ROBUST discussion

Recently, I've come up with a theory about the popularity of erotica. I suppose this was prompted by a mixture of envy for the amount of sales such writers get, mixed with plain old suspicion.

Anyway, I'm interested in what you all think about the theory. I figured Robust would be a better place for the discussion than the WC (instant slaughter there, I predict).

Theory: is the popularity of erotica driven by dopamine and serotonin addiction? Seriously. There have been some serious academic studies on how porn stimulates dopamine and serotonin production in the pleasure center of the brain. One of the downsides of this type of pleasure is that you need increased amounts in order to achieve the same pleasure. Perhaps the same dynamic exists with reading erotica? That would explain the curiously ravenous appetite the reading public has for it.

If this is true, it begs some odd questions, such as whether people are reading it in order to read a good story or simply for the chemical rush...

Christopher,

Many things we like and find rewarding in general tend to stimulate such neurotransmitters. There's been serious academic studies that show that everything from eating candy to passing video game puzzle levels to winning a political argument to just a nice bout of intense exercises can produce these kinds of effects.

Heck, I've read studies discussing dopamine rewards for, among other things: classical music, poetry, playing games, going to Church, running a marathon, eating a favorite food, and discussing in depth academic topics with friends.

I read at least one study a few years back where there were discussing certain scholarly kids getting dopamine rushes off of reading history books.

The thing about the various types of addictive drugs that are actually neurologically addictive is that they specifically tend to have amplifying type effects on these beyond just neurotransmitter manipulation (and depending on the drug may block certain receptors normally used in the processing of such things). The biochemistry of this goes well beyond just "there was a dopamine rush."

It's not just that say drugs boost dopamine for instance. I note this because it's important to note that just stimulating pleasure neutrotransmitter isn't enough to make something drug-like (which is what you're implying) unless the stimulation is very excessive, and the evidence isn't really there to support what you're saying.

One could make the argument that the nature of erotica or porn is that the stimulation is more concentrated or whatever, but again, the actual evidence doesn't really support the erotica-as-addictive-drug thing.

One could potentially make a stronger argument that less complicated books and entertainment in general make it easier to get the "pleasure award", but that goes well beyond erotica or books. A book or movie with non-stop action can give continued stimulation in that sort of sense, or even, for example, a series of clever jokes.

Likely this is a reason why people, in general, tend to see more movies than they do read books, it's easier to get to the rewards given the presentation medium than with books, but I wouldn't really say that makes movies inherently more addictive than books.

This is also why certain types of very formulaic books, I'd argue, are so popular regardless of content and genre otherwise. Even if there's a slight twist regarding certain elements, the general plot structure is known, the person can key themselves up awaiting for the eventual resolution.

So, in some general sense, yes, people who read erotica are receiving a neurotransmitter reward, but that also applies to people participating in a vast majority of activities and most types of books that aren't particularly erotic or things I think you'd find as suspicious.

And, no, it isn't "addictive" in the physiological sense (anyone can become psychologically addicted to anything, so that's a different question and not related to any particular activity), it's really just the book equivalent of a something like a nice cookie (which have also been demonstrated to increase dopamine). It's a nice, easy pleasure.

Keep in mind, after all, most people tend to seek out simpler pleasures in general. I don't think this is some modern times thing, either. Heck, we even see this with mass literacy. The minute mass literacy entered the picture, things like penny dreadfuls and dime novels were huge. Quicker, easier, more digestible, but not addictive. It's also why Cop Drama XYZ Version 23: Moscow edition or Easily Plotted Sitcom TUV can pull in millions of viewers each week, because they are simple, accessible pleasures (consider that the average mid-tier sitccom pulls in more viewers in one week than many authors will have readers their entire career). Doesn't make them addictive.

Setting aside the thorny question of philosophical materialism, the reality is most things we do for "pleasure" on some level end up being a "chemical rush", so it's rather misleading to make the distinction and cite neurology to talk about "good story" vs a "chemical rush" in that sense. That "good story" is something you like because of the eventual neurotransmitter stimulation it provides on some level.

Perhaps that's being a bit too specific or whatever, but I think it's just misleading to say that erotica's popularity is about addiction and, to be blunt, it kind of cheapens what addiction actually is, plus, there isn't actually evidence that erotica readers build up tolerance in the sense you're describing if this was all purely some sort of quick neurotransmitter rush-addiction type thing.

I think it just boils down to, the simpler and more predictable pleasures are more accessible and popular in general.

Well, I don't know. I agree with you that there are many things that stimulate dopamine production in the brain (eating chocolate, etc), but there have been some studies and articles lately on the topic that place porn on another level.

There was a recent article in the UK Guardian on the topic: http://www.theguardian.com/commentisf...

I'm no scientist or expert, but it does seem like there's something more to it. Of course, that begs the question as to whether there's a big enough difference between erotica and porn in regards to dopamine that would result in erotica causing no physiological changes in the brain vs porn causing them (re: the Cambridge U study referenced in the Guardian article).

It's not difficult to draw a line between erotica and pornography BUT it is a matter of taste.

However you classify the current tidal wash of crude pornography -- I have no hesitation in drawing the line, as you can see -- there is clearly a huge demand for it.

