“The Happily Ever After, while often decried as one of the most limiting aspects of a romance novel, provides a secure anchor to the reader and allows a romance author considerable leeway in the sorts of conflict she can present, as long as she doesn’t cross a reader’s personal line in the sand, beyond which no happy ending can be possible.” [1. Beyond Heaving Bosoms: The Smart Bitches’ Guide to Romance Novels. Wendell, Sarah, and Candy Tan.]
There are two major conventional distinctions between erotic romance and erotic fiction. Erotic romance may, and indeed often is, just as explicit as erotic fiction, but it has as fundamental requirements a developing love-bond between the characters and a happily ever after or happily for now ending [2. About the Romance Genre, The Romance Writers of America Website. (Accessed December 4, 2011)]. Although there are writers within the genre that might disagree with me, I think there is very good evidence to show that erotic romance is a sub-genre of romance. It’s romance with explicit sex scenes where a good deal of the evolving romance between the main characters is explored through their developing sexual relationship.
Although erotic fiction can, and often does, have either or both of these elements, it doesn’t have to. It’s not a requirement or a convention of the genre. In fact, many erotic fiction authors have eschewed love within their writing as a way to legitimize the presence of female sexual desire without it [3. Sonnet, E. (1999) ‘Erotic Fiction by Women for Women’: The Pleasures of Post-Feminist Heterosexuality Sexualities April 1999 2: 167-187]. And this, from an historical perspective, is deeply socially transgressive. It situates the act of seeking, finding and enjoying sexual pleasure outside the socially acceptable parameters of marriage or a committed relationship. So then, how is erotic fiction different from pornography – which does exactly that?
I think the most significant definition is that erotic fiction is really about ‘transgression’ in a ‘meta’ sense. I don’t mean in the sense of descriptions of sex acts that might be considered perverse, but in the way in which sex takes us to the animal level. I’ve been persuaded of this by a brilliant train of thought in Foucault’s “A Preface to Transgression”:
It (transgression) serves as a glorification of the nature it excludes: the limit opens violently onto the limitless, finds itself suddenly carried away by the content it had rejected and fulfilled by this alien plenitude which invades it to the core of its being…[4. A Preface to Transgression. Foucault, Michel. 1999. Religion and Culture. New York: Routledge.]
Rightly or wrongly, we see ourselves as more than animals. We believe ourselves to possess something that raises us above nature. In a Judeo-Christian culture this is historically identified as the soul. In later times it has been identified as mind, consciousness, humanity, etc. And the emotion we call ‘love’ has been one of the primary elements we point to as proof of this difference – this superiority. There is no scientific evidence to support our distinction from other animals other than the obvious fact that we are very clever animals. Nonetheless, we conceive of ourselves as ‘more than’ animals, and because of that, within our reality, we are.
The Nine Inch Nail lyric “I wanna fuck you like an animal” [5. Reznor, Trent, writ. Closer. Nothing/Interscope, 1994. ] is really quite interesting. Because, of course, we are animals and we fuck the way animals fuck because we are exactly that. But why the lyric has so much power is because implicit in it is the acknowledgement that we pretend to be more most of the time and that there is, in relinquishing that pretense, there is a certain ineffable freedom.
Erotic romance may have all of the elements of erotica and more, but at its nucleus, it offers us portraits of characters as human, in possession of all the ‘humanizing’ attributes that we ascribe to ourselves: the propensity to love and to pair, to share, to experience union not only physically but emotionally. It is the examination of our ability to experience the world as a couple, elevated from our animal natures by our ability to love.
Erotic fiction allows the writer to represent sexual desire and the sex act without the ‘humanizing’ influence of love. But, as I said before, so does porn. I think an essential difference between porn and erotic fiction is that porn does not seek to examine – it seeks only to display. And, following that argument, I believe that erotic fiction that does no more than simply portray sexual acts is indeed pornography.
