Main Character's Sex Life, Major Problems!

My ambition to write historical novels has set me up for a major problem decades in the making!

Casual sex in historical novels, whether "realistic" works such as those of John Jakes, or romance novels, has always bugged the living crap out of me. Even in this day and age people have to think and make a lot of decisions, and such behavior has always made the characters look like idiots to me and made me lose patience with the story. I thought I could "go one better" by writing about the choices a character might conceivably make under certain circumstances in "real life." Of course, historical research shows that even bright people are not always saints in real life.

So now I have this main character whose traits are, somewhat temperamental, impulsive, NOT AT ALL SHY, extremely emotional, rather romantic, perfectionist and EXTREMELY COMPETITIVE, with high standards for himself and everybody else, churchgoing but not overly religious. If he was dumpy-looking, I'd have absolutely no problem with him not getting any in the 19th Century (he's born in 1843 American midwest, so hardly a hotbed of easily-obtained debauchery) but we're talking a guy who, had he lived in America during any time from the 1940s on, would have virtually no chance of being a virgin past the age of 17 as he'd be unable to beat the hordes of attacking women off with a stick. Things were different in the 19th Century, though. In the 20th Century this guy would also be popular with women and have a lot of dates, but if in the 19th Century a man didn't call on a woman unless interested in marrying her, that could also be very different. I guess part of the book is to show this, that no matter what teenagers go through now with a confusing array of choices, there were times not long ago, and places, even now, when things were very different.

About the only thing I'm not having a problem with is his family's attitudes and advice. I pretty well see where they're coming from, and why, and I have some idea of the society and will learn more as I go along.

Can anyone offer any sources to help understand the struggles of a young 19th Century man, devastatingly attractive through no fault of his own, poor thing, who is trying to maintain any standards of morality--not just "giving in," but constantly questioning himself? By the way, he has what today would be regarded as an extremely healthy sex drive, but in the climate of that time one wonders if some guys didn't look on themselves as monsters for entertaining such feelings. If he gets past 18 without getting any, but a large part of his motivation is, the only available women are low sorts who might give him a disease, try to trap him into supporting them, or both, does that make him in any way wimpy? Because he is acting in large part for self-preservation and not just out of some noble ideal of womanhood? He can be kind of reckless in other ways. Is it realistic that a person who is reckless as far as taking other physical risks would be at all cautious regarding sex? ("Hey, I'm crazy, not stupid.") Yes, people can be contradictory but am I trying to do the impossible here?

Exactly how guilty would he feel over wanting sex if he's not supposed to have it (young, unmarried) or, for that matter, over not having it? How central was having sex to "proving" your manhood in that time and place? He would, of course, entertain some degree of resentment to guys who are "getting some"--this is unavoidable--SIMPLY because these guys must have overcome any mental moral hurdles with which he is struggling--but I want to be careful that when observing some lowlife jizzbag, he does form an opinion as to this behavior but does not come across as so judgemental as to put off readers. If I don't force him into doing this (he's putting up a good fight, doggone him, but I'm that proud of him too) how much will people attack the author for being "some idealistic female who doesn't really understand men" and for writing a "totally unrealistic story which would never be like that in real life" because, OF COURSE, everyone, everywhere, at every time, unless they are the Phantom of the Opera or something, has sex before the age of 18 regardless of their time and place?

This is a real problem because he leaves home twice during his teens, the second time to go to the Civil War, where presumably a LOT of stuff would be going on! Just how inferior would he feel to guys who were "getting some," and how might he express these feelings? (I think it's unavoidable that he gets into a lot of fights.)

Are there any works of fiction or nonfiction which can help me with this? Thanks for any suggestions! Strange to say, this is my main problem with the whole book!

Good idea. Most of the detailed books I could find on Amazon centered around England, which is very different than America (it just IS!) but I found two promising volumes on America pretty cheap which should keep me busy for awhile.

An awful lot, of course, depends on individual characters, how they process things which are told them, how much they base their own behavior on the perceived examples of others, and how much they make up their own minds.

PastMidnight said:

Here are a couple for you:


Haller, John S. and Robin M. Haller The Physician and Sexuality in Victorian America

D’Emilio, John and Estelle B. Freedman. Intimate Matters: A History of Sexuality in America.

Click to expand...

Already ordered the first one, and thanks for the second suggestion.

The state of things has the pope unhappy: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/18611180/

I am also interested in ANY 19th Century American doctor materials, particularly frontier doctors. If anyone knows where I could learn where and how the research on "Dr. Quinn, Medicine Woman" was done I would be most interested. Thanks.

