biwords
Aug 14, 2007, 9:47 PM
An anonymous Scottish blogger who goes modestly by the name ‘Supercock” runs a website called “Supercock and His Little Minx” I’m not suggesting that you Google it, but I mention him because he and his eponymous co-author are writers of erotica of a certain kind. (She’s a much better writer than he is, for the record). Anyway, here is a brief but I think representative sample of “Supercock’s” approach:
"...Pretending I haven't seen him I start to stroke my naked nipples and then open my legs slightly knowing that he can now catch a glimpse of my pink cunt lips. The thought immediately brings a dampness to my pussy. Moving one hand down to my soft mound I lean back giving him a great view of my ample tits and a better view of my cunt…,suddenly I feel a rather large pair of hands emerge from the water and a tongue and mouth greedily licking and sucking at my cunt".
I’m curious to know how many readers here find this writing to be effective erotica? (I know, it’s just an excerpt, but still….). I can certainly understand how words like ‘cunt’ can be used effectively between lovers. But in cold print, a passage like the above strikes me as, well, cold. Diagrammatic. (“Insert Tab A into Slot B” [or Slut B, whatever). The reiteration of the word ‘cunt’ in an otherwise dull passage does nothing for me, especially since I don’t know who these people are and the writer has given me no reason to care. This is not an argument against erotic writing; it’s only to say that erotic writing is, in the first instance, writing, and that good writing is generally about people, not about the coupling of Barbie and Ken dolls.
What if we turn to the record of a cyber encounter?
"Supercock : I feel you move in your chair again, slouching a little and opening your legs for me wider..I catch a huge wiff of your very delicious cunt juices
Supercock : My hands insistently spreading your knees
Supercock : Nails raking across your flesh
Supercock : The shiver comes back again
Little Minx : Nipples starting to poke through the fabric of my dress
Supercock : Working towards your juicy cunt
Supercock : Lips following my fingers
Supercock : Teeth following lips
Supercock : Hot air on your skin
Little Minx : mmmm
Supercock : My tongue reaching your lips, flicking across your slick juices
Supercock : Exploring each fold of skin
Supercock : Each nuance of flesh, gently, insistently
Supercock : My tongue continuing the journey around your cunt, occasionally parting your lips and dipping inside
Supercock : One time, you let out a gasp, again causing a question from your colleague
Supercock : Fortunately you are looking at a news website and make an excuse about a bad story
Supercock : My tongue thrusting more deeply into you now, that you are used to it, almost slurping mouthfuls of readily flowing juices
Supercock : So horny now, you are flowing freely
Little Minx : I start to worry that the person at the next desk will be able to smell my juices
Supercock : I will just have to lick and suck more, to keep the exposure to a minimum".
“To keep the exposure to a minimum”? Sounds like something out of a first-aid manual. Wrap the patient and keep her warm. Check vital signs.
That said, this is better than the first passage, if only because narcissistic self-regard has been replaced by some sort of interaction. (“Little Minx” has told me that this was only a literary exercise, as opposed to the record of a true erotic encounter; but that’s not something that would immediately be evident to the reader -- and I’d like to know what Supercock’s view of the matter was). At the same time, I can’t honestly say that the passage makes me want to rush out and have sex. Or, more to the point, to stay in and have it alone. My prevailing sense is one of embarrassment, as if I’ve walked in on someone. Again, I’m curious to know the views of others on this.
The final passage is a PM written, quite obviously I think, by a man to a woman (it was afterwards reprinted on the web, which is why I know about it):
"hi sugar…i see u r still here…i can’t stay right now but i want you to stay here until you fuck somebody…..a guy or a chick….either is ok…..stay here until you get off with them and i want to know all about it later. If you like you can get gang fucked sugar…..be a good whore. See you soon".
To be fair, this was not written with the intention of sexually exciting anyone other than the writer and his solitary reader. Still, as it was later published it seems fair to comment on it. And again, while this may speak to my own limitations rather than to anyone else's, I find ithe passage repellent rather than erotic. I don’t want to talk this way a woman; and if I were a woman, I don’t imagine I’d want to be spoken to this way by a man. It has nothing to do with being uncomfortable with “animalistic sex”, of course. There is nothing animalistic about it. It’s human, all too human, concerning itself less with the pleasures and joys of sex than with power relations and projecting a persona. Which is fine, if that’s the preference of the couple involved. I just wish I could see what the appeal was. Is there anyone else out there who feels, as I do, that this is all erotica without Eros, and for that reason curiously sad, rather than arousing?
