“In fact, of 200 readers I surveyed on my Instagram page, 60% agreed that graphic sex scenes in literature are gratuitous. This means that the majority of readers do not like graphic sex.”
Well, it certainly means 60% of a particular 200 readers weren’t prepared to admit to liking graphic sex.
It’s hard to disagree with this essay without sounding like a perv who's defending smut, but it seems like a slightly puritanical stance on literature. If someone wants explicit content, there’s plenty out there. Whether sex scenes belong in a book depends on the author’s intent and the story’s purpose. Take Houellebecq, for instance. His novels often include explicit material, but it’s not gratuitous. In works like Atomised or Submission, sex serves to underscore the decadence and emptiness of modern life, where pleasure—whether from sex, alcohol, or status—feels hollow. His writing leaves you reflecting on the futility of what modern society chases, not just indulging in fantasy.
Accusing someone like Houellebecq of projecting personal fetishes onto the page—something this essay does not do, but many have done—feels like a lazy cop-out, a critique that could be leveled at any character’s actions or motivations. The absence of sex in literature from the past might have less to do with restraint and more to do with cultural taboos that would've stifled such content. Good writing, including about sex, prioritizes purpose over indulgence. When done thoughtfully, sex scenes can reveal character, critique society, or advance the plot—not just titillate. Dismissing them entirely risks sanitizing literature and ignoring their potential to convey deeper truths.
I'd rather there be far fewer sex scenes in literary fiction and substantially agree with Liza Libes, but what you say here is very thoughtful. Including Houellebecq is especially perceptive and useful.
It's very likely important to render the social and cultural rot that Houellebecq does, and the sadness of it all. I find those parts of his books unpleasant reading--and would prefer reading the summary in a good book review--but he does make them an integral part of what he's trying to say.
The problem is that in 90% or more books, the sex does not advance the plot, and often derails the plot or sabotages pacing or tension. If it’s used SPARINGLY to point out decadence, fine. If it’s actually critical to the plot, also fine. But most sex scenes can be cut without losing an iota of meaning from the story.
that’s all good and well, but just how seriously are we expected to take your chat gpt generated rebuttal? perhaps i’m being a bit idealistic/sanctimonious, but when someone writes an excellent article like this, the least i can do if i disagree is actually write something myself. doing otherwise is 1) lazy and disingenuous, and rude to the author, and 2) not even reflective your own thinking and understanding.
it’s a shame, because “you” raised some compelling points.
C. S. Lewis wrote, «When you come to those parts of the body which are not usually mentioned, you will have to make a choice of vocabulary. And you will find that you have only four alternatives: a nursery word, an archaism, a word from the gutter, or a scientific word. You will not find any ordinary, neutral word, comparable to "hand" or "nose". And this is going to be very troublesome. Whichever of the four words you choose is going to give a particular tone to your composition: willy-nilly you must produce baby-talk, or Wardour Street [deliberately archaic speech], or coarseness, or technical jargon. And each of these will force you to imply a particular attitude (which is not what you intended to imply) towards your material.» (Quoted in https://yourdailycslewis.blogspot.com/2005/06/pen-is-mightier-thanthe-pencil.html?m=1) What can be depicted with (some) visual art cannot be rendered with words, except implicitly or by metaphor.
I have to say, I totally disagree. Without sex scenes we wouldn't have Anais Nin, the Marquis de Sade, JG Ballard, Henry Miller, Michel Houellebecq, and numerous others. The problem is that so much writing about sex is bad. But most writing about anything is bad. The problem isn't pornography, it's bad pornography.
They're absolutely essential, though. The way they're so ordered and mechanical is something very important to understanding Sade. It's an expression of how the Enlightenment has come to enumerate and organize everything, including sex.
JUSTINE is an intriguing book, no doubt. I've been thinking about how progressives have turned sex into the merely transactional, an expression of "freedom," while simultaneously wailing about objectification, and dressing in grossly objectifying ways.
Sade would say that it's transactional, an expression of freedom, and objectification all at the same time, and it's a damn good thing too. He'd go a lot further than that too, of course, but that's why progressives are so uncomfortable with him.
