26 Jun 05 8:25 AM
Reply To: 42868
Personally, when I write explicit slash or het, my mantra is: if I have to name the parts in such explicit detail that I *must* have a euphemism, I'm doing something wrong. I need to change the "angle" of view so that I don't see a sex act in need of a blow-by-blow description just in order for it to make any sense. I find suggestion is more powerful than outright description, and so tend to rely on that and strategic breaks that act as a curtain, cutting the audience off when the scene has accomplished its purpose.
That said, the only term I've seen used in graphic slash that didn't cause me to smirk, groan, or laugh outright, was "member"—obviously, this may not be the case for other people, but it's just so neutral sounding to me, that if it's not used too often, it doesn't trip my bad euphemism alarm.
I mean c'mon, it was probably the first thing men named!
Ummm... yes, it might well have been, but the christeners of said parts likely didn't have literary usability in mind. So unless you're writing some sort of pissing contest that evolves into a sexual encounter, I'm not sure that sort of realism is going to be terribly helpful.
You know, this topic did come up before in one of the older threads, and Meg gave a link to an absolutely hilarious analysis of the euphemism problem. I seem to recall it's fairly near the beginning of a thread. Hang on and I'll go look...
That took longer than I thought it would. Go to No sex in LOTR?
. Be sure to follow the link Meg Thornton provides, as it is absolutely, gut-bustingly funny. Skimming through, I realize the conversation is less geared towards giving out euphemisms than the problems that they present, but it may still be of some interest to you.