeur (I second you JackieG).
The worst, again imho, was Laurell K. Hamilton. Her's were very uncharacter like. Some of her books were full of great plots, interesting characters, and masterful sexual tension. Her last few were filled with sex...more sex...sex...and somewhere near the end was what can only be described as an attempt at a plot.
That is when I can't stand it. Plot shouldn't play second to anything, especially something like sex.

[aspiringwriter]

I look at it this way... the many Sci-Fi movie i've seen there is no sex...However that doesn't mean it can't be written. After all you are the writer, you control what stays and what goes...

[Julie Worth]

I was going to say Kilgore Trout (b. 1907), because of the lurid covers. But surprisingly, he wrote only one book with erotic content, and that one wasn’t SF.

Now don’t tell me he wasn’t real. Don’t do it!

[arainsb123]

I've read plenty of books, both science fiction and fantasy, with sex in them. If it suits the story, write it!

[GabeWhite]

Back to the gratuitous thing for a second... It's kind of self defeating to use the dictionary definition -- when BEING "Unnecessary or unwarranted; unjustified" is, in fact, the whole point... Sex for the sake of sex. Gore for the sake of gore.

Like that quote from Jackie Brown:

Sam Jackson: "You have to stop smoking so much pot. It'll kill your ambition."

Bridget Fonda: "Not if my ambition is to smoke a lot of pot."

(or something like that)

So. Is there really a good reason not to be gratuitous in your writing? Why not let it all hang out? I mean, if it's well written, and entertaining, and your point is still getting across... Shouldn't we put it all down and go for broke? Self-censorship, in my mind, leads to nothing but bland watered down fiction. Sexually. Politically. Socially...


-Gabe

[Euan H.]

Is there really a good reason not to be gratuitous in your writing?
Depends. If your reader stops reading because of your gratuitousness, then that's prolly a good reason not to have it in your work.
Self-censorship, in my mind, leads to nothing but bland watered down fiction. Sexually. Politically. Socially...

The flip-side of that, of course, is that lack of self-censorship leads to bloated, self-indulgent, and dull fiction. :)

[sunandshadow]

Well, I write FSF romantica and I read that genre too, so obviously I like sex in my science fiction. But then again I've seen it done really badly too, especially by some male authors who don't write female characters well. And also, I plan to market my stuff as erotica, because regular FSF publishers won't buy explicit stuff or will ask the author to tone it down.

[Birol]

Back to the gratuitous thing for a second... It's kind of self defeating to use the dictionary definition -- when BEING "Unnecessary or unwarranted; unjustified" is, in fact, the whole point... Sex for the sake of sex. Gore for the sake of gore.

This sounds like the plot of your novel is to be as gratuitous as possible. How many readers do you think that would appeal to? Don't you have a story to tell?


So. Is there really a good reason not to be gratuitous in your writing? Why not let it all hang out? I mean, if it's well written, and entertaining, and your point is still getting across... Shouldn't we put it all down and go for broke? Self-censorship, in my mind, leads to nothing but bland watered down fiction. Sexually. Politically. Socially...


-Gabe

I don't equate not being gratuitious with censorship. At some point, as a writer, you have to decide what does and does not advance the story you're telling. What doesn't advance the story, gets cut. That's not self-censorship; that's editing. Otherwise, what you have is a manuscript full of meaningless, rambling prose and who wants to read that?

[mystified]

Sex should be treated the same regardless of genre - if it's relevant to the plot, put it in. If it's just for the hell of it, leave it out.

I agree with pconsidine. My story has none of it, but I don't feel it's relevant to the story line, nor is it needed, so I left it out. This doesn't mean there are not stories where it would add to the depth of the novel. I think it depends on the characters, the plot, and the overall story line. Sometimes it adds something...other times it does not. (Just my humble opinion)

[MadScientistMatt]

So. Is there really a good reason not to be gratuitous in your writing? Why not let it all hang out? I mean, if it's well written, and entertaining, and your point is still getting across... Shouldn't we put it all down and go for broke? Self-censorship, in my mind, leads to nothing but bland watered down fiction. Sexually. Politically. Socially...

-Gabe

Well, look at your arguement if it were applied to something else. Eating, for example. Suppose you have a scene where the main character is eating a steak dinner. It's not one where anything really comes of the dinner - no food poisoning, clues to a murder mystery, or anything like that.

Sure, you could describe it with, "He ordered a steak," and be done with it. But why not be gratuitious? Might as well let it all hang out. Describe every cut with the knife to get a piece of meat. Talk about the seasonings and show him swirling the bit of sirloin around in A1. Detail every bite and every bit of chewing. And let's not forget the baked potato. Hey, if you write great eating scenes, you can keep this up for pages! Make the reader salivate!

So, what's wrong with that sort of gratuitous?

Well, it probably gets in the way of the plot and dedicates time that you could spend on more relevant details. Unless you do a good job, it won't do much for story or characterization.