However -- aside from question of drawing more lines, between what is habitual, what is habit-forming with emphasis on the behavioral formation, and what is addictive with the emphasis on a psychobiochemical formation -- I think there is a possibility overlooked here. It seems to me that Amazon and KDP too have brought a huge new readership into the market, on the whole people without the cultural background, references, education, or restraints, too, of the class for whom the majority of authors published by trade (the technical name for "mainstream") and literary publishers once wrote.

To service all these people, a new breed of "author" shot up. There have always been authors who pandered to a readership, of course, but in the main you made your name in literature by writing for yourself and a handful of other men and fewer women, within boundaries of decency recognized by everyone. That is why so many dons wrote whodunits, because that is what other dons like to read, and publishers could justify the printing cost by hardcover sales to the professional classes and, as I proved with the tests on the MS of REVERSE NEGATIVE, the constant readers spread over all the socio-economic groups; many highly respected authors never in their lifetimes saw sales exceeding 2000 copies for any one title. However the lesser writers were willing to pander, publishers on fear of legal action did not in the main publish pornography; at most they published what today would be dismissed as "soft porn" and that less often than the pursed lips and salivating tabloid outrage would have you believe. Availability of pornography was low and acquisition expensive.

Along comes Amazon and KDP, and the influx of "writers" who think a writer gives his audience what it wants. I'd call them literary soap salesmen, except that so many of them are illiterate, and "literary" further implies culture, and what they do is barbaric. They service the demand for pornography but clearly, to me at least, it was a pent-up demand, not something new.

I'm not implying that the demand for pornography is not deep-rooted. It seems to me, to extend an argument Jeremy has already made above, that, if the demand were a recent upsurge of mere curiosity in these new readers, they would have followed the pop music pattern and gone almost exclusively for video. They haven't, they have at least in substantial numbers chosen the literary version of pornography. That argues that pornography, whatever receptors it stimulates, is at least partly in the mind.

***

Kobo and Amazon are currently on a drive to weed out the pornographers. That is happening in response to media reports of them publishing pornography, not as literary or moral judgements. Apple has always refused to publish the worst of the pornography and are stepping up their efforts. But that just shifts the problem to the judgement of a 22 year-old kid hired for his "degree" in "IT management" from a "college" where they spell what I do "litterature". Those kids are simply not qualified to make such judgements; they will inevitably throw out the flowers with the weeds.

***

I'm not hopeful. I think the genie, drunk on kerosene fumes, is out of the lamp.

The causality here is off, and doesn't, among other things, actually seem reflected by the actual nature of society. Easily available internet porn isn't new. This isn't to say it can alter people's expectations or whatever, but if it was really as addictive as this article is implying, we already would have seen a massive change in the nature of relationships in general.

Really, this article shows that addicts have different brain scans and this explains the bizarre behavior of certain addicts in regards to their addiction item, behavior, which mind, you doesn't seem to match up with the behavior of the vast majority of people also consuming the same thing (at least judging by surveys and studies I've seen on the topic*).

Note the big reason the author was excited about the results, they explained a particular behavior pattern that was pathologically abnormal above and beyond just, "Guy likes to look at porn."

Society would be massively different, already, if porn was as addictive as the article suggests, especially if it was commonly leading to the type of scenario outlined in the case report.

All that said, the bulk of that article is a lot of supposition and random case reports summaries, and the actual study mentioned just shows that people already described as addicts have different brain scans, but that's a causality arrow issue, which they kind of skip over because it explains their particular case reports in certain contexts, but that's kind of important thing to separate the background of what's actually occurring.

This is not a minor issue because its a matter of what the issue is. That is, do certain addictive personality types get addicted to certain things or do certain things make them addicted?

Did they compare that group, for example, against other groups of described addicts or people with certain item-based compulsions? That neurostudy doesn't prove porn is addictive as much as it proves there are some people are addicted to porn. I've edited papers concerning, for example, the brain scans of people with compulsions in a wide range of fixations, some the convention stuff you'd expect and some quite not so much. If I picked a study and showed altered brain function from one, I'd be making the wrong conclusion about the nature of the relationship in general.

That's not quite the same thing given, as I noted above, people can become addicted to anything.

The other thing is the article uses that study to explain behavior that doesn't really actually apply to the vast bulk of the population.

Note for example this highlight from their case report:

"Yet, though he craved it, he didn't like it (porn paradox 1)."

I'm dubious the average, or even the vast majority of consumers of just straight-up porn (at least based on the few studies I've seen), don't like it yet feel compelled to consume it. Really, the studies they are discussing show that people how are addicted to something have different brain scans, which is something you actually see with many different types of compulsions and addictions.

I'm very dubious that describes erotica readers. I've dealt enough with them in romance circles (for the record, my sole romance title has two kisses and no sex) and what not to know they certainly aren't people who don't like what they are reading yet feel compelled to, just as example.

The reason I stress that is though I totally buy that someone can be addicted to porn (as people can be addicted to anything, though not the same thing as porn is inherently addictive), the thing is, for your theory to be correct that erotica is doing well because it's a bunch of addicts basically needing their next hit and constantly buying more, that would mean good chunks of the reading public (note the ridiculous sales of 50 Shades for instance) are now basically addicts who should be displaying increase addict-like behavior that, even if it's like the porn addict example, in many cases being pathological (e.g., noticeable).

