How "dark" is an erotic story allowed to be for fun?

[pink_silk_glove]

The one exception is rated 4.29, with 4k views, and the general consensus is that it's "creepy as fuck". It's told from the perspective of an obsessed voyeur and leans heavily into the sense of connection between the voyeur and the object of their (no gender is specified) desire.

Almost certainly, they see something in the story that they don't like about themselves and the negative vibe causes them to downvote. Of course this is usually a positive for the reader as they uncover something 'negative' in their psyche that they did not realize was there and so then by realizing it are empowered to change it.

There is also the flipside - if we choose to believe stories do not have a negative cultural influence, we also have to accept they do not have a positive one, either.

Why can't negative stories have a positive influence? Like the movie Philadelphia showing all of the negativity surrounding the stigma of AIDS/HIV, society as a whole became a little more compassionate on the subject.

 

[SimonDoom]

'much more empirically plausible (though I have no way of testing for certain)' Do you know what you mean by this strange concatenation of words?

'many Lit authors that I suspect are, in fact, perfectly normal in their day to day lives.' How many? 20,50.90% Figures please, not word salad.

Obviously, I haven't conducted studies. I doubt there are any studies that test the hypothesis that authors of erotica make less reliable babysitters.

My default position with all statements is to be skeptical: prove to me there's a connection.

I know from my own experience that my life has little to do with the content of my erotica. I've had conversations with other people I know about their erotic tastes, and I would say the same thing about them.

I'm going out on a limb a bit more by saying that, with respect to my fellow Lit authors, I see no obvious connection between the content of their stories and whether they seem like decent people in the way they deal with others in this forum. But it's something.

So while I wouldn't be comfortable making the affirmative statement that there is no connection between a person's erotic stories and that person's fitness as a possible babysitter of my kids, I can say confidently that based on my observations and experience I see no reason for concern, and the burden of proof is on the person asserting the connection.

 

[Voboy]

Obviously, I haven't conducted studies. I doubt there are any studies that test the hypothesis that authors of erotica make less reliable babysitters.

My default position with all statements is to be skeptical: prove to me there's a connection.

I know from my own experience that my life has little to do with the content of my erotica. I've had conversations with other people I know about their erotic tastes, and I would say the same thing about them.

I'm going out on a limb a bit more by saying that, with respect to my fellow Lit authors, I see no obvious connection between the content of their stories and whether they seem like decent people in the way they deal with others in this forum. But it's something.

So while I wouldn't be comfortable making the affirmative statement that there is no connection between a person's erotic stories and that person's fitness as a possible babysitter of my kids, I can say confidently that based on my observations and experience I see no reason for concern, and the burden of proof is on the person asserting the connection.

I know a couple of Lit writers who work with vulnerable populations every day; they are nurses, teachers, social workers, and whatnot.

As far as I'm aware, nothing in what they write here disqualifies them from doing that work, and doing it well. Relating the personality of a writer to the things they produce is illusory, in many (if not most) cases.

I don't think it's useful to generalize. One of the most sexually adventurous people I've ever met on Lit is also someone I'd never for a moment hesitate to leave my children with.

 

[WeShallUnclench]

Like the movie Philadelphia showing all of the negativity surrounding the stigma of AIDS/HIV, society as a whole became a little more compassionate on the subject.

That was the INTENTION of the movie, though. It was designed to be constructive. It's not like it was aiming for (or being indifferent to) being harmful.
That's different from a movie with the vibe "gay people dying of aids is really fun and wholesome actually".

 

[Erozetta]

I like portraying toxic relationships because I find it cathartic and helps me weed out the thorns of past relationships and experiences.

Even without that I can take things pretty dark and still manage an erotic tone throughout, but that's largely because I tend to have pretty dark interests and some of my own fantasies are not publishable here.

Which is kinda funny because I laugh a lot and am generally pretty cheerful in day to day life.

 

[Lifestyle66]

When it comes to stories and reality, how many people have grown up reading about Superman and fantasizing about wearing a cape and flying off of their rooftop? And how many ever put on a cape and tried it?

It's like the judgmental types in the Loving Wives category, decrying the stories of FUN extra-marital sex.
I wonder how many male, judgmental readers in LW enjoy watching porn with some actress being railed by two or three other men, and did they ever consider that she's someone's wife, daughter, girlfriend?
How many leered at nude pictures of their friend's wife shown to them on the friend's cellphone in a bar or at work?
How many HAVE a picture of their own wife or girlfriend in the nude on their cellphone, and bragged to a friend about it?
How many WISH their wife/GF would pose for them for nude pics?
But those same judgmental, monogamous ones who HAVE those pictures (or wish they did) of their own wife/girlfriend would cringe at the thought of ever allowing their wife or GF to be with another man!