Well, that's also where their worldview is so inconsistent. On the one hand, sexual liberties so long as it's consensual, and that includes breaking up marriages over sexual desire -- go for it! At the same time, don't look at my entire body hanging out of my leggings -- that's sexual harassment. Tolerate all manner of sexual presentation -- but if you're a feminine boy, cut it off and insist that you're a girl...I could go on and on.
Ironically, one would expect progressives to vaunt JUSTINE as the paradigm of the virtuous victim of "patriarchy" and "toxic masculinity." After all, that's what she is!
You’re definitely right. Sade advocated total sexual freedom, even at its most extreme. You'd think progressives would love that.
But for the most part, they hate Sade. Feminists largely view him as a horrific misogynist. Which he is. He definitely hates women. But he also hates men, God, and the human race in general. The only thing he seems to have liked is sodomy.
The most ridiculous headline ever. Imagine a poet, a writer discussing the topic of creative writing about intimacy. Sex or romance on life is real. Millions of people enjoy romantic adventures, except milk dude prudes. Thats my two cents and a nickle.
I do get the point that they drop it into everything and it's distracting if you don't like that. I don't think sex isn't a fit subject for writing though. Everything is.
While I generally agree with you, the following makes my statistician's sense tingle:
"In fact, of 200 readers I surveyed on my Instagram page, 60% agreed that graphic sex scenes in literature are gratuitous.
This means that the majority of readers do not like graphic sex."
The majority of *your* readers don't like graphic sex. But that's not a random sample--those are people who follow you and like your take on things! You obviously are a fan of the Great Books, fans of the Great Books lean conservative (aesthetically if not politically), so people following you are going to share those values and not like graphic sex.
From her online presence she seems very conservative so the fact that only 60% of her Instagram followers agree with her actually counts against her point in my view.
Statistically yes, though I'd argue with the literary world being so left wing these days a more conservative perspective might actually represent something new.
Yes I think it’s great she has a blog is building a following, more different voices are better etc., I just mean to say that 40% of her highly self-selected audience didn’t vote the way she believes, so I’d be surprised if a majority feels the way she does.
Biased stats (left wing or otherwise) cannot be refuted by other biased stats. There is just such poor research on sex the related social psychology all around. This is a decent opinion piece, but the statistical claims undermine the ‘new’ pov. Because it leaves a reader wondering if either side even know that this is sloppy statistics>research>claims. Are we (either side because I probs disagree) settling for bad stats because we’re desperate? uncomfortable? on accident? reacting based off an unproven thesis? Correlation=Causation is more emotional than intellectual, so what triggered the panic?
This piece didnt have to fall into the Proven Hypothesis category. A nice Here’s A Hot Take could have been a refreshing perspective. But it set itself up as Stats and Irrefutable Truth and now feels like a strawman tug-a-war in the comments section.
*sigh* that psych stats class I hated? Best thing liberal arts made me wake up at 8am for.
Yeah, you’re right. I personally think they stick sex scenes lots of places they don’t go these days, but it’s a prat of human life that’s important to many people and if literature is about human life, well, it probably should talk about that.
Stats is useful, I agree. AT the very least knowing when people are messing with median versus average…
William F. Buckley, Jr. was asked, given his Conservative beliefs, why he included sex scenes in his Blackford Oakes series of spy novels. He said he felt required to in order to sell copies.
That may well have been true. But also, call me small-minded, but I’ve never wanted to encounter a WFB-penned sex scene, and have stuck to his breezier non-fiction.
There’s a classic Doonsbury where an agent is coaching the Watergate guys on their thriller novels and says “now boys a word about the obligatory sex scene…”
This is a narrow-minded point of view to say the least, but the conclusion that just because depictions of sex in books make you and folks you know uncomfortable means it is inherently “bad” writing and all writing about sex must stop is an absurd mindset to write about. Just because something is not for you does not mean it’s bad or that it should be stopped. It just means it’s not your vibe. So many books shine in the places where plot isn’t the only driver or action or thought. I find the theory that graphic sex doesn’t advance plot to be a bad faith argument, to be honest.