So, even if porn is addictive (and I'm not sold on that), I'm extremely dubious that erotica is addictive, or at the minimum, results in the kind of reaction and effects you're suggesting.

Sure, sex in whatever form sells. Written sex appeals to a lot of women (and men, but women form the majority of the reading public, at least in the US and the UK) perhaps because their POV/gaze/desire isn't being served well by visual porn or perhaps because of fundamental differences in arousal (don't know enough about the current research to comment on that).

Given the sensitivity regarding sex in culture, and a company generally not wanting to be associated with erotic content, it makes sense that indies and various smaller companies came along to offer the product and people snapped it up, particularly certain market segments that had been underserved. It's not like our society treats female desire in a particularly even-handed way, and, in general, women appear to compose the majority of the erotica market, but that's a totally different issue from whether its addictive, but I do think it's important to consider.

So, whatever one feels about porn, I'm dubious and then some that you can explain erotica's popularity as the result of people basically being addicts, except in the very general sense that we're all slaves to the wetware, as it were.

*I know some of this because I looked into about five years ago when there was a round of "porn is an addictive drug and should be regulated by congress" stuff being bandied about in the US.

In my time as an author, I've enraged several erotica authors. Interestingly, I have no real problem with erotica, its sale, or whatever (though nor do I think an individual vendor has to sell it for them though), I, among other things, write YA, and accordingly, am not comfortable with, for example, interviewing someone who is erotica author on my blog because I don't want some 14-year-old* popping on my blog to read about my YA books and run across "Super Anais Nin Adventures" or whatever.

This has gotten me some rather nasty mails at times.

*The first piece of fan e-mail I received was, in fact, from a 14-year-old girl.

And where that kind of slack understanding (and sometimes deliberate manipulation of known-false correlations) meets modern opinionated (aka fact-free) journalism, understanding flies out of the window.

Thanks for the explanation, Jeremy. I'll give reading the article a miss.

To be clear, it's not that I'm totally 100% against some of the ideas we're discussing.

I just don't think the evidence is there, and the article above, which I don't mean to imply is total trash or anything, just really presents evidence that applies more to a narrow pathological patient subset, so I'm VERY dubious to extrapolate that out to society at large, let alone a totally different potential population (because the demographics of erotica readers vs. the primarily visual porn addicts they are discussing are likely significantly different), especially based off of other studies I've seen.

And the asides in the article about things like Hugh Hefner's sex life and what not are a bit irksome in the context of discussing the neurological basis of addiction because its just some random anecdote. I get that is part of narrative journalism, but it just doesn't really mean anything in terms of the fundamental analysis.

There's definitely something interesting here to explore, though, at least the initial issue, I don't really think there's much there regarding written erotica.

All that said, I could totally be wrong about all of this and am totally willing to revise my opinion with new data.

Granted, I think you lucidly explained where I think this is all coming from (i.e., pent-up demand/underserved markets) more than anything.**

I'll admit because of my particular profession, I'm highly, if not overly, sensitive to what the media derives from particular studies (or in some cases what the researchers themselves claim when they want big press*).

*e.g., the silly "Oreos are addictive as cocaine!" study that people keep touting that didn't even bother to use to head-to-head Oreo vs. cocaine animal groups

**It's kind of like Mark Coker saying people don't like serials and he knows this because of Smashwords data, but Smashwords doesn't even allow serials.

To be honest, I'm kind of curious what would happen if you did go on Kboards and try to have this conversation.

J.A. wrote: "To be honest, I'm kind of curious what would happen if you did go on Kboards and try to have this conversation."

Let me know when you start it so I can come watch. I'm rather partial to bloodbaths. A large number of those people earn their living from pornography, not to mention the respect they imagine accrues from calling themselves "Author JohnJane Doe" (I tried explaining once that that is like carrying a placard front and back reading "I'm trailer park trash," but no one was grateful). They have zero sense of humor, and the subtle amusements available in the current events would have escaped them totally even if they weren't suffering in the pocket.

Down with Telemachus, patron saint of spoilsports! (Er, that's a reference to bloodsports, though I don't imagine he had much of a sense of humor, either.)

I'm very anti-controversy in general. It's why I've steadily drifted away from most author groups I used to associate with.

I would have thought most author's groups, unless in the grip of a firm moderator, would by their nature be one long rolling controversy. I don't really know, though, as I'm too busy to be a joiner.

That's probably for the best and a good state of affairs, I'd imagine.

What is missing from this conversation is the gender of the 'insatiable' reader - she is female.

The market of e-books is flooded with something these women wouldn't be caught dead buying in paperback.

This is the first time, to my knowledge, that such a large amount of porn has been written by women, for women.

The interesting thing is that in fan-fiction this type of story (including 50 Shades of Spank Me) is called 'slash' - many of the first 'authors' cut their teeth writing TV show 'slash' much of it male/male.

I'm pointing this out because I discovered the 'slash' 'sub-culture' while working tech support with a bunch of 20-somethings.

They knew all about it. I had no idea it existed and was mind-boggled at the size of it. Just one website has several thousands files on it. There are hundreds of sites.

The writers and readers were mostly female, just as with this current market.