However, if one is to look back at the canon of erotic fiction (god knows, I’m treading on thin ground here because no one has ever agreed upon precisely what that is), one sees a certain continuity of focus through the works. From de Sade, Sacher-Masoch, many of the Victorian erotic writers, to Anais Nin, Arthur Miller and Anne Desclos (Pauline Reage), a powerful commonality in all of the works is extreme self-reflection in the characters. Not as one of a potential couple, but as individuals [6. Smaro, Kamboureli. “Discourse and Intercourse, Design and Desire in the Erotica of Anaïs Nin.” Journal of Modern Literature. 11.1 (1984): 143-158. Web. 12 Dec. 2011. <http://www.jstor.org/stable/3831158>. ]. In fact, I’d venture to suggest that there is a thread of existentialism that runs through it all. Certainly there are occurrences of love, but that is not what is being examined. What is being examined is the self.
The eroticism and sex described in the writings is a mechanism by which the character is stripped of many of attributes we traditionally identify as human. And in that place, bare of love, of the promise of spiritual union, the individual is naked. It is here that the opportunity to examine and probe at what other attributes, besides love, separate us from other animals. One of the most explicit illustrations of this function of erotica can be seen in the conclusion of Mike Kimera’s short story, “Nadica”.
Nadica is sliding back and forth on Saul’s cock, just a fraction of an inch at a time. Her cunt is wet. Her eyes are closed. She’s waiting for me. Soon she will start to chant.
In the next few seconds I will discover what kind of human being I am. [7. Kimera, Mike. “Nadica.” Clean Sheets. N.p., 03Sept 2005. Web. 12 Dec 2011. ]
Erotic fiction invites us to explore our humanity in the absence of the most often-used proofs of our ‘humaness’. Love may be a complication in erotic fiction, but it cannot be the core. And, although erotic fiction may indeed offer us a happily for now ending, it can never offer us a happily ever after ending, because that is not the story it seeks to tell. It doesn’t tell the story of ‘us’ as a human couple, but ‘us’ as individual humans.
Is there any place for a happily ever after ending in erotic fiction? I can only offer an opinion here, using the reasoning I’ve followed. I believe it is only an appropriate ending as a byproduct of the interaction between the characters, but not as the goal.
If one were to be brutalist about it, one might say that ‘orgasmic afterglow’ is closure in erotic fiction, but that is the closure of pornography. Erotic fiction cannot truly offer closure in the way erotic romance offers it. As an examination of the needing, wanting, desirous self in erotic extremis, there can be no end to the story – only a leaving off point – since there can be no definitive answer as to what constitutes our humanity. We can only offer glimpses for the reader’s consideration.
Addendum: It seems some readers have taken the term ‘animal’ as literal. As if I were referring to a specific animal behaviour. I am using the term, as the NIN lyric does, as a metaphor. Just to make that clear.
“of course, we are animals and we fuck the way animals fuck because we are exactly that”
This made me think, no doubt rather pedantically, that animals come in a vast range of sizes and shapes, so from the point of logistics, there isn’t just one way in which “animals fuck.”
Also, since you’re looking at the endings (happy or otherwise) of fiction about sex, it occurs to me that most animal sex seems to be directed at reproduction rather than the production of sexual pleasure for the animals involved. Bonobos are one of the exceptions, I think.
Hi Laura, you make some good points. But there is little proof that animals mate with the conscious intention to reproduce. We only know they are driven by instinct to mate. Not that they consciously decide to mate to make babies. We just don’t know how the urge plays out in their minds. It is generally a perception of humans that animals don’t have souls and don’t fall in love. That, if they pair, it’s the result of an inbred instinct to serve the purpose of the survival of any young that may result from the mating.
Nonetheless, that’s really not my point. My focus in on the way we believe ourselves to be above that. And how we ascribe ‘love’ as one of the proofs of our superiority.
Oh, I know, that’s why I was very careful to write that “animal sex seems to be directed at reproduction rather than the production of sexual pleasure for the animals involved.” I suspect that it’s directed at reproduction as a result of instinct, but I certainly don’t know for sure. However, regardless of the cause of their actions, if
(a) animal sex generally seems to have reproduction as its primary outcome, as might be inferred by the fact that many animals have specific breeding seasons and don’t tend to engage in sex outwith those periods and/or only engage in sexual acts at times when fertilization is most likely to occur (e.g. when a female is ‘on heat’)
and
(b) sex would appear to provide relatively little physical pleasure for many animals (I’m thinking, for example, of species which depend on “external fertilization, used by many aquatic invertebrates, eggs and sperm are simultaneously shed into the water, and the sperm swim through the water to fertil[i]ze the egg”)
what do you mean when you suggest that erotic fiction “takes us to the animal level”?