Can't help mentioning, I keep thinking of Archie Bunker's comments on a movie he saw. "Are there really people like that? Hi, how are ya? Zip, into the sack!"

In case I didn't explain enough about my characters, the reason the question of this particular subject is important, in their particular case, is we're talking about adventurous people (hunter/explorer/soldier types) who didn't stay put in civilized settlements or necessarily just take other people's word for anything. I wonder if it is unrealistic to portray such people behaving in a sensible conservative manner regarding sex. I can even write to some extent about a character who is reckless--I just have trouble writing about one who is stupid or takes unnecessary risks with himself and others--in other words, one I don't respect. Also, I understand men are MUCH less discriminating than women, but this doesn't necessarily apply to all men. Even if I write about a character with either high standards (respects women) or just shallow (won't do it with anyone not as good-looking as he is, and he's in the top 1%, so--) wonder if readers will respect or believe him if he's not like something I wonder whether I can write about at all. It's a real problem. Thanks for your consideration.

J. Weiland said:

Meet Giacamo Casanova:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Casanova

"He used charm, guile, threats, intimidation, and aggression, when necessary, to conquer women, sometimes leaving behind children or debt."

Click to expand...

Okay, I'm not talking THAT sort of guy. What's got me all rattled is the vast chasm between "Casanova" and "total virgin." It seems to cover a LOT of territory! Also, not talking about a guy who would ravish a virgin or really hit on any woman who wasn't asking for it--well, I guess that would take care of a lot of potential situations right there-- --we don't even have to "assume" opportunities were way less in the 1860s, that's a GIVEN--what I'm asking is a little more complicated. Would the character question his OWN manhood for not going out and looking for it, knowing others do--and I assume this would apply more to a naturally sociable person than a total loner? And, if he did question his manhood, what would he do? Give in to what he knows has serious dangers and was taught was wrong? Prove his aggression in other ways, like getting in a lot of fights and beating up guys? Or, not say anything till someone said something to him first, then skewer them with sarcasm? My MC is what you might call defensive without being insecure, if that combination makes sense at all. By the way, this is an EXTREMELY honest person who would NOT lie or brag about anything he hadn't actually done, or encourage another person through any sort of deceit to do anything he wouldn't himself--I do know THIS much for FACT.

The problem I'm having, I think, is I am simultaneously trying to deduce the most likely occurrences (and for someone very different, in a lot of ways, than I am) and still make it interesting--a major issue in all fiction! It is compounded in historical fiction because beliefs, manners, and customs really do change from one age to another, and it's a challenge presenting these without making modern readers think, "What's wrong with this guy? Is he ever hung up! How lame." Ironically, I think with the epidemic of STDs which began in the early 1980s, a lot of young people nowadays can identify with characters of the 1860s more than of the 1960s-1970s. Of course, I am a victim product of that time--too young to have been active in it, but old enough to have been influenced with that's "how things are."

Yeah, but they could still think about it.

Your thread touches on a lot of things which my novel will cover. I'd like to think "a word to the wise is sufficient" to someone smart enough to see consequences but so many adventurous men, both in fiction and real life, are depicted as coloring outside the lines, as it were.

Also, when did a boy losing his virginity in adolescence become an accepted "rite of passage"? Is this strictly a 20th Century sort of thing arising out of the flapper era? Certainly during the Civil War, a lot went on once men were free of the constraints of home and very likely their families suffered for it, but in all war novels (okay, "All Quiet on the Western Front" is the only one I can name but there must be many others) there's sort of an obligatory visit to the local whorehouse as some sort of rite of passage/male bonding thing. How does one guy politely tell the others he really doesn't care to swap contagions with everybody and still maintain their respect? I guess my character is, in many ways, a loner, but I do see him as a rather well-liked loner. I only see it as a serious problem up until he falls in love, after which he is sworn to wait for his true love. Thanks.

pdr said:

Society did come down heavily on the average middle class man who broke the rules. The wealthy got away with it up to a point, after which they were ostracised.

Click to expand...

Yes, I remember "middle class morality" from Shaw's "Pygmalion." Of course, that was England, a bit different than America, where the rules were, if anything, more strict, but it shows how the lower classes got away with things because they weren't held to the same standard, and of course the upper classes got away with certain things, too, as they were priviledged, while the middle class had to adhere to very strict standards.