People have messaged me saying they have had life altering moments from my writing and podcast which humanises sexuality and kink. I will never stop sharing! It's easy to just move on if it's something you personally don't want to read.
“I surveyed 200 people on my Instagram and 60% said they didn’t like sex scenes.”
“Most readers don’t like sex scenes.”
Those two statements do not follow. A convenience sample on an Instagram page is not a proper survey and cannot be used as such.
Likewise, saying that a certain sex act in fiction disqualifies said fiction from being good or serious, or that sex scenes never have anything valuable to add to the plot are your value judgements, not factual and data-driven arguments.
Now, I could agree with you that in my personal opinion, sex scenes done well enough to really pay off and be essential to the plot are incredibly rare, maybe one in a million at best. But I’m not going to pretend that my personal opinion is fact based and should be written down as an edict to writers and filmmakers.
I couldn't say for sure that 50 Shades of Grey started the trend of literary gratuitous sex, but it sure spread it like a drug-resistant venereal disease.
It's kind of interesting. I think it rode a wave. It came out just at the point tablets were becoming popular, so you could read smut in public without anyone knowing it was smut. Before that you had to worry about book covers--either get embarrassed or go to the trouble of putting fake covers on, which nobody did.
Respectfully, great novels don’t “shut the door” out of modesty, they open it when it matters. If you're counting moans and expletives like moral inventory, you’re missing the point Literature isn’t obligated to protect your discomfort. It’s here to tell the truth. Sometimes that truth breathes hard. Sometimes it bleeds. And sometimes it strips down If that’s too much for you, close the book, but don’t confuse your personal boundaries with literary standards.
“In fact, of 200 readers I surveyed on my Instagram page, 60% agreed that graphic sex scenes in literature are gratuitous. This means that the majority of readers do not like graphic sex.”
Well, it certainly means 60% of a particular 200 readers weren’t prepared to admit to liking graphic sex.
Thank you
Lmao R 🙃
It’s hard to disagree with this essay without sounding like a perv who's defending smut, but it seems like a slightly puritanical stance on literature. If someone wants explicit content, there’s plenty out there. Whether sex scenes belong in a book depends on the author’s intent and the story’s purpose. Take Houellebecq, for instance. His novels often include explicit material, but it’s not gratuitous. In works like Atomised or Submission, sex serves to underscore the decadence and emptiness of modern life, where pleasure—whether from sex, alcohol, or status—feels hollow. His writing leaves you reflecting on the futility of what modern society chases, not just indulging in fantasy.
Accusing someone like Houellebecq of projecting personal fetishes onto the page—something this essay does not do, but many have done—feels like a lazy cop-out, a critique that could be leveled at any character’s actions or motivations. The absence of sex in literature from the past might have less to do with restraint and more to do with cultural taboos that would've stifled such content. Good writing, including about sex, prioritizes purpose over indulgence. When done thoughtfully, sex scenes can reveal character, critique society, or advance the plot—not just titillate. Dismissing them entirely risks sanitizing literature and ignoring their potential to convey deeper truths.
I'd rather there be far fewer sex scenes in literary fiction and substantially agree with Liza Libes, but what you say here is very thoughtful. Including Houellebecq is especially perceptive and useful.
It's very likely important to render the social and cultural rot that Houellebecq does, and the sadness of it all. I find those parts of his books unpleasant reading--and would prefer reading the summary in a good book review--but he does make them an integral part of what he's trying to say.
The problem is that in 90% or more books, the sex does not advance the plot, and often derails the plot or sabotages pacing or tension. If it’s used SPARINGLY to point out decadence, fine. If it’s actually critical to the plot, also fine. But most sex scenes can be cut without losing an iota of meaning from the story.
that’s all good and well, but just how seriously are we expected to take your chat gpt generated rebuttal? perhaps i’m being a bit idealistic/sanctimonious, but when someone writes an excellent article like this, the least i can do if i disagree is actually write something myself. doing otherwise is 1) lazy and disingenuous, and rude to the author, and 2) not even reflective your own thinking and understanding.
it’s a shame, because “you” raised some compelling points.
