Robin Turner

asteriskhere has said on a few occasions that science is my religion... and I have to admit to that to a degree.
Still, I don't think philosophy is to science what pornography is to sex. But you know, I might almost want to say that mayBE it's what romance novels are to sex. haha. But, sexism in full force, I sometimes wonder if romance novels are the feminine version of porn. heh.

From:

I sometimes wonder if romance novels are the feminine version of porn. heh.

I would think so, though the categories have in any case become blurred recently, with the appearance of a host of "erotic" novels. As my boss says "Women don't look at porn. We read it."

From:

Mind you, there is a distinct difference between "romance" and "erotic" novels. The first has a story of two people falling in love being the focus more than the sex, erotic the sex is focused upon.

Does that make any difference to the metaphor? I think it does, in a sneaky way.

Or is there some aspect of "falling in love" and "romance & beauty" that men see in porn that I don't?
I'm just not sure. To me, porn is kind of shallow in what constitutes the feelings involved for the characters portrayed and as the viewer (when it's me). But maybe men get an "in love" feeling from porn... I don't know, because I'm not a man. heh.

From:

kristian.livejournal.com

The actual difference between erotic and romance:

Romance novels use the word "member"
and erotic novels use the word "cock".

From:

Nice one!
Actually, a friend of mine once considered writing historical romances as a way of making some money (it pays pretty well if you can manage to get the formula right) and researched the kind of vocabulary she would need. What she found was that while there were lots of words for different parts of the female body, the penis was rarely referred to specifically, even by euphemisms such as "member" or "manhood". Rather, the male body as a whole was a metaphorical penis, e.g. "Lord Darcy stood erect, the blood pounding through him."

From:

Ewwwwwww!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

From:

Well, then that's a HUGE difference for me. The last thing that would turn me on is the word "cock" and the association the word has with low-life & filthy roosters.

From:

True, but "member" is just plain silly. Member of what? Parliament? I prefer Chinese euphemisms: "jade stem", "ambassador" etc.

From:

Well, I'm not about to debate the quality of the word "member" used to refer to a penis.
I've read some more appealing ways of describing acts involving the male reproductive organ. Not in Chinese though, as I don't read Chinese - erotica or the language in general. heh.

But I must emphatically state that I do NOT think the word "cock" is romantic, sexy, a turn-on, inviting, appealing, alluring, flattering to those who have the genitalia referred to, and it most certainly does not put me in the mood to have that particular item of the male anatomy inserted into any orafice of my anatomy, and it definitely doesn't appeal to me to hear the word "cock" used in describing the sexual escapades of others - fictional or real.

I wouldn't even use the word "cock" in referring if I was talking about filthy feathered male lifestock.

Indeed, this is a rare occasion when I could be seen to type the very word, as I never use it, for real. heh.

From:

I agree. Cock sucks. I like the Greek, phallos. It sounds almost noble, like a character in a fantasy novel. "Phallos prepared, broadsword in hand, to meet the minions of the evil Lord Khok."

BTW, Turkish has a range of words, depending on size and maturity.

pipi - only used for babies and toddlers

chük - anything small and/or pre-pubescent

sik - all-purpose, the equivalent of "prick"

yarak - huge dong ready for action

There are also some nice idioms; for example, "sikimde degil" = "not in my penis" = "I couldn't care less"; "sikine takma" = "don't attach it to your penis" = "don't worry about it."

From:

Interesting. I always find gender-specific idioms fascinating. Particularly when they're male-specific, because I don't always fully understand (or perhaps I just don't fully feel) the connection, I think.

"don't attach it to your penis"

That's an excellent one. I might say that to some men I know when the opportunity, ahem, arises.

From:

But you know, I might almost want to say that mayBE it's what romance novels are to sex.

That is the best thing I've ever read!

And I totally agree re: female versions of porn. Look at any women's magazine; it's a total porn rag.

From:

I once said that Playboy was basically Cosmopolitan for men, but with more politics and less sex.