A lot of the MC's anguish is over the discovery that a cousin has crossed that line. To be honest, the issue isn't with his cousin, but himself. His cousin makes plain to him that he doesn't believe personal choices constitute a competition. This is a plain case of having to find the QUESTION, before even looking for the ANSWER. What I am dealing with is an extremely conflicted character! If having sex was something he really did not want to do, it wouldn't matter in which direction, if any, other people were pressuring him, he just wouldn't do it! If he is trying to be sensible, is he wimping out and being a "church lady"? The thought would fill him with a horror I can scarce describe. The most important question for him, I think, isn't even right or wrong, but if he really wants to do something (which, by his own inclinations, he has more than a hint he does) is he not doing so for reasons that would be counted "cowardly"? We're talking a person certainly not suicidally stupid, but borderline reckless. If he suspected cowardice in himself, he might force himself to action regardless of the consequences. Yet at the same time he does have a sense of self-preservation, and right and wrong. And he is an active person. Even if he chooses not to do something, it must be done in a decisive manner. I definitely want to write about a character who thinks and cares about consequences but not such a prisoner of caution he has every event in life planned out. Establishing the social context from which he'd be working would help a lot. Hence all the questions. That is, if he was told, or believed, that every right-thinking decent person did things exactly the same way--then found out different--that maybe there are "choices"--he would be confounded by the choices and which to make!

Redfox said:

Your character sounds a lot like Malcolm Reynolds from "Firefly" (though a lot younger) - a handsome, idealistic man who's reckless in battle but totally and utterly chivalrous when it comes to women (although he's un-hung-up enough to resort to masturbation, this not being the 19th century). His lunk of a crewmate thinks he's stupid for turning down the opportunities for sex that come his way, but we don't - we admire his self-restraint.

Click to expand...

Someone actually wrote a book like this? What time was the setting, and when was it published?

Redfox said:

Admittedly Mal is older and more confident in his belief that he is right, but why shouldn't your hero have just as strong a belief in the values he was brought up with?

Click to expand...

I think he believes in the values all right. He was raised in Christian surroundings but didn't absorb the beliefs to the point of shoving everything onto his faith as a cop out. (Okay, I'm not doing what I really want but if I'm miserable it's God's fault because he wants things that way.) I don't think he's capable of thinking that way--he's just too independent. My ABSOLUTE HORROR is in making the character seem at all wimpy (for not doing what it's "understood" that "everyone" does with "no problem"--an unrealistic convention both in fiction and real life, but there it is--) or indecisive (for not being impulsive about this matter, no matter how impulsive he may be in other ways.)

Redfox said:

Yes he's going to feel guilty from time to time that he wants this "sinful" thing a lot, but please don't make him angst about it endlessly - that would be so dull! Find ways to have him behave according to his ideals without the opportunity to brood over it.

Click to expand...

Dare I say...WELL, DUH! Try the way most of 19th Century middle and upper class life was set up--all the women were either up there untouchable on pedestals or such lowlifes a fellow would have to be loaded to consider touching them. Even for the few not in these categories ("kept" women as opposed to common whores, and so on) you had to know what you were looking for and how to look, since such things weren't spoken of openly. Under the right circumstances I might see him being seduced, IF it were ASBOLUTELY UNAVOIDABLE and obligatory, but I just can't see him being an exploiter of ordinary women or a patron of low ones--sorry.

Redfox said:

Maybe he does a runner when his friends try to drag him into a brothel, and gets himself into some other kind of trouble; have him find a way to sublimate his sex drive in some kind of physical activity. Also, not all men are the brooding type, and an awful lot of them just aren't given to that much introspection (even the clever ones). Take care you're not imposing female thought patterns on top of historical ones

Click to expand...

Yes, the physical activity thing is quite relevant. Not all men are the brooding type, but I have a feeling (more like a certainty) this one is--his impulsiveness and high level of action don't indicate (to me!) a lack of intelligent and analytical thought processes, but more likely a backlash against brooding too much. As the song says, "I could be wrong now...BUT I DON'T THINK SO!" Yes, the questions, "Do men think?" "Are they thinking?" and "WHAT are they thinking?" are huge ones and I guess a lot of the object of writing this novel is to see whether I CAN relevantly explore these. I'm not writing James Bond male fantasy for anyone...can't stand the stuff enough to even bother offering rebuttals. This is more a rebuttal to romance novels and even more "serious" historical novels, and it's not even the activity to which I object--it's the lack of any rational approach or any consequences connected to the activity. To read some historicals you'd think consequences now were actually worse than back then, and they're not, they're just not. If I can even get this ONE THING right, the book will be a success on an important level.

I was knocked for a loop, a HUGE LOOP, not long ago when I read a study that said 95% of people had sex before marriage, and that this had been going on since at least the 1940s! On the one hand--I know it went on to some extent in earlier times but in Victorian times it's hard to believe anything of the kind occurred on near that scale! On the other hand--I don't want to write about a character whose actions are so rare as to be unbelievable...which is my whole question here.