Is it ok to write, "Love Scences"?

[SailorX]

sorry, I decided not to have this post up anymore. Gomen mina

[uc pseudonym]

Well, I'd say it's in good taste (but perhaps I've merely seen too much darkness) but isn't acceptable for a Christian to write. Sorry to call you on this.

How do I judge whether something is a lemon? For me, it's whether I have to resist the temptation to read it again. In this case, I merely skimmed to avoid the same issue. But with this writing, you really aren't helping your brothers in Christ, and certainly not any of the weaker ones.

[true_noir_chloe]

I'd give that scene an R, not a PG-13. It was well-written, you had your stuff down. I've been married for 15 years and you handled it very real; but... this isn't for these boards because there's too many young people here. I would probably pm Ashley if she allowed it. But, I'm not cutting down your writing and your ability to cover the subject. You did a really great job with it. I actually found it was done very tastefully, but I wouldn't let my teen-ager read it - and he'd want to because it has to do with his favorite character - Inuyasha. So please remove it before someone who shouldn't read "R" rated material reads it. Sorry, IMO.

[shooraijin]

One other problem is distinguishing what it inspires in people, too. Even though the relationship was a marital one, it still falls under the 'behind closed doors' rule for me. I wouldn't call this perspective prudish, since I suspect that it would cause overly prurient interest in even the most well-intentioned, and I don't think this is a good thing.

The story was very well written, though. I just wonder if the marriage and their relationship would be overshadowed by the sex (to be blunt).

[Ashley]

About having the link here:
the author was genuinely soliciting Christian opinions for their work, and I see no harm in that. Once this topic has reached a point where no more reasonable criticisms can be taken, I'll remove the link. A week or so should be a reasonable amount of time.
As for my opinion about it, I echo Shooby and UC--it's not that you should never, ever write about sex, but there are tactful ways to do it. Things like this you need to judge on individual basis. You did have it in the right premise, and that's a great start. But for this story, it'd be better IMO to leave it vague. Maybe end it when Inuyasha walks into the door or something. As UC mentioned, not only could you stumble other believers, but you could also trip up some unbelievers. Shoob also has a good point about cheapening the relationship by adding that scene in. I hope this helps.

[shooraijin]

Well, I didn't really mean 'cheapening' the relationship. I think sex is an important part of a committed married couple's physical expression, and its importance cannot be underestimated.

That being said, I *do* think that this point would be lost on much of the audience that would skip right to the bedroom scene, and that's why I think it would be problematic. If anything, this kind of thing cheapens the sex (rather than the sex cheapening the story), and that's tragic.

[SailorX]

I appreciate everyone's opinion, OI removed the link, After a second thought i was like "uh,why did I do that?" For give me, I just woke up when I posted this. Yah, I read it again, I think now I'll stick to

....And the marrige was consimated...


*~*~*~*~*

The next morning....



Thing. But if you still have opionions, it's good that we do approach this subject.

[true_noir_chloe]

Seireisamano, thank you for removing it before the kids got off of school and looked over the boards. I think you show great wisdom in removing it and I don't think you made a mistake. The realization you came to about how you would change it to "consummation" then "the next morning" is how I think, as a Christian you should handle it. That is only for on these boards, however. If you were writing this for a book or something you would send out into the adult world, like the fiction in the book stores today, I think you handled it well, and I would keep the scene in.

I disagree with Ashley, and you actually did the right thing by not leaving it up - Christian ops? - for an entire week.

I've realized something: Singles without children view relationships very differently than marrieds with children.

[shooraijin]

If you were writing this for a book or something you would send out into the adult world, like the fiction in the book stores today, I think you handled it well, and I would keep the scene in.

Actually, I don't think I'd be fully comfortable even with this (for the reasons above). I do agree, though, that changing the scene merely to state that the marriage was consummated, and skipping to the next day, more than effectively communicates the point. We are more than aware of the gravity of their act, and it makes the reader understand the depth of their commitment without dwelling on the details ... the best of both worlds IMHO, no matter who's reading it.

I've realized something: Singles without children view relationships very differently than marrieds with children.

Quite so!

[uc pseudonym]

Well, I seriously debated posting this, having serious questions about its actual helpfulness weighed against negativity. But, as is obvious, you can see what I chose. I pray this can be seen in a respectful light.

If you were writing this for a book or something you would send out into the adult world, like the fiction in the book stores today, I think you handled it well, and I would keep the scene in.

Don't think I haven't struggled with the same thing, but all in all I decided it was a subtle temptation. Would any of you can pornography good just because it was between a married couple? I would certainly hope not. That's their business, not ours. I don't think a scene such as that can be justified in any way.