Also, I suspect there is a bit of truth to the link between anti-depressants and the need for erotica as a 'kick start'. Most anti-depressants squash the female libito(sp).

But that's just my personal opinion.

Five minutes on ROBUST is enough to learn something umpteen years of expensive education can never teach you.

What the devil is "slash"? I take it it isn't what used to be called "snuff fiction" which was a particularly nasty sort of pornography which supposedly had a vogue about thirty years ago. (I heard plenty of outrage about it, but never saw any.)

No. Nothing to do with snuff. Slash originated in, of all things, Star Trek fandom in the 60s. In particular, the 'zine culture and related fandom.

Slash generally refers to male homosexual erotica themed pairings of fandom-related characters (though as Kat noted, though a good majority of the readers are heterosexual females).

Although in recent years, it may sometimes refer to female homosexual stuff as well, in general it is more associated with male homosexual fandom erotica, which makes it generally slightly distinct from say, just general fandom erotica.

It doesn't imply any sort of violence or death or that sort of thing like snuff.

The "slash" comes from the separating character for the characters who are being paired.

For example,

Kirk/Spock "Kirk slash Spock"
Jeeves/Wooster
Galt/Rearden <--- Objectivists do it without any sense of obligation!

Or whatever. My time on the Internet has taught me there's no fandom that exists that someone won't make sexual.

There's even a bit of an internet joke about that in a more general sense. The so-called "Rule 34": If it exists, there is porn of it. No exception."

J.A. wrote: "Galt/Rearden <--- Objectivists do it without any sense of obligation!"

My time in the theatre was generally a misery because I hated the actors. Between the dress rehearsal and the opening night I would hold two dinners, one for the heterosexuals, one for the homosexuals, to repair strained relations. Usually these things were held in restaurants, with the bill charged to the production, but someone remembered me giving tips to a chef on my chat show, and challenged me to "cook something edible", so I had gays on this particular production for dinner at home. After dinner, port passing, in the glow of good fellowship, I said carelessly, "And one of the great regrets of my life is that I never had a homosexual relationship." The next moment I was standing with my back to the wall, every male in the room hanging on my hands, and reaching out for the rest of me. My girlfriend and the lesbians present dined out for months on spiteful embroideries of this embarrassing tale.

One of the backers of the play asked me over the net at the club if it was true what his wife heard at the hairdresser, "that you swing both ways." I retorted, "Want me to fix you up with a goodlooking boy?" That put him off his stroke so much that I aced him every serve to the end of the match!

Since you're such a trendy, and we're in that kind of a thread, what is a "metrosexual"?

A metrosexual is just a man obsessed with his fashion and appearance, particularly in the more modern GQ-type modern urban sense or whatever. He'll spend a lot of time and energy on grooming, buying the latest fashions, and shopping for them, et cetera. This goes beyond just basic upkeep and what not.

There's a connotation of a bit of self-obsession about the whole thing, an alleged undermining of what men are "supposed to be like" in regards to their attitudes toward appearance, that sort of thing.

At least when it was all the rage a few years back, part of the idea was that a metrosexual was straight, I think to play into the stereotype that gay men like fashion and shopping or whatever (sure, a lot do, but I've known a lot of slovenly, unfashionable gay guys :p), but it is perhaps not as as cut and dry, but still the word at most, generally can apply to the full sexual spectrum, it's not supposed to, as currently used, be a code for gay. I suppose if only because of the aforementioned stereotypes that already exist in that realm.

One of the connotations of the word, at least as popularly used, is the also the idea reflects, in some quarters, an obsession that is considered unmasculine. I mean a body builder is obviously concerned with his physical appearance, but that wouldn't be considered being "metrosexual" even if they guy bought tailored suits vs. the guy plucking his eyebrows.

One comparison that comes to my mind is the dandy of the later Georgian period. Beau Brummel would be the king of the metrosexuals today.

And here I was looking forward to the discovery of a third gender. I've always known a lot of metrosexuals. Andy Warhol was one. Only thing is, I would at the time have called him asexual. He just wasn't interested in anyone but himself.

Thanks for the explanation.

One of my partners had his suits tailored just so, his shirts cut just so (the woman in charge of our fashion department would scour the earth for a bolt of Macclesfield silk for him), and would spend his lunch hours, always precisely 90m, at the gym. In his fridge there wasn't even milk, just vitamin pills. He was 28 years old, he was a goodlooking, wellspoken fellow, if unsmiling, he earned in the millions every year, and one day he interrupted a meeting at the Pierre where the rest of us sat with a major client to say excitedly, "I got a date with a girl! What do I do next?"

Thanks JA.

I suppose in another time a metrosexual would be called a 'dandy.'

The more things change the more they stay the same.

Now, JA, your next assignment is to explain 'manscaping' to Andre. Because a metrosexual doesn't stop at plucking his eyebrows. LOL

I go with what the good Lord gave me!

Whatever 'manscaping' may be, I'm beyond shocking. I mix daily with cyclists who shave their legs, they say to go faster but in physics that's rubbish; more likely to show off their legs better. Vanity, what's they name again?

Legs - that's where the manscaping starts, but not where it ends. LOL I can't imagine WHY a man would get a bikini wax...

Gee, I got the last word?

Kench!

We're shocked into silence.

Oh, the pain of it all.