Yes, and you clearly make the point that “erotic fiction authors have eschewed love within their writing as a way to legitimize the presence of female sexual desire without it” but, all the same, I’m not convinced that the term “animal sex” is particularly helpful in describing human sex which takes place in the absence of love.
er… I said SOME erotic fiction authors. Certainly not all of them. Erotic fiction often contains love as an element. Just not the focus.
Historically, Christianity held the belief that sex solely for the sake of pleasure was sinful because it focused men’s minds on earthly things, rather than Godly ones. Do you dispute that this belief has not permeated our society until quite recently?
From St. Augustine
(Soliloq. i, 10): “I consider that nothing so casts down the manly mind from its height as the fondling of a woman, and those bodily contacts.” Therefore, seemingly, no venereal act is without sin. ”
From Thomas Aquinas:
Now the use of venereal acts, as stated in the foregoing Article, is most necessary for the common good, namely the preservation of the human race. Wherefore there is the greatest necessity for observing the order of reason in this matter: so that if anything be done in this connection against the dictate of reason’s ordering, it will be a sin. Now lust consists essentially in exceeding the order and mode of reason in the matter of venereal acts. Wherefore without any doubt lust is a sin.
and
Without any doubt we must hold simple fornication to be a mortal sin
From the Internet Encyclopedia of Philosophy:
“St. Augustine, Immanuel Kant, and, sometimes, Sigmund Freud, perceive the sexual impulse and acting on it to be something nearly always, if not necessarily, unbefitting the dignity of the human person; they see the essence and the results of the drive to be incompatible with more significant and lofty goals and aspirations of human existence; they fear that the power and demands of the sexual impulse make it a danger to harmonious civilized life;”
Even to this day the Catholic Catechism insists that sex must be only inside the bonds of marriage and that…” “Conjugal love involves a totality, in which all the elements of the person enter—appeal of the body and instinct, power of feeling and affectivity, aspiration of the spirit and of will. It aims at a deeply personal unity, a unity that, beyond union in one flesh, leads to forming one heart and soul; it demands indissolubility and faithfulness in definitive mutual giving; and it is open to fertility. In a word it is a question of the normal characteristics of all natural conjugal love, but with a new significance which not only purifies and strengthens them, but raises them to the extent of making them the expression of specifically Christian values.
And that ” 2351
Lust is disordered desire for or inordinate enjoyment of sexual pleasure. Sexual pleasure is morally disordered when sought for itself, isolated from its procreative and unitive purposes.”
I think that when I say that acting upon lust has been historically and culturally likened to behaving in an animal (non-human) fashion, I’m not making wild assumptions.
There is much to ponder in this essay.
To your statement:
I think an essential difference between porn and erotic fiction is that porn does not seek to examine – it seeks only to display. And, following that argument, I believe that erotic fiction that does no more than simply portray sexual acts is indeed pornography.
I totally agree.
The wonderful thing about erotica is that it openly explores how we rationalize our baser, animal selves to our social facades and selves. It is the ultimate stripping away of the mask, and while I think we can do that in a story that might fall into erotic romance, to keep the romantic airs up, it is probably best to limit the extend the characters go to in their forays. (For example, I’ve heard some say romance shouldn’t have the protags get into affairs.)
Another point:
If one were to be brutalist about it, one might say that ‘orgasmic afterglow’ is closure in erotic fiction, but that is the closure of pornography.
Yes! Erotica explores the many faces of sexual desire, and that means the possibility of sexual frustration, dissatisfaction and etc, which would be frowned upon in something pornographic, where a satisfying, face clenching, orgasm is expected as the end result.
Erotica truly is such a hard thing to define, but I think one of the great joys in it is trying to define it on our own personal terms as authors. Erotic content can be included in most any genre, but at what “level” does that story become erotica? Erotica is such a broad term, whereas Erotic Romance and Pornography have more defined goals, albeit different ones.
Thanks for such a well thought out exploration. I’m quite sure I’ll come back and read this again…
Hello Craig and thanks for the interesting comment. Regarding affairs in erotic romance. The rule is that once she’s slept with the target male, she can’t sleep with anyone else.