"...Pretending I haven't seen him I start to stroke my naked nipples and then open my legs slightly knowing that he can now catch a glimpse of my pink cunt lips. The thought immediately brings a dampness to my pussy. Moving one hand down to my soft mound I lean back giving him a great view of my ample tits and a better view of my cunt…,suddenly I feel a rather large pair of hands emerge from the water and a tongue and mouth greedily licking and sucking at my cunt".
I’m curious to know how many readers here find this writing to be effective erotica? (I know, it’s just an excerpt, but still….). I can certainly understand how words like ‘cunt’ can be used effectively between lovers. But in cold print, a passage like the above strikes me as, well, cold. Diagrammatic. (“Insert Tab A into Slot B” [or Slut B, whatever). The reiteration of the word ‘cunt’ in an otherwise dull passage does nothing for me, especially since I don’t know who these people are and the writer has given me no reason to care. This is not an argument against erotic writing; it’s only to say that erotic writing is, in the first instance, writing, and that good writing is generally about people, not about the coupling of Barbie and Ken dolls.
What if we turn to the record of a cyber encounter?
"Supercock : I feel you move in your chair again, slouching a little and opening your legs for me wider..I catch a huge wiff of your very delicious cunt juices
Supercock : My hands insistently spreading your knees
Supercock : Nails raking across your flesh
Supercock : The shiver comes back again
Little Minx : Nipples starting to poke through the fabric of my dress
Supercock : Working towards your juicy cunt
Supercock : Lips following my fingers
Supercock : Teeth following lips
Supercock : Hot air on your skin
Little Minx : mmmm
Supercock : My tongue reaching your lips, flicking across your slick juices
Supercock : Exploring each fold of skin
Supercock : Each nuance of flesh, gently, insistently
Supercock : My tongue continuing the journey around your cunt, occasionally parting your lips and dipping inside
Supercock : One time, you let out a gasp, again causing a question from your colleague
Supercock : Fortunately you are looking at a news website and make an excuse about a bad story
Supercock : My tongue thrusting more deeply into you now, that you are used to it, almost slurping mouthfuls of readily flowing juices
Supercock : So horny now, you are flowing freely
Little Minx : I start to worry that the person at the next desk will be able to smell my juices
Supercock : I will just have to lick and suck more, to keep the exposure to a minimum".
“To keep the exposure to a minimum”? Sounds like something out of a first-aid manual. Wrap the patient and keep her warm. Check vital signs.
That said, this is better than the first passage, if only because narcissistic self-regard has been replaced by some sort of interaction. (“Little Minx” has told me that this was only a literary exercise, as opposed to the record of a true erotic encounter; but that’s not something that would immediately be evident to the reader -- and I’d like to know what Supercock’s view of the matter was). At the same time, I can’t honestly say that the passage makes me want to rush out and have sex. Or, more to the point, to stay in and have it alone. My prevailing sense is one of embarrassment, as if I’ve walked in on someone. Again, I’m curious to know the views of others on this.
The final passage is a PM written, quite obviously I think, by a man to a woman (it was afterwards reprinted on the web, which is why I know about it):
"hi sugar…i see u r still here…i can’t stay right now but i want you to stay here until you fuck somebody…..a guy or a chick….either is ok…..stay here until you get off with them and i want to know all about it later. If you like you can get gang fucked sugar…..be a good whore. See you soon".
To be fair, this was not written with the intention of sexually exciting anyone other than the writer and his solitary reader. Still, as it was later published it seems fair to comment on it. And again, while this may speak to my own limitations rather than to anyone else's, I find ithe passage repellent rather than erotic. I don’t want to talk this way a woman; and if I were a woman, I don’t imagine I’d want to be spoken to this way by a man. It has nothing to do with being uncomfortable with “animalistic sex”, of course. There is nothing animalistic about it. It’s human, all too human, concerning itself less with the pleasures and joys of sex than with power relations and projecting a persona. Which is fine, if that’s the preference of the couple involved. I just wish I could see what the appeal was. Is there anyone else out there who feels, as I do, that this is all erotica without Eros, and for that reason curiously sad, rather than arousing?