And Seireisamano Se, I salute your sincere Christian faith in removing something you felt was against your beliefs. But what you have reads just a bit awkwardly (though I read it out of context). You might want to try the "bedroom door" effect, avoiding such direct narration.

[MillyFan]

As someone who has read a fair share of limes and a few of the more well-written lemons as long as they weren't PWP (and who has written some implied limes), I see nothing wrong with even heavy implication per se, as long as the characters are married and/or not professing Christians and therefore not "examples" for readers.

Also, be sure to warn your readers in your authors notes or in the context of the story, even if you're just implying really lightly. ~.~

Oh, and this might help some people: it's basically a scale of terms defining such material in fanfics, or at least the one I use in reading and writing.

"Fluff": This is the mildest point on the scale. It's things like hugging, light kissing, basically nonsexual or only having those implications in a wider context. This usually is PG or even a G if it's mild.

"Fanservice/Teasers" This is basically like a scene that goes something like "his eyes were drawn to the low neckline of her dress" or "she was stopped walking down the street in a feathered bikini." It can be anywhere from PG to R at worst, but usually what defines it is that there is no actual *activity* taking place per se aside from ogling or something.

"Implied Lime" or "Lemonade.": These are references to "offscreen" or "closed bedroom door." Your "....And the marrige was consimated..." would be an example of a mildly implied lime, a PG at worst, and a scene depicting the characters kissing then reaching over to turn out the light before the scene changes to the next morning would be a heavily implied lime, most likely PG-13.

"Lime" is depicted to a point, but cuts off before there are really any extremely graphic descriptions. It's obvious what the characters are doing, and some details are left in, but it's PG-13 or R at worst.

"Lemon" refers to a fully described scene, where little if anything is left out. If the rest of the fic has a legitimate plot and it's somewhat tastefully written, usually these have an R rating, if the scene *is* the fic and/or it's written using vulgar terms and extremely graphic depictions, it's usually an automatic NC-17. (:rant: I don't EVER read the latter. I find them sickening. If I'm reading something with *scenes,* it had better have a plot and a reason for it.)

Hentai/PWP Lemon: These are the absolute worst on the scale, usually written *only* to get the readers "hot," and snag a bunch of reviews in the process. Not only do they offer the worst the above category has to offer, the activities are usually illegal, sick, or otherwise very squicky (i.e. rape, molestation, abuse)-and completely glorified rather than being characterized as sick or harmful.

I hope this helped

[Technomancer]

While I'm not usually a fanfic reader, I would tend to think that whatever "rules" I would follow would be the same as for novels and short stories. Were I a writer rather than a reader, I expect that I would have a similar opinion. Now, if it were in the sort of place where it was easily accessed by the young, I would as a matter of course provide content warnings (or else place the story somewhere else).

I'm not, however, a big fan of "taming down" stories if the content in question is important to the storyline, or to the overall impact of the work. One could consider Sheri Reynold's novel "The Rapture of Canaan" as an example; it certainly is not suitable for children, but the meaning of the book would be greatly reduced if it were written to be acceptable to a younger audience. Shock for shock's sake though is never worth reading, much less writing.

On another note, I have to disagree very much with MillyFan on her ephasis on didactics. I know I've said this before, so forgive me if I'm retreading old ground, but what matters is the story. It may be nice for some to think of "true" Christians as not sinning, and of non-Christians as given to vice, but really this is fantasy. And not a very good one at that. The reality is that we do sin, and sometimes badly. And because of this some of the greatest religious stories are about the sinners (consider Greene's 'Whiskey Priest' in "The Power and The Glory", or the traitor in Endo's "Silence") who struggle nonetheless with their weaknesses.

[true_noir_chloe]

I wholeheartedly agree with you Techno. I think as an older woman I've learned to accept much more for the sake of a well-written story than some of the younger men, and women for that matter, who probably struggle. Obviously, as a Christian, shock for shock value's sake is perverse. I personally would choose the closed door idea, but I would never judge someone who didn't if they did it tastefully. Again, I'm rehashing what I've said.

"What I see as beautiful in a relationship is yet to be known by the young."

[uc pseudonym]

I'm all for what Technomancer says, in that Christians should not always be portrayed as perfect. They're human, after all.

But I have a previous point I'm bringing up again? Why do you believe pornography is wrong (I'd say that's a safe assumption)? Unless it is solely due to damage done to the people involved, what is the difference between visual porn and written?