Andre Jute wrote: "We're shocked into silence."

J.A. wrote: "Oh, the pain of it all."

Kench!

Metrosexual as it's used in my neck of the woods describes a GQ-type hetero guy who dresses well and is not afraid to express his romantic side, more of a sophisticate than a dandy. He is never gay, in fact it is the distinction between hetero and homo sexual of the type - and is not a derogatory term for either...

Yeah, it used to be I never ever hear it applied to anyone who was not-straight, then about two or three years ago, I started hearing, on occasion, in an expanded context. Though the whole point of having the "sexual", one would think would be to have as a contrast specifically with homosexual.

However, interestingly enough, I just found this article by the journalist who coined the term:

"Meet the metrosexual: He's well dressed, narcissistic and obsessed with butts. But don't call him gay."

http://www.salon.com/2002/07/22/metro...

"The typical metrosexual is a young man with money to spend, living in or within easy reach of a metropolis — because that’s where all the best shops, clubs, gyms and hairdressers are. He might be officially gay, straight or bisexual, but this is utterly immaterial because he has clearly taken himself as his own love object and pleasure as his sexual preference."

"For some time now, old-fashioned (re)productive, repressed, unmoisturized heterosexuality has been given the pink slip by consumer capitalism. The stoic, self-denying, modest straight male didn’t shop enough (his role was to earn money for his wife to spend), and so he had to be replaced by a new kind of man, one less certain of his identity and much more interested in his image — that’s to say, one who was much more interested in being looked at (because that’s the only way you can be certain you actually exist). A man, in other words, who is an advertiser’s walking wet dream."

In Sharon's neck of the woods the word "metrosexual" has already started weaseling away into meaninglessness. (The premier example of a word that weaseled into nothingness in recent years is "bad". I challenge you to find a meaning someone hasn't already undermined.)

I like the journalist's version best, for its supreme cynicism. I used to be the man in the grey flannel suit* who fashioned such archetypes, so I grasp immediately, without resistance, how valuable the metrosexual is to the economy, especially to Madison Avenue salaries calculated in whole units of what the President is paid. Yes, indeed.

*Actually, dark blue suits cut for me by Pierre Cardin when he worked for Mary Quant...

If this sounds like I was the first metrosexual, read on.

...or, when I was feeling creative or bolshy, powder-blue or cream linen suits without sleeves, buttons or pockets cut for me by Lars Erik Christian in Copenhagen, worn without shirt or shoes. I didn't need a shirt because I had abs to ripple in meetings to express my opinion (after they stopped me crawling under the table and biting stupid clients in the ankle until they needed stitches), I didn't need pockets because my assistants carried my cigars, clipper, lighter, money for tips and cards (not visiting — I already knew all the people I wanted to know, so I didn't see the point of giving anyone a card with my address and phone number on it, which the less sensitive might take as an invitation — just American Express and Diner's Club because the visible part of my expense account had to be seen by the revenue to be spent), and I didn't need shoes because two men rolled a red carpet in front of me wherever I walked.

As I understand, the term metrosexual was invented for John Gotti, the murderous capo known here in NYC as "the Dapper Don." He was heterosexual. I don't think sexual orientation was part of the original meaning.

I have hosted on my site two erotica writers, recently Eden Baylee, who is easy to work with, gracious, and has a strong fan base, and of course my dear friend Jess C. Scott, who is also my business partner and who is very kind, generous, and sophisticated. If erotic elements are in the context of good writing, then I respect the author. Illiterate and low grade stuff, such as makes a living for many Kboards authors, is not for me, nor are its authors my type of promotional partner, but if books about sex are by, about, and for adults, then let the authors make money. It's hard to make money in this economy.

It coined by Mark Simpson (the snarky journalist who wrote the above article who has as his archetypal metrosexual David Beckham, at least in his 2002 article), but he certainly wasn't thinking of Gotti.

Here's the 1994 article where Simpson coined the term:

http://www.marksimpson.com/here-come-...

Mmm. If one is to be metrosexual like David Beckham, is it obligatory to have a scrawny wife?

Even worse, is obligatory to like soccer?

Anti-soccer!?

You're betraying your continent(s), Andre!

Over here the game of gentlemen is rugby. The sort of people who like soccer also drink beer, you know, and riot in the streets. The last street riot I enjoyed was Paris in 1968.

The evidence mounts that this metrosexual is a fair way downmarket, which makes a great deal of sense now that Jeremy has tabled an explanation of who invented the metrosexual and why. He was demographically and socio-economically and intellectually (not too bright) designed precisely there to maximize revenue.

Well then, if the author (at least as purported in the 02 article) of the term says it is so, it must be so.

However, Andre's discourse notwithstanding, I prefer the meaning of the word as used over here in my little corner of the world - who knows how TROC (the rest of Canada) views it. I had no idea Becks was the model for the author, but he would be the model for our version too.

Words often get 'weaseled into nothingness". A perfect example is f**k , an acronym which is now used as a verb, noun, adverb, adjective, heck probably all parts of speech, to the point where it is useless as shock or bedroom value.

As for bad, you are so right on how we have mangled the word. Just the other day (on here?) I was posting something for which I used the word 'bad', badly. I paused and wondered if it was worthwhile to choose instead 'poorly', as I should have done just now, but did not make the correction.

