Well, here I think I can see already part of why the difference between our views, although, i can see also it can be a bit less of a difference and a bit more of a confusion on terminology, using similar terminology in different way - it happens.
"Erotic", coming from "eros" is very specific, refers to the physical pleasure/interaction aspect of love, and I use it in that way.
From the description you are making, I think you are referring to the kind of "dime novels" (well, modern version, definitively not costing a dime
) that I would put more on the "romantic novel", like something that was called "Harmony" that existed years ago (saw them, and knew people reading them, in different language, but at least some were originally published in English).
They can and do, as far as I know, most or all have description of "physical interactions", but that is a small element in a big romantic construction.
I don't say they are about purely Platonic love or about philia, but still, different level. I don't consider them erotic, they stimualte the brain, the emotions, and they do develop (hopefully for the reader) some endorfins reaction, but they don't create a strong arousal on a physical level.
I agree that the social view in this sense can have changed over time, maybe someone would have considered "erotic" even "Les liaisons dangeureses", which as far as I recall as zero description of sexual scenes.
Other extreme in the same chronological period is the Marquis de Sade - there the description of sexual activity is extremely explicit and in details, although I suspect that contrary to what many think, the banning on his works was linked at least as much, if not more, to the other parts, than to the sexual scenes alone.
About the importance, allow to me more brutal and less politically correct than you - many, and I would dare to say even most, of the books/novels like the ones in the collection I mentioned, have little to almost no literary value.
Many are actually produced on an almost standard template.
I remember a series of French (or Belgian, not sure) novels about a spy (no, not 007), for which I was clearly told even the author in reality was only writing a guideline for each book, in reality with fixed elements and reviewing the final thing, he was having others writing it in an approach like mass production assembly line while putting his name (not the most ethically correct approach, and in some country not sure about legality, given the difference between economic rights and "moral rights" linked to authorship).
But if in future someone tries to look at what was part of the popular culture in our the XX century, they will look also at that, same way in which to understand the past we look at past history, habits and literature.
Though unfortunately, most of the times that is done having the objective to proof a premade conclusion, using the eyes and mentailty of our time, trying to support something useful for us now by forcing a precedent, etc. (even professionals historians are not exempt from that, for reasons I don't go in depth into)
Plus one never knows that in the midst of one of those, there may be actually one which is really good, and that can become importan for whatever reasons.
It's true that reading capabilities were not as diffused as it is now, but the "Tale of two cities" is a classic, yet it was originally published not as a book, targeting a public with lower income and not part of the cultural elite, that would not have a bought a full book at once. Or since you mention Sci-Fi, "Burning Chrome" is a good tale, was not meant as a masterpiece of history of literature, but due to things that nothing have to do with the literary value, may well enter history of literature for being credited as the first appearance of "cyber".
My point was exactly that people who go for erotic novels (but again, erotic, not romantic), go for a stimulation that is more to the level of physical arousal, thus, it is highly improbable that they will go for something like Sappho.
I don't see you as contradicting me, rather as agreeing.
BTW, it is most probable that the whole Sappho thing, is at least a partial misinterpretation and forcing linked to whatever specific interest or bias (positive or negative).
E.g. negative, as in "you see, not being heterosexual was always seen as wrong, so we should continue to stict to that"; positive, as "you see, we have always been persecuted, we are modern, so more advanced that those barbarians, and she is an example of a martyr for her sexual identity" (I am a bit simplifying the two views, but I think it can give an idea of what I mean "negative", against, and "positive", as a kind of "identity claim").
From one side, ancient Greeks and Romans were making much less of a fuss about sexual categorisation than us - Caius Iulius Caesar ("j" did not exist in the Latin alphabet, it was added in "pig Latin" by the English) was the best wife of all husbands and the best husband of all wives, as an old phrase goes.
They were just people with their sexual preferences, from one side they would not get systematic discrimination on that base, and at the same time they would not identify themselves with a group based on the sexual preferences, even though they did have also groups linked to e.g. a certain profession (so, there was no LGBT or LGBTIA+ associations, just e.g. the association of people belonging to a certain profession, whatever their sexual orientation).
From the other side, putting aside what was built mostly in the XIX century about Sappho...
From the, I agree, scarce, historical information available, it seems that she simply had a role in a school that we could see as the rough equivalent of a "high standing girls college", in which, however, in the "curriculum" there was also a part about kind of "housewife skills" which included the sexual part.
So, in absence of any men, the school "staff" being only women, Sappho was in "saffic", or "lesbian" activities.
And it seems there was at least a man in her life, and in the suicide version, it seems the reason would actually have been not the unrequited love for a woman, but for a man (though it seems there is even indications the suicide never happened, and she actually lived a long life).
So, it seems probably was either bisexual, or even heterosexual and just engaging in sexual activities in other women to help them discover and develop their sexuality without the risk of interacting with me, but not lesbian, at least not in your view.
Hmm, there, you are, and I am afraid could be voluntary, grossly misreading something, or maybe is because you got upset or a bit nervous before, and that triggered some automatic defense mechanism ?
Let me explain what I mean in a different way first, that does not touch Lesbians at all.
Think about women who do anything from modelling down to (in general, is socially view as something lower, because involves closer proximity) pole dancing.
Or think about actresses (and I am not talking about porno actresses), that do movies where there is a scene naked or showing e.g. some boobs. Assume, for now, that they are heterosexual.
Do you think they are all doing it because they love seeing +/- random dicks (an actress when get the part, most of the times does not know already who is going to be cast in another role), and get excited at the idea of those guys looking at them or getting excited because they see famous actress x in a sexy (or sex) scene, or the not famous but anyway attractive pole dancer ?