C. S. Lewis wrote, «When you come to those parts of the body which are not usually mentioned, you will have to make a choice of vocabulary. And you will find that you have only four alternatives: a nursery word, an archaism, a word from the gutter, or a scientific word. You will not find any ordinary, neutral word, comparable to "hand" or "nose". And this is going to be very troublesome. Whichever of the four words you choose is going to give a particular tone to your composition: willy-nilly you must produce baby-talk, or Wardour Street [deliberately archaic speech], or coarseness, or technical jargon. And each of these will force you to imply a particular attitude (which is not what you intended to imply) towards your material.» (Quoted in https://yourdailycslewis.blogspot.com/2005/06/pen-is-mightier-thanthe-pencil.html?m=1) What can be depicted with (some) visual art cannot be rendered with words, except implicitly or by metaphor.
You live and learn. I’ve heard of a “willy” before, but I’ve never heard it called a “nilly”.
C.S. Lewis is THE GOAT 🐐
Very well said!
I have to say, I totally disagree. Without sex scenes we wouldn't have Anais Nin, the Marquis de Sade, JG Ballard, Henry Miller, Michel Houellebecq, and numerous others. The problem is that so much writing about sex is bad. But most writing about anything is bad. The problem isn't pornography, it's bad pornography.
We might be better off without de Sade, frankly.
The sex scenes in JUSTINE are bad pornography, although they could be considered part of the bad plot.
They're absolutely essential, though. The way they're so ordered and mechanical is something very important to understanding Sade. It's an expression of how the Enlightenment has come to enumerate and organize everything, including sex.
JUSTINE is an intriguing book, no doubt. I've been thinking about how progressives have turned sex into the merely transactional, an expression of "freedom," while simultaneously wailing about objectification, and dressing in grossly objectifying ways.
Sade would say that it's transactional, an expression of freedom, and objectification all at the same time, and it's a damn good thing too. He'd go a lot further than that too, of course, but that's why progressives are so uncomfortable with him.
Well, that's also where their worldview is so inconsistent. On the one hand, sexual liberties so long as it's consensual, and that includes breaking up marriages over sexual desire -- go for it! At the same time, don't look at my entire body hanging out of my leggings -- that's sexual harassment. Tolerate all manner of sexual presentation -- but if you're a feminine boy, cut it off and insist that you're a girl...I could go on and on.
Ironically, one would expect progressives to vaunt JUSTINE as the paradigm of the virtuous victim of "patriarchy" and "toxic masculinity." After all, that's what she is!
You’re definitely right. Sade advocated total sexual freedom, even at its most extreme. You'd think progressives would love that.
But for the most part, they hate Sade. Feminists largely view him as a horrific misogynist. Which he is. He definitely hates women. But he also hates men, God, and the human race in general. The only thing he seems to have liked is sodomy.
Angela Carter did write an interesting defense of him, however https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/276751.The_Sadeian_Woman
The most ridiculous headline ever. Imagine a poet, a writer discussing the topic of creative writing about intimacy. Sex or romance on life is real. Millions of people enjoy romantic adventures, except milk dude prudes. Thats my two cents and a nickle.
I do get the point that they drop it into everything and it's distracting if you don't like that. I don't think sex isn't a fit subject for writing though. Everything is.
While I generally agree with you, the following makes my statistician's sense tingle:
"In fact, of 200 readers I surveyed on my Instagram page, 60% agreed that graphic sex scenes in literature are gratuitous.
This means that the majority of readers do not like graphic sex."
The majority of *your* readers don't like graphic sex. But that's not a random sample--those are people who follow you and like your take on things! You obviously are a fan of the Great Books, fans of the Great Books lean conservative (aesthetically if not politically), so people following you are going to share those values and not like graphic sex.
From her online presence she seems very conservative so the fact that only 60% of her Instagram followers agree with her actually counts against her point in my view.
Statistically yes, though I'd argue with the literary world being so left wing these days a more conservative perspective might actually represent something new.
Yes I think it’s great she has a blog is building a following, more different voices are better etc., I just mean to say that 40% of her highly self-selected audience didn’t vote the way she believes, so I’d be surprised if a majority feels the way she does.
