The spectrum

CliffordDorset wrote here (http://www.librarything.com/topic/76084#4048093): "There's a very broad spectrum out there."

I agree that there's a broad spectrum to erotica novels. I suppose to look at the spectrum, one would have to define which parameters to use.
How erotic a novel is seems a useless parameter to me, as this depends on personal taste.
But I guess parameters like how explicit the novel is, or whether the subject matter is mainstream / extreme according to the times' perspective could be used. I'm sure there are others.

As to explicitness, I suppose the Harlequin novels I used to read as a young girl could be on the one end, and at the other end... I'm not sure, it's quite possible I haven't been there (yet). How explicit can you get?

As to the shock value of subject matter, I suppose the entire genre has come a long way now that this type of novel is sold and bought openly as opposed to under the counter and in shady shops. Although the worldwide reactions last year to the E.L. James Fifty Shades of Grey novels prove that there is still a long way to go as to acceptance.
Besides acceptance of the genre as a whole, I suppose there's a futher difference between acceptance of depictions of 'standard' erotic/sexual acts and tastes that are deemed out of the ordinary.

Which spectrum parameters and ends would you define?

I'm with you. I'd put things on an xy axis, with "acceptability" on one axis, and "explicitness" on the other.
Of course, both terms are very subjective. I know that what's acceptable to me may not be so much for someone else. Explicitness may not be so much.
You could have very explicit sex between a couple that've been married for a long time, or some Harlequin suggestiveness about something that's way out.

Which leads to some odd ideas...
"Oh, Reginald," she cooed as the bedroom door slowly closed behind them, "I never knew love could be like this before."
"Woof," barked Reginald.

I cannot but agree about the difficulty of defining ends to the spectrum - both ends, in fact. No-one would expect anyone to have read everything that might be called 'erotica', but I suspect that everyone has at some stage read a book they have found to be beyond their 'personal pale', and I would define that as being that the effective end of that person's personal spectrum.

For me the solution to the problem of defining the spectrum is highly multi-dimensional. For instance, in the area of BDSM, one might be attracted to SM without an appreciable BD component. Conversely, on might be excited by the bondage and humiliation aspects, without any liking for upending a partner over one's knee.

Some like tickling, and this may fit with the practices of BD.

On the other hand, SM enthusiasts might enjoy consensual spanking, but experience nausea at extremely sadistic treatments that share arguably similar techniques. Something similar could be said of scatological practices. But in less than 100 years, the unacceptability of oral and anal practices has withered, along with homosexuality.

Fortunately, those who would censor erotica seem to have learned that the act of censorship says more about them than about anything more absolute!

>2 groovykinda:

LOL at your example of an odd idea! I love it.

> 3

I think what you're trying to do is to define the width and breadth and depth of human sexuality via the content matter of erotica novels? Or vice versa? In any case, seems like a complex matter to me. :)

>5 Bluerabella:
I'm interested in the extent to which the habit of reading (i.e. not accidental) of erotic literature relates to desire, whether this is personally acted or simply the subject of private fantasy.

What else could it be related to? What's erotica for if not to get off? Have I been misusing it all these years? :)

>7 LolaWalser:
The fact that you see it as you do means that you haven't misused it!

Perhaps 'extent' wasn't the best word. 'The ways in which ...' is better.

You most probably have Lola (Have you gone blind)?

I think there may be more to erotica than just to get off. Mind you, I think that's the primary purpose.

But I find that I like other aspects of erotica. I mean the settings, the writing, the clever way in which the author gets the two (or three, or however many) participants together. That's one of the reasons why Venus in the Country is one of my favorites.

I finished Providence Island by Calder Willingham a while back. One man, two women, shipwrecked on a tropical island.
Not very explicit, but there was a scene where the man and one of the women basically talked each other into making love that was very hot (and well written). I may be splitting hairs here, but I felt that that was a very erotic scene in a book that wasn't really erotica.
That's the sort of stuff I love in erotica. Along with the "good stuff."

I read Providence Island many years ago and thought it was very erotic. The slow, very slow, development of "the yen" and the eventual surrender were masterfully written. Calder Willingham could handle all aspects of sexual encounter well.

Have you read Eternal Fire?

BTW, I went to college with relative of Calder's, a nephew or great-nephew.

Yeah, the buildup to the eventual (spoiler alert) consummation was some of the most erotic writing I've ever encountered. And it was mostly dialogue.
Haven't read Eternal Fire yet. I'm still working my way through Triangle of Sin.

Those last two touchstones are off-base - rather like the system is trying to guess where to go. I'm guessing that Triangle of Sin is another Willingham title, yes?

Triangle of Sin isn't Willingham. Far from it. But it's fun, in its own way.

Touchstones still takes me to Orlando (?!), but a site search happily gets me to the real article.
The cover is great - "a delicate subject, daringly treated ..."
"Manning Stokes" definitely sounds like a pseudonym.

Late fifties?

I can't help but feel that this 'spectrum' has drifted so far from the visible region that the term erotica has been left behind completely.

Just because sex is hinted at in a book in a way that excites some people doesn't make it erotica. Many would see the Song of Solomon as erotic, but does that make the Bible erotica?

The last few posts appear to me to be primarily fantasy literature in which more or less steamy sex is quite incidental. In saying that I am obliged to admit that I am bored rigid (stiff isn't quite the correct word in a discussion of erotica) by fantasy, 'science' fiction, and indeed all fairytales.

I believe that the touchstone for discriminating erotica is 'Does it primarily aim to arouse the libido?'

As always there are grey margins in definitions, and the borderline between SF and erotica is straddled by

Jacques Sternberg's 'Sexualis '95' and
Genghis Cohen's 'The Erotic Spectacles'.

Well, there are extremes of erotica that certainly merit the label "fantastic." And even a bit of fairy-tale makes it in; consider Beardsley's Under the Hill, for example.

We have a distinct thread dedicated to discussing the erotica/sf mixture, although neither the Sternberg nor the Cohen seem to have been mentioned there.

I thought this forum might appreciate the link in this post #72 in the thread.

http://www.librarything.com/topic/138325#4278017

I thought it was so entertaining by its context .

Just the link without the poster : http://www.criminalwisdom.com/hysterical-literature-the-orgasm-as-art/