[Technomancer]

I think we first have to decide on what separates legitimate art from pornography. I could probably dredge up several examples of classic art that have been branded such, either when they were first created or later on, by this or that group.

As for your own qustion, I don't think there is a moral difference between visual and written porn. But that is predicated on an adequete definition of the term.

[uc pseudonym]

Agreed. However, I do not have an adequate one to offer. The closest I can determine (in my mind) is to base it on the original intent. Playboy has a pretty obvious purpose. I don't believe this is adequate, as material can be unintentionally pornographic.

[Technomancer]

That would be my take on it too. Sex for the sake of sex. I suppose that serious material could be used as pornography by some people who chose to ignore the deeper intent, however, that should not detract from whatever artistic merit the work has (or doesn't have).

[Mithrandir]

No offense, but you guys may wanna take this to PM.

[MillyFan]

That would be my take on it too. Sex for the sake of sex. I suppose that serious material could be used as pornography by some people who chose to ignore the deeper intent, however, that should not detract from whatever artistic merit the work has (or doesn't have).

I agree with the intent of this post. The *intent* of the writer(s) or artist(s) is what matters in defining whether something is porn or not. Sometimes intent is obvious (i.e. it's obvious that Playboy is porn) other times intent is less so.

Nevertheless, if fan interpretation was what everything was to be judged on. . .that would open up a new can of worms.

[SailorX]

When I "did" Write lemons, I now take the behind closed doors thing, but my only purpose was to show how much more wonderful the experiance is with your life mate. I never made them hot and heavy, it was always about the love, friendship and ect. I never described bodies or anything, but I focused more on the connect they have and I always stated a "A love and feeling only spouses can have". I've actually have some reveiwers say they actually were considering TWL (True love waits) because of how great it sounds and romantic. But when I did do lemons, I tried to take the Song Of Solomon, with describes body parts and ect. Sex is sacred and personal, But I mainly focused on the connection and how post maritual sex was so speacial. But know I do some lime/Lemonade, but I handle it as someone who want to spread the word that, "Abstinance is Worth it!"

So I promise, as odd as it sounds, the soul reason for my lemons were to state, "Abstinance is worth it!"

[uc pseudonym]

I don't actually disagree with anything you said. I may regret posting this, as well, because to open this issue in a negative way could be very bad.

Why the cautiousness? Because I'm going to talk about Song of Soloman. It's a love song, I hope we don't have to argue that one here. But the Bible doesn't ever approve of it. It just has it. The Bible is a collection, after all, and apparently the Song of Soloman was up at the top of the charts for years.

[MillyFan]

That's a very good point UC Pseudonym. Although I've changed my attitudes so as not to condemn those who are involved, and I don't see reading of it as a sin unless one is personally taking "enjoyment" from the scenes himself/herself, I still consider sexuality as a human weakness that God allows as a concession but doesn't approve of as "best."

LOL, there would have been a lot less grief in the world if God had created it where humans could reproduce like sea anemones or something. . .you know, just split off something that grows progeny LOL. A process involving no temptation to sin such as that would be best IMHO

Nevertheless, considering all the evils we can invent, some idiot probably would have found a way to take pleasure from such a process ^sigh^

My point is that human sexuality is a necessary evil to be tolerated as long as it is within marriage or not being practiced by Christians, and that it is NOT something to be celebrated and cherished. Otherwise, why would God expressly say that it will be taken away in the Resurrection when we are given our glorified bodies? -^.^-

[Technomancer]

I'd have to disagree very much there. I don't see how it could be a concession- "to whom?" would be the obvious rejoinder. The human need for romantic love is an essential part of who we are, and how God ordered the world. The Song of Songs is part of that expression of the joy of our creation, and in each other. As for why... perhaps because the need that drives us to connect with another human being in such an intimate fashion is precisely the point.

One can say that sex is a reason for a lot of the sin in the world. But that would be missing the mark I think. This part of us is also responsible for a lot of the beauty in the world too.

Oh night thou was my guide
oh night more loving than the rising sun
oh night that joined the lover to the beloved
Transforming each into the other

"The Dark Night of the Soul"- St. John of the Cross

I know you are not Catholic, but you might be interested in reading Fr. Andrew Greeley's "The Catholic Imagination" which discusses this subject at some length.

[uc pseudonym]

I agree with what you said, Technomancer, and I'm not seeking to bicker over minor points. I do want to add this, however, in keeping with my last post.

The Song of Songs is part of that expression of the joy of our creation, and in each other.