Sharon wins! Badly is a version and meaning of bad not yet corrupted. Poorly is more precise though, implying absent precision.

I'm sure your favorite song is Michael Jackson's Bad.

The video is still, well, bad. LOL

Yes, the f-word is now meaningless. "Sick" is starting to slid into 'bad' territory.

Back to erotica - the way '50 Shades' glutted the coffers of...whoever that was...even the janitors got a $5k bonus.

That's not the kind of income you can argue with.

I remember seeing this interview with EL James husband where he seemed very irked because they were more interested in talking about his wife's books than his work.

If my wife made 40+ million dollars, I'd more than happy to go around to every single news outlet in the world and shill for her and then some. They don't even have to know my name, they can just say, "Hey, it's Bethany's husband!"

I met that famous playwright who was once married to Marilyn Monroe on several occasions. He didn't relish being called Mr Monroe. Just as well he was never introduced by Billy Wilder, who, sober, described her as "just another fatarsed blond broad". Being "Mr Monroe" might be more palatable than "Mr Justanotherfatarsedblondbroad". (To be fair, what he actually said was that, when he first met her, before he discovered her acting talents, he mistook her for "just another fatarsed blond broad".)

Didn't Mr Monroe write a play about witch hunting, or am I confusing him with Tennessee Williams? (Over on KB, they might just believe that I'd ask such a question for real. Maybe, for light relief, I should try it on.)

Arthur Miller?

All I recall is 'Cat on a Hot Tin Roof.'

Monroe was a very interesting person. I have a book written by her half-sister that talks about their relationship.

The Crucible, about the witch trials in Salem.

[quote author=SWilder link=topic=31194.msg2503150#msg2503150 date=1391470103]
Rant about my lack of luck in finding decent paranormal erotica:
[/quote]

Your search terms are missing the point of "erotica". It's not supposed to be "decent". Try googling for "indecent".

My paranormal romance is pretty decent.

Which is why it's not erotica...kench.

This is a fascinating thread. I can't believe I've waited this long to read you people. ;-)

So does anyone know the term 'shipping'? I learned it last summer from my teen daughters, who learned it from a teen boy. I'm not sure I have the definition correct, so if you know it, by all means correct me. But 'shipping' is a verb that comes from the noun 'relationship' and connotes the idea that two people are involved in a romantic liaison (I think).

***

As for the debate about erotica being addictive, I'm not a scientist nor do I read erotica. I do, however, read romance novels. I hadn't read any in decades when a friend urged me to read some several years ago. I was reluctant for a variety of reasons, but the novels she shared were quite entertaining -- and I would have said addictive. In fact, I found romances my go-to easy-pleasure reads because I could trust that they'd distract me during hectic, tiring, overwhelming days. I struggled for some time to stop reaching for them for this reason. At first, they were quite page-turning for me, even though I knew where everything is supposed to end up (the HEA -- Happily-Ever-After -- as it's shortened by devotees).

I know that there is research into the chemical roller-coaster-ride that happens in individuals' minds when they fall in love. Almost a decade ago, I read a fascinating article in National Geographic about how addicting falling in love can be. I don't know if it was just a question or if it was offered up as an actual hypothesis in the article, but I do remember the suggestion that some people fail at long-term relationships precisely because they're addicted to that initial high from the original infatuation and never move to the long-term bonding provided by oxytocin once the original chemicals are no longer released in the brain (and they can't be; it's physically impossible). If I'm honest, I can say that I found a safe, reliable -- and for me, totally unexpected -- way to experience the thrill of falling in love again.

After I'd spent a few years reading romances, I found that I still went looking for a "hit," but it became rarer and never as good as when I'd first let my friend talk me into reading them. Unlike her (and I think she's fairly typical), I didn't branch out to harder "drugs" in an effort to recapture those initial responses. She has found it harder and harder to find novels that she likes; while she doesn't really like various types of erotica, she still goes searching for the elusive. Therein, I have to agree with the highlight that J.A. dismissed: "Yet, though he craved it, he didn't like it (porn paradox 1)." I certainly craved the initial infatuation that I'd found reading romances but was rational enough to recognize what was going on and hated that I'd still reach for stories that often didn't even entertain me anymore (but this is true for me about reading in general, especially any genre that I've read to any depth).

One thing I realized after a while is that the average age for romance readers is women in their 40s, which matches the average age for the authors (this is anecdotal and probably no longer even true in that sense). I think the average romance reader consumes a lot of romances,reads them insatiably, and accounts for most of the sales. I met one woman who kept lists culled from The Romantic Times of the books that she planned to read and the ones that she'd already read. They are likely to be happily married. Again, I know this is anecdotal, but I think the reason these women read romances so voraciously is precisely because they are the type of women who are already geared to respond to the manipulation inherent in the genre. And they read romances at a time of life when they haven't been falling in love for quite possibly decades. Their brains are primed to respond. How can we know if it's pent-up demand that was always there? Or is it the same insatiable core group looking for more?

Finally, I'm not so sure that society isn't massively different with regards to porn, erotica, and romance novels. However, it's always hard to establish a "before/after" and many of us want to establish cause and effect when correlation is at work. We can't really know, but I happen to think that the fact that erotica/porn is so popular has less to do with any notion of addiction and more because society (whatever that is) has changed in ways that make erotica/porn so enticing (whenever that might have happened).