In case you think about "body doubles" or, "they pretend but they are not really naked" as a way out for actresses... For the first that does really change (still a woman); for the second, actually, sorry for even having mentioned it, there are plenty of movies where it is clear the nakenedess and physical contact were real (actually, even a couple where it turns out after that the sex was real, but that is a different matter).
If the answer you give is yes, than indeed we will have to, like Americans say, "agree to completely disagree".
If you say yes to that, for me, you are protective and somehow exalting the group you identify with, but at the same time also denigrating everybody else, and specifically other women.
In that case, for me you are no better than people who disparage lesbian, homosexuals, etc., even if you try to keep the forms of the language sufficiently moderate, aside some insult.
There are some women that like the idea of see guys getting excited by them; some women that explicitly see it as a way of exercising power, because they know there are men who can be easily piloted that way (so, they are not really excited by the guys sexually desiring them, but by the "power" sensation); women who can be insecure about themselves or with a kind of "ugly duck" complex, and want as many men as possible to feel attracted to them, to feel reassured about their attractiveness; etc..
There was a known actress that even went on record saying some sex scenes while making a TV serial, in front of the crew, were not a problem, even kind of exciting - though the actor with whom was doing those scenes happens to be her husband.
But for many more women, having those guys in front getting more or less excited, or the idea that there can be thousands or million of men who see the scene and go "slurp", is just part of the job.
Any person, thus also any woman, may get a bit happy if she gets a well mannered, heartfelt (or "intellectualy felt", or both, depending, although "intellectually felt" doesn't really exist as expression
) compliment.
But it is only on erotic games (I also play
) on F95 and elsewhere that is kind of systematically expected that a woman will start getting automatically aroused at having sex in front of an audience.
I stop the quoting here, because you went on a rampage of continuing not reading what I saying, but what you wanted to see, and just going on a crusade approach.
Effectively, I don't know for sure if you felt insulted in your "identity" as lesbian, but that effectively, you attempt at using the Encyclopedia to bring the "heavy weights", only shows you did not even.
I have news for you, you are not the only lesbian in the World, and you do not define the behaviour for lesbians, anymore than I can do it for lesbian, homosexuals or heterosexuals.
If I was, there would be no case of a waisted girl ending up in bed with someone, even if she really was the one that said she wanted to do it.
Life reality.
Bar with moderate crowd, week-end, lesbian couple comes in, have a drink but definitively not drank, they have a moment, and start kissing with feelings and passion, but still in a way that is not "get a room !" level (which before you go in another escalation, applies to lesbian, heterosexuals, homosexuals, transvestites, and whatever else you want to add).
Do they care if the guys around get excited a bit by seeing the scene ? Some yes, some no.
But that does not have anything to do with the lesbians being physically attracted to men - if they did, they would not be lesbians.
You assumed that the fact I described two women interacting with each other and a man seeing the scene getting excited at it, as meaning that automatically, forcibly and in all the situation means the two women had to have a sexual interest in the man.
That is only one of the n possibilities. Life is a bit more varied.
Even just thinking at that context, while most of the customers are probably "hetero", I have seen many times lesbians, and one of the more or less regulars (does not come very often, but regularly) who may fall under the "transvestite" category (aside other occasional customers), and all kind of scenes.
It does not mean that everywhere is like that, but it is also not the only place in the World.
You seem to start always from the point "they are lesbian, therefore...".
I have a very different approach, "they are people, therefore...".
The sexual orientation for me does not define them, I have already seen and met enough, I can use labels and other sexual categories like anybody else, and more than others, but they are just a tool, and when it comes to behaviour, many things that apply to an "hetero", will apply to a "bi", "lesbian", "gay" etc..
Examples on the bad side, jealousy, envy, being aggressive, abusive. Examples on the good side, being in love, eye-starred, sweet, caring.
And honestly, I would be careful on the way you throw around the term "prostitute", even because even that, is less than 100% so absolute.
Some porno actresses will take offense at being considered prostitutes, while apparently (never tried myself) some were also doing that kind of services, under the lable of "escort", but with the full sexual content.
In Japan, the old (but I think is still valid) law said that prostitution was sex for money
with someone unknown, so if someone known does it, even if they pay to have sex, technically is not prostitution.
A woman that marries a man, or a woman, because they are rich, are doing it for financial reasons, but they are neither legally nor socially considered a prostitute, although that marriage can be expected to include sexual activity.
At the same time, I know I myself associate the idea of "pole dancer" with a certain image and with nude, but AFAIK (I admit I am not a customer) in many places there is a "no touching" policy, which excludes automatically sexual stuff (of course, I am not considering places where they may be more relaxed, or may have the policy in theory and do completely different in practice).
And if I got back to that actress I mentioned before, putting aside they were not lesbians, he and her husband got paid, they engaged in a scene involving sexual activity ? Would you say their are a "prostitute" and a "gigolo" ? And even if we assume in their case they did not go to the end, there are a couple of cases on movies where it is known it really happened, between well known actors, so the question stays.
Or would you rather see as in "they were paid to act, while acting, comes out they can also do something they enjoy between themselves, so they did it, even if people at watching it could find it exciting" ?
NB for the TV serial, the actress mentioned explicitly the "kinky" aspect, but for the movies I am referring to, there was no indication that actually played any role, just the actors liked each other, and having the sex scene, they did it.
So you see, that is the case where from your perspective, you could throw immediately the labels like "prostitute" or "gigolo", but from their point of view, they are not doing it for money, they are doing it for their own pleasure (and in the second example, not even really caring whether the "public" finds it arousing, exciting, or even disgusting).
That is not something where if instead of a couple hetero you put two lesbians, you can maybe finally see better what my theoretical example meant.
Be careful that in trying to defend yourself and others you consider as belonging to your group, you do not end up replicating the same type of behaviour against which you complain.
