Love Without Sex
I am re-reading a crucial scene this morning in Freudian Slip, in which Katie is made love to by Julian . . . or rather, Julian's soul/ghost/disembodied voice. All she can feel is a cool feather-like touch, like a chilly breath of air, where he worships her thighs. They get creative, and they sort of make love. They DO make love, but there's no . . . well, penis.
It is so important to the story to believe that Katie could give up sex with men--flesh and blood men--for Julian. Her Jules. And yet, as I re-read it, I believe it. I totally believe it. But then again . . . I wrote it.
In Spanish Disco, there is a big reveal in the second-to-last chapter. So I don't want to say what it is regarding the love interest. BUT, he and Cassie spend five long years having phone sex and not meeting--she refuses.
So . . . it got me thinking. For a soul mate would you give up sex? For a complete and total connection, would you submit to the agony of not being able to make love? I think I've been able to have it totally believable with Julian and Katie. A perfect love--perfect forever. EXCEPT for that whole pesky issue of sex.
I know there are books, movies, that pose this question. Remember LADYHAWKE? Rutger Hauer (when he was drop-dead gorgeous), Matthew Broderick, Michele Pfeiffer? I admit I am a sucker for that movie. What can I say? The eighties. It explains a lot. But in it, the lovers were kept apart by sunrise and sunset and their animal forms. Yet they never left each other's side, never gave up on the thought of being together.
Any other movies you can think of? And could you make that choice?
It is so important to the story to believe that Katie could give up sex with men--flesh and blood men--for Julian. Her Jules. And yet, as I re-read it, I believe it. I totally believe it. But then again . . . I wrote it.
In Spanish Disco, there is a big reveal in the second-to-last chapter. So I don't want to say what it is regarding the love interest. BUT, he and Cassie spend five long years having phone sex and not meeting--she refuses.
So . . . it got me thinking. For a soul mate would you give up sex? For a complete and total connection, would you submit to the agony of not being able to make love? I think I've been able to have it totally believable with Julian and Katie. A perfect love--perfect forever. EXCEPT for that whole pesky issue of sex.
I know there are books, movies, that pose this question. Remember LADYHAWKE? Rutger Hauer (when he was drop-dead gorgeous), Matthew Broderick, Michele Pfeiffer? I admit I am a sucker for that movie. What can I say? The eighties. It explains a lot. But in it, the lovers were kept apart by sunrise and sunset and their animal forms. Yet they never left each other's side, never gave up on the thought of being together.
Any other movies you can think of? And could you make that choice?
Labels: love, sex scenes
posted by Erica Orloff at 9:11 AM
12 Comments:
Could I make the choice? Hmm. Wow. People pay big bucks hourly for this type of analysis. :)
I'd like to think I could. Physical gratification is fleeting, so if presented the right way, to choose it over a perfect love forever would seem almost shallow. Would I like to make the choice? In a word, NO.
I'm a huge fan of 'foreplay' in books as well as movies. Subtlety and innuendo are cleverer, and IMO more difficult to get right. This sounds brilliantly unique, Erica. In addition, the timing also seems dead on, coming on the heels of the recent swing toward erotica for so many publishers. I've got to believe not everyone in the world is eager to be bashed over the head with blatant anatomy. To be given the freedom to engage your creative visualization is refreshing.
I'll look forward to 'Freudian Slip' ;-)
Hi Lainey:
LOL! I don't charge for this analysis. This is just my brain spewing what pops into it!
I agree. It's hard to make things subtle--I thought you did so brilliantly in the WRR. I feel like . . . it can all come down to what's between your ears and not what's between your legs. I know there are erotic romances out there that are good--but I also know I picked up one or two in B&N to see what the fuss was about, and I sure didn't get excited. It was like the second sentence and he was fingering a certain spot on her underneath the table. Like . . . um . . . do they even LIKE each other? I wasn't involved in the story at all.
By the time Julian and Katie do it, they are so wrapped up in each other . . . .
E
Having been married for 14 1/2 years, I can easily say yes, I could choose to never have real sex again to be with my husband. It would be a no-brainer. What we have is so much more than the physical expression of it.
But if I'd been asked to make the choice back when we were first in love, it would have been much, much harder.
I tend to agree about the erotic romances that shove the sex in our faces right away. But there's one author (Megan Hart) who is SO good that even though her upcoming book, Broken, starts off in the middle of sex, it sucked me in immediately. The book has been described (not by me) as "brilliant" and it makes me hate her. :) Her current book, Dirty, gives us a little more of the main character before it gets into the sex, but is an excellent example, IMO, of an erotic novel in which the sex is important but not the sole point of the story.
Commercial over. Sorry. :)
For a soul mate would you give up sex? For a complete and total connection, would you submit to the agony of not being able to make love?
Yep, although I'd insist on the freedom to ... er ... love myself. ;)
natalie:
Good point about WHERE in the relationship the choice comes.
And now I will HAVE to go check out that book. I know there are good ones out there--I'm just flying blind when I try to pick one up.
E
spy:
I can hear the Devinyls now . . .
"I touch myself . . . "
And actually, that is a big part of Julian and Katie's love scene. And I will definitely keep you all posted as far as what I get away with come editing time. It's funny, the sex isn't graphic--but it's so intimate that it FEELS reading it like I shouldn't be privy to this moment between these two characters. And the fact that I feel that way makes me feel psyched that it works somehow.
E
Love without sex is still love.
Sex without love is empty as hell.
Jude:
Ever the brilliant philosopher, that is perfectly worded.
True enough, my dear, true enough.
E
I don't think I could believe that a person could go without physical touch, but I could believe that they could go without sex. It would be difficult, yes, but still believable.
But zero physical affection? Not sure - does she have a cat?
{{{T'anks}}}
Very eloquent, Jude.
In case you missed it, Asylum Hunter has been nominated for best online read. ;-)
(this report from lainey, who has been a bad, bad writer indulging in way too much time on the Internet again)
Congratulations!
kelly:
I agree. Like all things, I think it's in the world you create. My character is still coming to grips with grief . . . and I think we sometimes make different decisions when we are in the depth of a private hell vs. when we have the world on a string.
No cat. Maybe I should get her one!
Hi Lainey:
That's so cool. I didn't know! I did have a ball writing it though.
E
Post a Comment
<< Home