Yes ^
Biased stats (left wing or otherwise) cannot be refuted by other biased stats. There is just such poor research on sex the related social psychology all around. This is a decent opinion piece, but the statistical claims undermine the ‘new’ pov. Because it leaves a reader wondering if either side even know that this is sloppy statistics>research>claims. Are we (either side because I probs disagree) settling for bad stats because we’re desperate? uncomfortable? on accident? reacting based off an unproven thesis? Correlation=Causation is more emotional than intellectual, so what triggered the panic?
This piece didnt have to fall into the Proven Hypothesis category. A nice Here’s A Hot Take could have been a refreshing perspective. But it set itself up as Stats and Irrefutable Truth and now feels like a strawman tug-a-war in the comments section.
*sigh* that psych stats class I hated? Best thing liberal arts made me wake up at 8am for.
Yeah, you’re right. I personally think they stick sex scenes lots of places they don’t go these days, but it’s a prat of human life that’s important to many people and if literature is about human life, well, it probably should talk about that.
Stats is useful, I agree. AT the very least knowing when people are messing with median versus average…
exactly. There's so much evidence pretty much everywhere to contradict this.
I’ve published three literary novels following the sure fire formula No Sex Scenes No Murders No Sales
William F. Buckley, Jr. was asked, given his Conservative beliefs, why he included sex scenes in his Blackford Oakes series of spy novels. He said he felt required to in order to sell copies.
That may well have been true. But also, call me small-minded, but I’ve never wanted to encounter a WFB-penned sex scene, and have stuck to his breezier non-fiction.
There’s a classic Doonsbury where an agent is coaching the Watergate guys on their thriller novels and says “now boys a word about the obligatory sex scene…”
No Sales. Haha. Sorry.
My agent cannot hide this fact!
This is a narrow-minded point of view to say the least, but the conclusion that just because depictions of sex in books make you and folks you know uncomfortable means it is inherently “bad” writing and all writing about sex must stop is an absurd mindset to write about. Just because something is not for you does not mean it’s bad or that it should be stopped. It just means it’s not your vibe. So many books shine in the places where plot isn’t the only driver or action or thought. I find the theory that graphic sex doesn’t advance plot to be a bad faith argument, to be honest.
Not All Media Is Made For You
People have messaged me saying they have had life altering moments from my writing and podcast which humanises sexuality and kink. I will never stop sharing! It's easy to just move on if it's something you personally don't want to read.
You’ve written ridiculous bullshit before but this is the best
Was it Flannery O'Conner who said pornography in novels is a sin against art?
“I surveyed 200 people on my Instagram and 60% said they didn’t like sex scenes.”
“Most readers don’t like sex scenes.”
Those two statements do not follow. A convenience sample on an Instagram page is not a proper survey and cannot be used as such.
Likewise, saying that a certain sex act in fiction disqualifies said fiction from being good or serious, or that sex scenes never have anything valuable to add to the plot are your value judgements, not factual and data-driven arguments.
Now, I could agree with you that in my personal opinion, sex scenes done well enough to really pay off and be essential to the plot are incredibly rare, maybe one in a million at best. But I’m not going to pretend that my personal opinion is fact based and should be written down as an edict to writers and filmmakers.
Clearly someone has never read the Song of Solomon.
I couldn't say for sure that 50 Shades of Grey started the trend of literary gratuitous sex, but it sure spread it like a drug-resistant venereal disease.
It's kind of interesting. I think it rode a wave. It came out just at the point tablets were becoming popular, so you could read smut in public without anyone knowing it was smut. Before that you had to worry about book covers--either get embarrassed or go to the trouble of putting fake covers on, which nobody did.
Well I like to let my mind run wild with imagination.
Respectfully, great novels don’t “shut the door” out of modesty, they open it when it matters. If you're counting moans and expletives like moral inventory, you’re missing the point Literature isn’t obligated to protect your discomfort. It’s here to tell the truth. Sometimes that truth breathes hard. Sometimes it bleeds. And sometimes it strips down If that’s too much for you, close the book, but don’t confuse your personal boundaries with literary standards.