From:

Hah.
Not that I've ever read Playboy, though I did once flip through an issue. One of those "Babes of the Ivy League" issues, or something. I was really unimpressed. Then again, the Playboy ideal of beauty is not my ideal of beauty.

Cosmo, though I've only looked at a couple of issues, alienates me from my gender. As do all women's magazines. They seem to make pornography out of romance, while men's magazines make pornography out of sex. In either case, it's all pornography.

From:

I don't think Cosmo is that concerned with romance. From what I've read, it's much more into the technical details of copulation than, say, Playboy. I think both magazines suss out the average reader pretty well. On the whole, men like looking at beautiful women, but we don't want to read about clitoral orgasms or G-spots*. If we want to read something technical, we read about cars or electronics.

* I was most relieved to find out (from Cosmo or something similar) that there it has been conclusively proved the the G-spot is a myth.

From:

I don't think Cosmo is that concerned with romance.

I agree. Notice that I switched from talking about Cosmo in specific to women's magazines in general.

From:

See, now I wouldn't put Jane Austen novels on the same level as that piggy magazine Cosmopolitan. haha. I wouldn't even put Stella Cameron or other erotic romance novels on the same level (like ones that actually have a plot and a story of love). On the few times I've read stuff in "Cosmo", it's struck me as very, very shallow. Like all that women are supposed to be concerned about is money & sex and pleasing a man and trapping one or some damn shit. I felt the magazine had no regard at all for my delicate feelings, if you know what I mean.

I'm sure I'm just making a sweeping judgement of the magazine, I'm sure there are other aspects to it... it's just that's what the focus seems to definitely be.

From:

See, now I wouldn't put Jane Austen novels on the same level as that piggy magazine Cosmopolitan.

While I admire Austen's command of the English language (she can even make a comma make a difference), I still think Sense and Sensibility would have been better with some raunchy sex scenes.

From:

Well, it wouldn't have gone with the times. haha.

I think the stories were more about life in general than romance. Just my opinion.

From:

I agree. Romance is usually only there as an opportunity for Austen to make acid but understated observations on her society.

The problem I have with Austen is that, while I accept she's a keen observer and a brilliant stylist, she writes about, in the words of my old Science Fiction teacher, "boring people doing boring things". I propose a reverse Bowdlerisation

Crazed courier goes postal with a blunderbuss in Mansfield Park!

Sense and Sensibility - the guy has both sisters!

Northanger Abbey gets really Gothic, with vampires, flesh-eating zombies etc.

From:

Um, but they're not "guy books", like "guy movies". I think that could be part of the issue there.
Seriously.
Indeed, I wouldn't recommend Jane Austen to any man really.

Because I completely disagree. The stories are not about boring people doing boring things. I found all her stories fascinating and, indeed, gripping. Very interesting.

Could be about being a conniseour of human folly too. heh.
I'm a great people watcher, if you know what I mean.

Just last night my friend Leslie (who is a psychiatrist and much like me in that), said, "You know, my mother's right, we do find amusement in silly small things."

From:

Maybe I just have a problem with the "novel of manners". I haven't read that much nineteenth-century fiction (I even read as little of it as I could when I was studying it), but the two authors I do like are Joseph Conrad and Thomas Hardy, who sort of write "guy novels". Splice the mainbrace and bring in the hay. In general, I vastly prefer genre fiction: SF, horror, detective stories (in the Chandler rather than the Christie tradition), satire, historical novels (of the swashbuckling, not the romantic variety), magical realism and so on. Overall, I suppose that makes me a "guy book" kind of a guy.

BTW, an excellent (female) TV presenter here in Turkey recently said something like, "It's not true about men being unemotional. Your husband may yawn his way through the Meg Ryan film which had you constantly reaching for the tissues, but sit him in front of a war film, wait for the scene where the hero's carrying his dying buddy, and watch the tears roll down his nose."

BTW, despite my flippant comments about sex scenes, I generally don't enjoy erotic fiction. I can handle Anais Nin in small doses, but when I tried reading The Story of O I got bored to death and gave up after about thirty pages.

From: