hey KillerMuffin- or anyone who might know-?

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

You Dollfaces-

I received a lovely PM from AmericanDemon the other day. Apparently the Cunt is no more.

My greatest hope is that he posts it somewhere else, because it was never my intention that the man be stifled.

My second greatest hope is that when he does post it somewhere else, he posts it as "A Cunt in *AN* SUV" because the incorrect grammar was chafing my sharries worse than the rape and beatings combined.


Oh, Rosco. I like you a great deal. And not just because I'm an androphile. You have a nice set of brains.

Pax verbiscom >;.)

 

[Lauren Hynde]

My second greatest hope is that when he does post it somewhere else, he posts it as "A Cunt in *AN* SUV" because the incorrect grammar was chafing my sharries worse than the rape and beatings combined.

Thank God! I was going crazy thinking I was the only one.

I'd seen this story in the list many times, but never felt tempted to look it up, because I figured a story with a thing like that in the title couldn't be any good. And this is a story that even had an editor. Impressive.

 

[Guest]

Ah, the lovely Lauren beat me to it, but I second Mlle's literary prayer.

Thank you, Jesus! it's come to a simple 'article'.

So be it,

Perdita

 

[Pure]

Mlle,

//I received a lovely PM from AmericanDemon the other day. Apparently the Cunt is no more.//

You eloquence we know, can melt a stone; your tempest, level a forest.

Here's my question (beyond the last you didn't answer):

You said the demon was a psychopath without regret or empathy; that inwardly there was 'nobody home'.

Yet he 'heard' you and others.

Do you agree now he may be normal range if somewhat angry?

Alternatively, he may be such a cunning psychopath that he's trying to quiet you; and having seen your exposure of his "diary" and plans, he simply wants to withdraw that from public view.

Or, "don't know; no way to tell"

How say you, Mlle Anna Freud, Jacqueline Lacan, and literary Sherlotta Holmes?



Added: I've assumed that maybe demon had something to do with the removal of the story, or at very least, saw it removed by laurel, and was happy about it; that he wasn't just informing you of a decision by Laurel which he didn't like. If I'm wrong, feel free to ignore the above.

 

[Lauren Hynde]

She meant the story was removed, baby...

 

[ffreak]

Ok, now I'm not sure how I feel about the story being removed.

On it's own merits(?) it may have warrented never being placed if it was 'too rough' (which it was for my tastes, but that is my opinion and my option to choose not to read in that category). However I am surprised about Laurel's abdication to pressure from readers. Was the story that far over the top of other stories in the same category?

On one hand I found the whole story distastful, but I agree with Pure that it evoked responses which means that the author did his job well.

Laurel, aren't you the final authority on what gets published and what does not? Of course, if the author requested the removal because of the heat, well maybe that one story should be out of the kitchen (and sent to where?).

Come back AmericanDemon and apply your talents to show us the why and wherefore of the grim dreams that plague your characters.

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

Hi Pure.

The other part of the note was "I hope you're happy."

It wasn't clear whether the story was removed by him or Laurel.

I will venture a guess that he himself removed it because of negative response.

Other than that I can't really say much. We had a civil discourse, and I told him to keep writing, because in at least one of his other stories there was evidence of improvement and growth as a writer.

Do I think he has issues beyond that of the average bear? Yup.

Do I think he has antisocial personality? I never made that diagnosis in the first place, and I certainly won't do so now.

I pointed out aspects of socio-pathology in his writing; terms, constructs. I said that his stories, taken together, read like a hate-filled laundry list of intent (which does not automatically make him a sociopath).

I pointed out many aspects of "markers" to make my point. The way the story is written, there is not a lot of emotional distance between author and character.

I don't think he is a sociopath, truth be told. I think he is a very angry man with an unhealthy love/hate paradigm to contend with where women are concerned. I don't think he is a rapist, but then, I never said that he was.

I stand by my impressions of this particular story, however, and it's un-fitness for Lit, as "Non-consent."

Oh, and if Laurel did decide to remove it (which I doubt) due to pressure from readers, how can anyone fault that? Laurel wants to keep a majority of her visitors happy. It isn't any kind of literary treason to reject something as not conducive to the sort of atmosphere desired by the bulk of your clientele. This isn't the ACLU book club.

mademoiselle

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

Edited for redundant retardation. Chryseis.

 

[ffreak]

Touché. I feel better.

Like the eyes too.

 

[Pure]

Hi Mlle and all.

According to American Demon, he asked for the SUV story to be removed and some other material.

So,--unless he's lying psychopathically-- he seems to have been moved by the characterizations, in the way of not wanting to give them fuel.

More on Mlle's convenient memory, perhaps; hey that's what memory is for right!

 

[Pure]

Mademoiselle of August 25, above:

Mlle: Do I think he has antisocial personality? I never made that diagnosis in the first place, and I certainly won't do so now.

I pointed out aspects of socio-pathology in his writing; terms, constructs. I said that his stories, taken together, read like a hate-filled laundry list of intent (which does not automatically make him a sociopath).

Mademoselle of recent past:

8-02 Also recommended on this gentleman's author page- the heartfelt poetry of a self-pitying psychopath,

8-02 I encourage anyone who is viscerally sickened by this sociopath's assault on the English language to do the same.

8-02I felt nice and warm before I read Americandemon's psychopathic sick fuck splooge-fest.

8-03Lots of guys fantasize about that and don't act- but this is not a normal turn-on. Period. And just because this particualr sicko is hiding in plain sight is no reason to ignore him.

8-03
This man's body of work presents the picture of an individual well on the path to raping or even murdering someone. I read his writing as a diary of intent.
Constitutionally, yay. Go out there and be a psycho-sexually sadistic sociopath- speech is free.


====
General remarks, which in context of the above, suggest specific characterization of AD, the psychopath:


8-03Part of the antisocial personality make-up is a complete inability to empathize or recognize humanity in any form.

8-03A sociopath is a clock-work human. They do not believe that other people are real.

====

But hey, perd, MG, darling Nikki, etc. it worked. OK, a few i's didn't get dotted and t's crossed in the crusade, but one can get carried away! in the defense of right, one need not make amends. As someone once said, "extremism in pursuit of virtue**, is no vice." Break out the champagne! not just the penes but the imminent-rapist-writer has been brought down.

:laurels:


**Added: an error in this quote; pointed out to me by perdida.

 

[destinie21]

If the story was removed by the author then what's the big deal? There was a lot of talk about not being able to take the heat so maybe he got the hell out of the kitchen.

 

[Guest]

Purely, it was Barry Goldwater who stated, in his 1964 presidential nomination speech (w/re. to Vietnam), and ringing familiar today:

"I would remind you that extremism in the defense of liberty is no vice. And let me remind you also that moderation in the pursuit of justice is no virtue."

May your penes always be al dente,

Perdita

 

[Pure]

Perd, my dove, the name was left out so as not to embarrass y'all.



PS: the origins of the original quote are debated:

http://libertus.net/liberty/

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue." - Anonymous (sometimes mis-attributed to Barry Goldwater)

 

[Pure]

Destinie said
//There was a lot of talk about not being able to take the heat so maybe he got the hell out of the kitchen.//

I agree with the gist of the imagery. And it doesn't much matter how the heat was generated, right? (Psychopath! Sociopath! On the path to rape and murder someone!).

J.

 

[Guest]

PS: the origins of the original quote are debated:

"Extremism in defense of liberty is no vice. Tolerance in the face of tyranny is no virtue." - Anonymous (sometimes mis-attributed to Barry Goldwater)

Pure, my hawk, I was there. I heard it live on television. BG said it. I can guess someone else wrote it but he spoke it.

non-embarrassed baby-boomer,

Perdita

 

[fiery_jack]

But hey, perd, MG, darling Nikki, etc. it worked.

Apparently so, not that it's at all surprising. Anyway, who's next on the hit list? I've read that there are people being killed over in the Erotic Horror section, maybe some would-be murderers need chasing off?

*sigh*

 

[destinie21]

I agree with the gist of the imagery. And it doesn't much matter how the heat was generated, right? (Psychopath! Sociopath! On the path to rape and murder someone!).
J.

Prehaps you want to take it down a notch from drama "queen" to drama "duchess". I wasn't aimming to be intrepreted in such a Machiavellian light. For whatever reason the story was removed, and if it was taken off by AD then it was his decision. Personally I take on a devil may care attitude with my stories and I feel completely justified in writing them so if they
were under attack I wouldn't remove them. Also you'd think someone who would be able to stomach writing such a horrific piece would have a thicker skin. If his feelings were hurt I'm sorry but my sensibilities were offended.

 

[MlledeLaPlumeBleu]

Oh, Pure. Dear, desperate for vindication Pure. Do you never sleep?

It amuses me to no readily apparent end how cushiony and righteously indignant office-chair intellectuals like you grow to feel here at Lit. You start to look at the world through a convex Literotica mirror.

Climb aboard reality, Baby. Toot, toot! Here comes the clue train.

In the real world- as opposed to here in porno-fantastic I'm ok, you're ok land, where we all giddily pat our big collective back over how *great* we are with our varigold philias- no one would ever call my views "extremism." Or, they might- possibly to the other extreme. After all, I have no problem with Rosco's stories...or yours, for that matter.

Do I want to censor? No.
Do I want it banned? No.
Do I want an apology? No.
Do I want him jailed? No.
Do I want him silenced? No.

It sickens me that you somehow feel you have the luxury of villifying me as the penultimate McCarthic monster, here in your rarified climate-controlled sepulchre of self-aggrandizing smarm.

AD put his words out there. They were words that illustrated graphically what an angry man can do- and enjoy doing- to a veritable proxy of myself. Try as you might, Pure, you won't understand the feelings inherent in that.

Where does "Free Speech" say that one becomes exempt from criticism?

It's his affront, his public, willing offering to the world, and yet I'm the bad guy with the twirling mustaches.

This because I dare to suggest that even the possibility of a threat to the sanctity of my cunt and human value might somehow outweigh the god-given right of some maladjusted crayon-fisted knob gobbler with a sophomoric rage-rape fixation not to be called "mean names".

He inflicted his vision on us; in essence, Pure, AD leapt up on the table at a lovely Thanksgiving and rubbed his musty scrote all over the turkey- and you keep trying to hand me the gravy boat.

You tell me I should swallow it, because it's AD's holiday custom, because the host will get offended, because it's "no big deal".

No, sorry. You can fuck right off on this one. Twice, even. With confetti.

I have a phrase for you. One that will make your little libertarian head spin like a discus. You'll froth at the mouth, I feel sure, so Pavlovian will be your response.

"Slush factor."

Yes, I condone it. Acceptable losses. Between the best interests of my gender and AD's "good reputation", no contest. He chose his topic, remember.

Fascist? Oh yes.

Welcome the new Spanish Inquisition, Pure. Now you can feel justified in all your petty bickering, because I am the Great Female Evil.


Adoringly, Mademoiselle.

 

[Pure]

Hi Mlle, aka "The Great Female Evil" aka McCarthic monster,

Thanks for your response. I appreciate its passion . I'm sorry so much of it rests on my alleged characterization of you as McCarthic, fascist, inquisitorial, etc. These terms are entirely from you, however. Had they been from me, you'd have quoted.

The passion comes from the feeling of threat; I'll address that later. But I want to address your substantive points, first. I respect your ability to make good points, even when greatly enraged.


Far from fascist, I believe, you're a kind of disgustingly liberal
[ ] pro-art advocate; a libertarian in the area of speech, writing, and art: you say, the fellow should not be censored. "Libertarian' probably applies more to you than to me, as you do ("libertarian head"), since I have more qualms that you, afaik, about 'violent' art.

So it's not censorship, but you've never quite made it clear *what* you want done with such material, in the public realm. At literotica, you want to categorize/sequester it as 'extreme.' Would you want the local bookstore to have a similar small room, labeled 'dangerous perv material' for literature/screeds issuing from and appealing to the rapists and other dangerous types? (Like the XXX section in many video stores.) Would Sade go there?


The following seems like your essential point, white hot:
This [vilification] because I dare to suggest that even the possibility of a threat to the sanctity of my cunt and human value might somehow outweigh the god-given right of some maladjusted crayon-fisted knob gobbler with a sophomoric rage-rape fixation not to be called "mean names".

That's a pretty straightforward argument, that the rape story is or represents a threat to women OR that its author does.
My point is simply this; call the author all the names you want; that's your right. "Knob gobbler" "sophomoric" etc.

But there's not much evidence that he's a psychopath, a particular term in psychiatric diagnosis, which you knew to be such, and applied to him. Not much evidence of being about to rape, either, except insofar as the narrator may be identified with the author, which is true to an unknown degree.

AD leapt up on the table at a lovely Thanksgiving and rubbed his musty scrote all over the turkey- and you keep trying to hand me the gravy boat.


Wonderful image to illustrate his 'inflicting' his vision on you/us!!

OTOH, you were browsing a free speech porn board with lots of incest fantasies and those of 'loving wives' banging the whole neighborhood. You ran into some scary stuff, miscategorized. Iirc, the violent content did carry an initial warning, which you went past. You read through it, in its entirely, unlike those who joined in with you in denouncing the thing.

If the thing had been mailed to you, I'd see the issue. There have been emailed [Added: usenet posted], violent rape fantasies, directed at a particular person, that led to criminal cases: See next posting regarding Jake Baker, University of Michigan student. He wrote a rape/snuff fantasy about a co-student, naming her in the story, and posted it to the usenet. That prosecution is fine with me. I don't agree with Baker's exoneration. {Revised 8-26}

In your reaction to the story, I understand the 'mean names.' There's no protection against unpleasant encounters such as yours, at literotica. Categories are general and rough; unless, as at asstr, the author lists the types of acts at the beginning.

In all, we're dealing with a case of "that free expression threatens me as a woman.' It's a legal problem that can be debated calmly. The courts have not 'bought' the general McKinnon Dworkin (McK/D)position that rape fictional stuff and porn movies that are *acted* threaten women.

In closing I'll mention one point that shows the problems of 'threat to women.' McK/D have argued that the 'consensual' stuff, in mainstream porn, is equally dangerous. At lit., the loving wife is *happy* to bang all the guys at the office. The McK/D view is that that encourages the maladjusted--i.e., most males--to think of women in an dangerously unrealistic way, as being hot for instant sex, any time any way. So 'threat to women' may come more from the mainstream consensual stuff than from the stuff showing women brutalized and fighting back.

These are some of the many big issues that might be discussed by those who want. I think your reactions to AD have received enough attention, and don't plan to give them any more.



-----
Mlle's last posting, most of it:

It sickens me that you somehow feel you have the luxury of villifying me as the penultimate McCarthic monster, here in your rarified climate-controlled sepulchre of self-aggrandizing smarm.

AD put his words out there. They were words that illustrated graphically what an angry man can do- and enjoy doing- to a veritable proxy of myself. Try as you might, Pure, you won't understand the feelings inherent in that.

Where does "Free Speech" say that one becomes exempt from criticism?

It's his affront, his public, willing offering to the world, and yet I'm the bad guy with the twirling mustaches.

This because I dare to suggest that even the possibility of a threat to the sanctity of my cunt and human value might somehow outweigh the god-given right of some maladjusted crayon-fisted knob gobbler with a sophomoric rage-rape fixation not to be called "mean names".

He inflicted his vision on us; in essence, Pure, AD leapt up on the table at a lovely Thanksgiving and rubbed his musty scrote all over the turkey- and you keep trying to hand me the gravy boat.

You tell me I should swallow it, because it's AD's holiday custom, because the host will get offended, because it's "no big deal".

No, sorry. You can fuck right off on this one. Twice, even. With confetti.

I have a phrase for you. One that will make your little libertarian head spin like a discus. You'll froth at the mouth, I feel sure, so Pavlovian will be your response.

"Slush factor."

Yes, I condone it. Acceptable losses. Between the best interests of my gender and AD's "good reputation", no contest. He chose his topic, remember.

Fascist? Oh yes.

Welcome the new Spanish Inquisition, Pure. Now you can feel justified in all your petty bickering, because I am the Great Female Evil.

 

[Pure]

Here is the case to which I refer. I don't agree with the decision, Mlle, and I'm sure you don't either:

http://www.mit.edu/activities/safe/safe/cases/umich-bakerstory/Baker/pete/pete6.22.95.html

[Baker was thrown out of U Mich and federally indicted in 1996]

Baker Case Resolved: Charges Dismissed

US District Judge Avern Cohn threw out federal charges against Jake Baker. The judge's ruling was in response to a motion filed by Douglas Mullkoff, Baker's lawyer, to dismiss the charges of transmitting interstate threats on the grounds that Baker's email is protected free speech.Cohn ruled that the government failed to show intent to carry out a threat, which is required for conviction.

"The government's enthusiastic beginning petered out to a salvage effort once it recognized that the communication which so much alarmed the University of Michigan officials was only a rather savage and tasteless piece of fiction," wrote Judge Cohn in his decision, referring to the dropped charges relating to Baker's rape/snuff stories and the 5 charges of transmitting interstate threats in the Baker-Gonda email exchanges.. Cohn also quoted a court case from 1886:

"There is so much opportunity for magnifying or misunderstanding undefined menaces that probably as much mischief would be caused by letting them be prosecuted as by refraining from it."Paul Denenfeld, the legal director of the ACLU, applauded the decision."I think Judge Cohn did the right thing," said Denenfeld. "The language was offensive but not an imminent threat to anyone. People should not have to stand trial for private thoughts and fantasies."

Federal officials disagreed with Cohn's ruling."We strongly disagree with the court's reasoning in the decision," said US Attorney Saul Green. Green will decide in a day or two whether to appeal the decision.The lead FBI agent, Greg Stejskal, said the decision that Baker's writings lacked intent made him worry."As a husband and a father of a daughter, it looks like a threat to me," said Stejskal. Susan McGee, executive director of the Domestic Violence Project in Washtenaw County, said the ruling "show the judicial system in the United States is more interested in men's rights to torture, beat, and harass women than it is in women's right to live their lives in peace and safety."

Baker gained notoriety when the University of Michigan suspended him after he named a classmate as the victim in a fictional story of rape, torture, and murder. Shortly thereafter, Baker was arrested by the FBI and held without bond for 29 days on the grounds that he was too dangerous to release. In March, federal charges based on the story were dropped, and Baker was charged with transmitting threats across state lines in his email conversation with a Canadian man, Arthur Gonda.

The University of Michigan is maintaining its suspension of Baker.Baker has reportedly withdrawn from the University of Michigan, and is attending a community college in Ohio.No information is available on the woman named in Baker's story.Arthur Gonda has not been found by Canadian authorities, and it is believed that the name is a pseudonym.

===

The Machado case ended better, but the threat was clearer:

http://venus.soci.niu.edu/~cudigest/CUDS10/cud1014

1) Hate Mail
Noah Robischon, Netly News

15 Nov 96
The first federal indictment for Internet-based hate crimes was filed yesterday against a former University of California at Irvine student. Richard Machado, 19, allegedly sent e-mail to 59 mostly asian students saying, "I personally will make it my life carreer (sic) to find and kill everyone of you personally. OK?????? That's how determined I am."
----

Conviction upheld on re-trial.

 

[Guest]

ahem

For the record: this is a commercial site. Laurel would be a fool to ignore the displeasure of readers and writers. I was serious in my earlier post about not having my stories associated with writings that are way beyond the pale for me. The whole "freedom of association" thing.

Boundaries are always where conflicts happen. When does your freedom impinge upon mine? When does your behavior no longer merely affect you?

For me it was never an issue of censoring AD. It was more a matter of not wanting to be associated, albeit tenuously, and thereby tacitly endorsing something so horrific to me.

While my stories are few and could disappear without anyone noticing, it is always about margins in marketing. How many others would be made uncomfortable and decide not to participate anymore?

b

 

[ffreak]

You know there is an underlying 'threat' that bothers me more. Maybe we've been avoiding it, maybe we've not really been able to put our finger on it.

The Patriot Act

Under some of its provisions AD's story could be used as evidence against the author (shades of The Minority Report). By extension, it could gain the unwanted attention of the self-appointed Inquisitors and lead to all of us being 'checked-out' because of our apparent 'guilty' use of aliases (I can here it how: "I mean, if this were a group of honest, law-abiding folks, they wouldn't feel the need to lie about their identity.")

Course, on the other hand, the endereza a ladrones probably look at the wonderfully organized tracking system here and think they can come back at a later date to use it.

As a famous ancestor once said "There is no retreat but in submission and slavery!" -P Henry

(Boy is that one ever going to be misinterpreted here.)

 

[destinie21]

Welcome the new Spanish Inquisition, Pure.

Now you can feel justified in all your petty bickering, because I am the Great Female Evil.


Adoringly, Mademoiselle.

Well Nobody expects a Spanish Inquisition

 

[Lauren Hynde]

LOL


She just looks Spanish...