Sort of. Soloman also had a ton of other wives. I know there's a good argument about most of the marraiges being political, but what is that harem for, hm? For that matter, Soloman really doesn't talk about anything but her physical beauty (I could be wrong. I don't spend a lot of time reading Song of Soloman, and this is from memory). So while it's probably safe to read that out of it, I'm not so certain that was the intent. But all in all, the issue is mostly useless.

...I don't see reading of it as a sin unless one is personally taking "enjoyment" from the scenes himself/herself...

Heh. You do realize that taken incorrectly this basically boils down to: "things are sinful if they are fun."

[MillyFan]

My intent in saying that was that if you can read a scene that gets a little "questionable" without being personally tempted and you're not reading what you're reading for that sole reason, I do not believe that God will punish you as severely.

[EireWolf]

... I still consider sexuality as a human weakness that God allows as a concession but doesn't approve of as "best."

... My point is that human sexuality is a necessary evil to be tolerated as long as it is within marriage or not being practiced by Christians, and that it is NOT something to be celebrated and cherished. Otherwise, why would God expressly say that it will be taken away in the Resurrection when we are given our glorified bodies? -^.^-

Human sexuality is a creation of God. Yeah, it's true. God invented sex. So how could sexuality in itself be evil... even a necessary evil?

I'm afraid I must wholeheartedly disagree with your statement that sexuality is not to be celebrated and cherished.

Proverbs 5: (emphasis mine)

15 Drink water from your own cistern,
running water from your own well.
16 Should your springs overflow in the streets,
your streams of water in the public squares?
17 Let them be yours alone,
never to be shared with strangers.
18 May your fountain be blessed,
and may you rejoice in the wife of your youth.
19 A loving doe, a graceful deer-
may her breasts satisfy you always,
may you ever be captivated by her love.
20 Why be captivated, my son, by an adulteress?
Why embrace the bosom of another man's wife?

21 For a man's ways are in full view of the LORD ,
and he examines all his paths.
22 The evil deeds of a wicked man ensnare him] to test him. They asked, "Is it lawful for a man to divorce his wife for any and every reason?"
4"Haven't you read," he replied, "that at the beginning the Creator 'made them male and female,' 5and said, 'For this reason a man will leave his father and mother and be united to his wife, and the two will become one flesh' ? 6So they are no longer two, but one. Therefore what God has joined together, let man not separate."

As for the resurrection, I don't know. I imagine none of us will until then. But here on earth, sexuality within marriage is blessed, and joyous, and yes, it can be fun. God is not opposed to fun, just to sin.

There are many good and natural things that God created that humans can (and often do) warp into sin. Sex (--> lust) is one of them... so is eating (--> gluttony). So is work (--> not honoring the Sabbath). So is rest (--> sloth). The list could go on and on... Sin is always the twisting of something good, or taking now what God intends to give us later.

[Michael]

Anybody here read Song of Solomon?

[spoiler=''Sorry if this offends some people but,'']Song 4:5 Your two breasts are like two fawns. Twins of a gazelle. Which feed upon the lillies. Song 6: 4-5 My beloved put his hand by the latch of the door. And my heart yearned for him. 5; I arose to open for my beloved and my hands dripped with myrrh. My fingers with liquid myrrh on the handles of the lock.[/spoiler]

This is an example of Biblical erotiscism. I am not married, I have never had sex before in my life, I am not saying couples should sit down and write about all their experiences. What I'm saying is that a married couple is one flesh, a reflection of God and the catholic* church. Sex is a God-given pleasure, but like all pleasures, it can be tarnished.

*Note: I use 'catholic' too mean 'universal', in accordance with the Apostle's Creed.

[true_noir_chloe]

Skipping Micheal, and going back to EireWolf. Scripture is true and never changes. The Song of Songs is part of the Bible, God's Holy Word. He made no mistake when he allowed this to be in the Holy Scripture. There was a reason. You all talk like it's some dirty book thrown in there. It's a beautiful piece of scripture.

I think Eirewolf is the only one who has shown the scripture that backs up this beauty of which Sereisamano (can't spell his name right) had intended. Thank you Eirewolf.

Let's stop this thread before more people continue to blaspheme a subject that is moot at this point. God is God and true love, all types, are part of who He is. We are His creation and that is undeniable, since Adam and Eve, who were together before they ate of the tree.

Would someone please stop this thread before it gets any worse?

[Ashley]

Agreed, thread has reached a mature stage and is getting a little too tempid, especially with all the song of songs arguments. Nearly everything is reaching a moot point by now, and per request, I am locking this thread. Further discussions may carry on via PM.