This post made it sound to me as if “erotic romance” has to be about love and guarantee a happy couple ending, and “erotic fiction” has to NOT be about love and CAN’T have a happy couple ending. I would think that “erotic fiction” is just what it says it is, fiction that’s erotic, and can go any way it wants as long as there’s a story and it’s not just explicit sex over and over which would make it just porn.
My erotic fiction has story, characters with their own unique personalities, passionate love, lots of sex, lots of relationship issues, jealousy, infidelity, ups and downs, some happy moments, some sad moments, some scary moments, and no guaranteed happy ending with any particular couple. I see it in my imagination and I type it. There is no pre-planned plot at all, the characters just say and do what naturally suits that character’s personality and history, and it just plays out, and goes on and on . . . like life. I divide it into sequels when I notice, usually looking back a few chapters, that one particular chapter ending would have been a satisfying stopping point. If a person who requires a happy ending were to be reading my fiction, it would be best for them to stop at the end of one of the sequels where there’s a moment of respite, just like real life, before all hell breaks loose again. Hee!:)
Hello T1klish,
No, I really don’t think I said that. In fact I pointedly said that erotic fiction can and often does have love as an element of the story. And that it can have a happy ever after ending, but if that is presented as the goal of the characters, then it’s usually romantic fiction.
I certainly wouldn’t deny that lust has been considered one of the seven deadly sins, and I know that most Christian theologians have believed that there’s a big difference between humans (who were thought to have souls) and animals (which were thought to lack them).
I’m taking a biological perspective on things here, though, and therefore, for me, the term “animal sex” seems extremely broad: it includes squirrel sex, swan sex, snake sex, salmon sex and slug sex. So if your argument is that humans do have “animal sex” I’m left feeling a bit unsure what you mean, because we don’t have sex the same way that slugs do.
It seems to me that animals and their sex lives have been used in various ways in arguments about human sexuality and it can all get very contradictory. For example,
I shall leave the animal behaviour science to you, since it’s very far from my field.
I’m guessing that your point is that it is not good for our society to behave without morals or without social conscience. I completely agree with you. But I’m not attempting to dispute that here. I’m talking about fiction and what can be examined in fiction and how closure plays a part in determining what may be examined within the parameters of certain genres due to their conventions.
Extrapolating this out into modes of everyday human behaviour is beyond the scope of what I’m writing about.
My point is just that animals are very diverse and that it’s probably not a good idea to draw conclusions about what humans should or shouldn’t do on the basis of what some animals do or don’t do.
My original point, though, was merely that the term “animal sex” seems very imprecise to me, because there is so much diversity in animal bodies, the ways they use them during sex, and the amount and timing of the sex they have.
Ah, understood. Yes. Well, I didn’t realize that it wasn’t clear I was using it, as the lyric does, as a metaphor for pursuing ones baser natural urges without the veneer of social niceties. I have added an addendum just to clear it up that I wasn’t referring to any specific type of animal or any specific way in which animals might approach fucking. Slugs, dogs, lions, tigers or civets.
Have you _seen_ slug sex? It’s fucking hot.
I otherwise have nothing of value to add to this dialog, other than that it seems to me that the “animal” sex usually portrayed as transgressive human behavior is that of large, powerful, and often (but not uniquely) predatory mammals – the ferocious beasts with lusty and bloody appetites. The Wild, against which medieval man was in a struggle for control.
Monocle, I saw the amazing BBC clip of two leopard slugs having sex.
Yep, that’s a goodun. If I could have sex like that, I would – at least some of the time.
From another comment, I believe it is _also_ precisely the “diversity in animal bodies, the ways they use them during sex, and the amount and timing of the sex they have” as differentiated from ‘conventional’ human missionary-style procreative sex that gives ‘animal sex’ as a term its impact and allure.
I simply interpreted “animal sex” as being “animalistic” – that is, devoid of romance, future plans, mortgages, cellulite and erectile dysfunction. It’s purely instinctual.
Beyond that: this and prior articles have lead me to read erotica with a more critical eye (perhaps defeating the purpose?). I found that a surprisingly large majority of my collection – with a significant exception of Monocle’s writing! – appears to follow the happily-ever-after motif of erotic romance. Funny how these things can sit under one’s nose for years.