Reading Romances = Falling in love without the tears and the mess.

Pornography = Sex as a spectator sport, with professional athletes. No mess.

People are quite unreasonably frightened of other people; it has implications for intercourse (shipping!) of all kinds, including romance and sex.

Pornography is integrated into our society now. Quite a while ago now Alistair Cooke mentioned a conversation between a BBC researcher and some teenage girl. The girl insisted, "I want to be a porn starlet." The researcher said patronizingly, "If you're going to run all the risks of that profession, why not aim higher, be a full-blown star?" The girl said stubbornly, "I want to be a porn starlet." She couldn't conceive of anything better to aspire to. You have to feel sorry for her, and to wonder at what sort of a home she came from.

Plus you can have a kindle stuffed with porn and no one will ever know what you are reading by the cover.

I've had people make cutting remarks when I read the occasional Harlequin...let alone an old bodice-ripper with the clench-cover.

I stand by 'it's not the kill, it's the thrill of the chase' school of romance.

In so far as romance goes, I should note romance is the only genre I've seen that, traditionally (I assume this has changed with e-publishing), has had a decent number of large print editions. So, there's a decent number of romance readers hanging on until well past their forties.

PP1, though isn't just about "I'm getting bored" or whatever, and as applied to porn base on research and surveys of consumers of it, isn't true for the vast majority of consumers of it. Hence, why it was part of a characteristic assigned to a pathological subset of patients.

I don't dismiss in the sense that I don't think people can get bored with something or seek out the novel. That's inherent to the human experience. I just contest the idea that, in so far as pornography goes (which I've read some research on vs. some of the other stuff), it is not the case that in general that the average non-pathological consumer of pornography is 'compelled to watch but getting nothing out of it.' Or to extrapolate that out to erotica readers.

Also, the fact that you (and me and a lot of people) can get bored with a given sub-genre/genre after reading in it a lot does kind of undermine the idea the PP1 is some unique thing that applies to porn (i.e., along with the implication up thread that porn is unusually addictive compared to other things).

Or, for that matter, do we separate it out from most forms of formulaic quickly paced work, which will also offer frequent rushes. I mean the more formulaic forms of mysteries sell at levels almost as strong as romance, and some of the most popular subgenres (e.g., cozies) are extremely notable for their almost total lack* of anything sexual (or 'on-screen') violence.

But when we walk that path, we've effectively made addiction a meaningless concept, because it shouldn't be a synonym for 'you get a neurotransmitter rush' vs. 'interference with normal pathways and excess levels leading to habituation of certain pathways', which is a much more complicated issue, and also why I don't think it's that useful to address the sale of erotica from an addiction standpoint.

As for erotica/porn being popular and society, sure, things have changed. Beyond pre-Internet shifts in attitudes toward sex, which probably plays a huge amount into this, we now have the ability to acquire porn/erotica in relative privacy (EDIT: As Kat noted). Considering all our cultural baggage and limits about such things, I do think a lot of it is pent-up/basal demand meeting new availability, particularly in terms of things targeted more toward women than men.

By the way, not saying that's having non-libertine social standards is inherently bad or anything, but that's a separate rather lengthy conversation about societal standards that, in my mind, is totally unrelated to 'addictiveness' that I'm not prepared to have at the moment.

There are some very fascinating questions here to explore that go beyond just 'is erotica addictive', which, I feel, if we're going to answer, "Yes", then we have to say, "And so is a lot of other stuff."

Here's another fundamental question I think worthy of looking into.

There's a lot of assumption that erotica is just totally off the charts successful, etc. Yes, we had the 50 Shades Break out**, but do we actually know how successful erotica is, in general, compared to other genres?

I honestly don't know the answer to that question. I know on Kboards, many erotica authors make these grand claims about how they form the bulk of Amazon's self-pub profits, but I really do wonder. People keep saying it as it's self-evident because 'porn sells', yet even when people look into visual porn profits, it's a big industry, but a lot of their espoused numbers start crumbling quickly under scrutiny.

I used to help my wife with freelance fiction editing (these days I only do scientific and humanities editing), and, on occasion, we'd get an erotica client.

The stories varied in relative quality. I typically checked on our clients three or so months after they came to us (unless they were the type that came back and so I knew what they were up to). I was always curious to see how they were doing, if people complained about the editing and if the people's complaints were things we suggested changing. Basically, doing a QC on our own work.

One thing that struck me is that of all our clients doing well, there were erotica authors. Again, some varied in quality, but there were more than a few that were 'good' in a sense, but in different ways.

Some were just your pure, what Andre would call pornography, and excuse for a lot of sex scenes.

Some were actual more erotica in the sense of the exploration of the sensual.

None of those clients sold particularly well, even the few who were writing series, et cetera.

Yes, purely ancedotal, but it's interesting and it did start making me think.

That is, as we discussed in other threads, there's a distribution of success, for every E.L. James are there thousands of erotica authors sighing because their super-sexyx10 books just aren't selling? Note, even with the trads jumping onboard and ebooks, there's not really been another E.L. James sweeping in and making the same level of money (of course, there could be reader split because of saturation, et cetera, honestly don't know).