If your goal is primarily to write a story that entertains the reader with explicit sex scenes, you could of course sell it as erotica and have readers that are looking for that sort of thing.

On the other hand, maybe I should see if there's a market for readers who want to be entertained with food porn... :)

[mhughes]

A suggestion came from a non AW reader that "Your boooks would sell if you put a lot more sex in them."


I went to a writer's retreat this past August where the novelist Donald Harstad mentioned this. He said that someone (editor, marketing person, agent, I don't know) had said almost this exact same thing. This person recommended that Donald put the two main characters - Carl and Hester - in a closet during a stressful situation and just let nature take its course.

So Donald did. He put them in a closet while hiding from some gunmen.

Hester fell asleep.

[katdad]

I grew up with the tradition that sex has no place in Science Fiction writing, and it should not be in Fantasy especially "High Fantasy". I only agree with that some of the time.

What do you folks, purists and purile - ists alike think?

I don't know what 'tradition' you're talking about. If you read Robert Silverberg, Phil Dick, Phil Farmer, and even ol' Heinlien, there's plenty of sex in SF.

Not being a fantasty reader, I can't say about that. If you mean that "high" fantasy is juvenile fantasy, then soft-tone sex, sure.

Don't confuse juvenile SF/fantasy with that written for adults.

Any adult novel may or may not have violence or sex, subdued or graphic, as befits the book itself. Adding gratuitous sex or violence is tawdry, but putting some good exciting "sax or violins" in its place is fine.

One of the very finest SF novels ever written, Silverberg's "Downward to the Earth" has some exciting sex scenes, and they fit the theme.

[GabeWhite]

Sure, you could describe it with, "He ordered a steak," and be done with it. But why not be gratuitious? Might as well let it all hang out. Describe every cut with the knife to get a piece of meat. Talk about the seasonings and show him swirling the bit of sirloin around in A1. Detail every bite and every bit of chewing. And let's not forget the baked potato. Hey, if you write great eating scenes, you can keep this up for pages! Make the reader salivate!

I agree. If you want to write a GREAT eating scene, you should be gratuitous. "He ordered a steak" is not a great eating scene. It has no possibility of being great, by its nature.

And that might be fine for some stories.

But why not try for a GREAT eating scene? At least once in awhile?

I'd read it. I'd read it twice and write you a fan letter and line up for the movie on opening night. If it really is GREAT.

Better than another mild scene of slavish subservience to plot. Better than an entire book of "relevant" details.

I don't mean to be difficult. But this isn't about SEX. It's about reaching. Most writers, once they get to a certain level of craftsmanship, are very competent. They know proper grammar and spelling. They watch their adverbs. They can write a coherent plot any day of the week. Dialog is smooth, POV steady, tense unshifting.

They don't write bad scenes. They write moderately entertaining fiction.

But do we need more of that? I don't think so. We have libraries and bookstores and web sites full of it already. There's plenty of mediocre all around, all the time.

The world is full of it.

What we need is greatness. We need obsession. Raw truth. We need writers who are willing to following their madness to the end.


So please, be gratuitous -- at least sometimes. Do you love fishing? Great. Show me! Send your hard-boiled detective on a fishing trip. Make ME love fishing by the time I'm done reading your scene.

-Gabe

[ChunkyC]

Back to the gratuitous thing for a second... It's kind of self defeating to use the dictionary definition -- when BEING "Unnecessary or unwarranted; unjustified" is, in fact, the whole point... Sex for the sake of sex. Gore for the sake of gore.
I can't really see how using the definition of a word is self-defeating. The word means what it means. If you mean something else, you need a different word. What you say -- sex for the sake of sex -- is obviously meant to entertain those who enjoy reading that stuff, therefore it's not gratuitous. It has the purpose of entertaining a particular type of reader. I realize this may seem like splitting hairs, but I think it's important to be aware of the reasons we put something into our stories. If you can't come up with a valid reason for it to be there, then cut it.

Like that quote from Jackie Brown:

Sam Jackson: "You have to stop smoking so much pot. It'll kill your ambition."

Bridget Fonda: "Not if my ambition is to smoke a lot of pot."

(or something like that)
I don't think that's gratuitous at all. It shows something important about the character. It has a purpose.

So. Is there really a good reason not to be gratuitous in your writing? Why not let it all hang out? I mean, if it's well written, and entertaining, and your point is still getting across... Shouldn't we put it all down and go for broke? Self-censorship, in my mind, leads to nothing but bland watered down fiction. Sexually. Politically. Socially...
Again, if it's entertaining, then it's accomplishing something and is therefore not gratuitous. Perhaps a better word to illustrate what I mean is pointless. When I think of gratuitious violence or sex, that's what it means to me, something that is pointless.

I've heard the following (paraphrasing) from many veteran writers: make every word earn its place in your manuscript.