Most of the erotica authors I've seen on places like Kboards claiming a lot of success have dozens if not scores of stories out and sell very modestly on the individual stories. So, that doesn't strike me as the power of erotica as much as the power of just throwing out a lot of material, being more visible, et cetera.

I know this is very difficult to tease out because you have pure erotica, romance books with sex, popular romance books with pretty much no real 'on-screen' sex (e.g., Debbie Macomber), non-romance books with sex, et cetera.

Like I said, I honestly don't know. For all I know 90% of Amazon self-pub profits are erotica or whatever, but I do feel like the question should be explored a bit deeper.

Not-so-random anecdote about the unfortunate power of expectation via pornography:

I'm reminded of when I was in the service. I remember one Navy fellow I served with who was just counting his days because he was going to leave the Navy and start a porn site. He was convinced, you see, that if one started a porn site they'd automatically become rich because he'd read so many articles about how much money there is in porn. To the best of my knowledge (and it's been about 12 years), he's not yet rich.

Incidentally, in regards to shipping, I don't know if we discussed that here per se, but we did have a detailed discussion of its more sexual permutation, slash, a while back.

I think it started with Andre saying, "What the devil is slash?"

*I think having sex in a book DQs you for an Agatha Award even.

**Just as J.K. Rowling's success elevated the profile of YA fantasy/paranormal but didn't ensure that the vast majority of people entering the genre were going to do even decently.

J.A. wrote: "PP1, though isn't just about "I'm getting bored" or whatever, and as applied to porn base on research and surveys of consumers of it, isn't true for the vast majority of consumers of it. Hence, why it was part of a characteristic assigned to a pathological subset of patients.

I don't dismiss in the sense that I don't think people can get bored with something or seek out the novel. That's inherent to the human experience. I just contest the idea that, in so far as pornography goes (which I've read some research on vs. some of the other stuff), it is not the case that in general that the average non-pathological consumer of pornography is 'compelled to watch but getting nothing out of it.' Or to extrapolate that out to erotica readers."

J.A, I think you misunderstood me. I didn't write "get bored." I wrote "went looking for a hit," and I meant it. I wrote about the NG article because I think that the known chemical response that happens when people fall in love (it was portrayed as being as addictive as using cocaine, if I recall) can be triggered in susceptible people from reading romance. Empathetic, happily married women are susceptible, if I and my friend can be offered as proof. (This is tied into what I think happens for many people when they read genre novels: genre novels are a vehicle for readers to have adventures and experience life, like Walter Mitty. Every woman who reads a romance novel becomes the heroine of her own romance.)

About the time I started reading romances, I literally fell in love with my own husband again. It felt the same as the first time, which was pretty much head-over-heels. Long before this discussion thread, I'd decided that reading romances had enabled this mid-life event, and I figured I wasn't the only married woman who'd found a way to enrich her marriage with them (my friend certainly did so, too). So I thought of my new love of romances as a good thing, at least for me and my husband. I also wondered if there weren't lonely or unhappy women who sought out romances because their personal lives lacked healthy relationships.

But then I came to characterize my love of romances (jokingly, of course) as an addiction because I didn't feel in control of what I read, instead craving the initial infatuation, which proved elusive. Eventually, I became unhappy about it. I didn't even like many of the romances I read, which made me unhappier because what a waste of time! I really wanted to spend my free time reading other material -- material I like and material that I thought was more worthwhile, but also material that had never trigged infatuation in me so that I chose to read it to the exclusion of other material.

In general, I don't have an addictive personality, and, as I said, it's really hard to maintain infatuation. I've moved on and don't think the romances will affect me the same way. I don't think that my friend, however, has tried reading various kinds of erotica out of boredom. She's looking for her original response. I don't know why other romance readers read them; perhaps they're addicted. Perhaps they just prefer stories with a happy ending and a positive view of relationships of all kinds. But I wouldn't say that addiction doesn't play at least a part in why some romance junkies (a term I've heard bandied about jokingly) read them so voraciously and exclusively.

Of course, none of what I said goes beyond anecdotal, personal experience. By offering up this personal tale, I've perhaps opened myself (and maybe other romance readers) to ridicule or dismissal, so I hope that the fact that it's based more on personal experience and observation rather than my analysis of well-designed (or otherwise) scientific studies won't cause what I said to be discarded without consideration.

***

BTW, you did discuss "slash" earlier in this thread, which is why I offered up "shipping" as a newer bit of related slang.

Andre Jute wrote: "People are quite unreasonably frightened of other people; it has implications for intercourse (shipping!) of all kinds, including romance and sex."

I don't know if this is simply an excuse or a valid reason for the popularity of romance (or several other genres, for that matter), but I've noticed something about myself and many of my friends who are mothers. We're not so eager to be entertained, either by books or movies, with violence or dysfunctional relationships. Most of us want "feel good" stories and shy away from those stories that might add more anxiety or dread to our lives. It's not that we're unreasonably afraid of relating to other people; it's that we're unreasonably afraid of all the things that can (and do) go wrong in the world. When we sit down to read a book or watch a movie, we want to forget that for awhile or be made to think that it'll all come right in the end. It becomes a problem if we never try to face up to our fears in fiction.