I think MOST people know the difference between fantasy and reality. And MOST would never want to really see their fantasy acted out.

 

[SimonDoom]

That was the INTENTION of the movie, though. It was designed to be constructive. It's not like it was aiming for (or being indifferent to) being harmful.
That's different from a movie with the vibe "gay people dying of aids is really fun and wholesome actually".

A better example of what you're talking about is the movie The Producers by Mel Brooks. The movie turns Adolph Hitler and the Nazis into a subject of comedy, i.e., the fictional musical within the movie "Springtime for Hitler." Is it wrong to present Hitler as "funny"? My response to that is: only if you don't have a sense of humor. For those of us with a sense of humor, we intuitively understand that comedy and humor are a way for people to process the dark aspects of the world and of ourselves. Take that avenue away, and you make the world a more earnest, but more deadly dull and more burdensome place. A place that's harder to live in.

Did The Producers "normalize" Hitler? Minimize his awfulness? That seems so ridiculous to me that it doesn't even need a reply.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

A better example of what you're talking about is the movie The Producers by Mel Brooks. The movie turns Adolph Hitler and the Nazis into a subject of comedy, i.e., the fictional musical within the movie "Springtime for Hitler." Is it wrong to present Hitler as "funny"? My response to that is: only if you don't have a sense of humor. For those of us with a sense of humor, we intuitively understand that comedy and humor are a way for people to process the dark aspects of the world and of ourselves. Take that avenue away, and you make the world a more earnest, but more deadly dull and more burdensome place. A place that's harder to live in.

Did The Producers "normalize" Hitler? Minimize his awfulness? That seems so ridiculous to me that it doesn't even need a reply.

In the 30s Superman fought the Klan. Part of their strategy was ridicule.
What kid would want to grow up and join an organization that was mocked by Superman. It's a powerful tool.

But it sort of brings us full circle.
We admit that movies like Philadelphia can change people's attitudes, or at least influence them, while simultaneously denying that the things we write do.

If you show a character smoking in a movie it gets an R rating because it sets a bad example for children, but sex and violence have no influence.

I'm not sure where the answer is in all this, but society is very schizophrenic about the whole topic.

 

[Voboy]

A better example of what you're talking about is the movie The Producers by Mel Brooks. The movie turns Adolph Hitler and the Nazis into a subject of comedy, i.e., the fictional musical within the movie "Springtime for Hitler." Is it wrong to present Hitler as "funny"? My response to that is: only if you don't have a sense of humor. For those of us with a sense of humor, we intuitively understand that comedy and humor are a way for people to process the dark aspects of the world and of ourselves. Take that avenue away, and you make the world a more earnest, but more deadly dull and more burdensome place. A place that's harder to live in.

Did The Producers "normalize" Hitler? Minimize his awfulness? That seems so ridiculous to me that it doesn't even need a reply.

Same with Jojo Rabbit, which has many levels. But Hitler-based comedy is one of those levels.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

That was the INTENTION of the movie, though. It was designed to be constructive. It's not like it was aiming for (or being indifferent to) being harmful.
That's different from a movie with the vibe "gay people dying of aids is really fun and wholesome actually".

Excellent point, but ask yourself this: How many people watching "gay people dying of aids is really fun and wholesome actually" would have adopted more gay bashing after seeing it? Some, sure, but those folks would almost certainly already be leaning that way. Most likely, the vast majority of viewers would have felt that something wasn't right in that movie and would not have adopted such behavior.

Queer culture in particular has become acceptable in a parallel arc to Hollywood allowing its depiction. We had the Hays code for almost fifty years in America, and one of its tenets was that homosexuality just didn't exist on the screen. When the Hays code began to crumble in the late 60s and into the 70s, slowly, movies and TV began introducing queer characters (a movie like La Cage aux Folles for instance could not have been shown in America, but twenty years later Birdcage was a big hit), and then of course we had Rosie and Ellen, and then the stigma begins to fall around queer culture. In the 60s and 80s queer culture was this strange misunderstood thing because it was kept under the rug. Once our media allows us to see it, we begin to learn the truth of it instead of filling in the blanks with old wives tales of gay men being pedophiles and all that crap.

So how is that relevant to the thread? I will give an example of my roleplaying experience. I have engaged in forum roleplays (on other sites of course) where I played a rape victim. On a couple of occasions where my partner agreed that I would portray a realistic rape victim, my partner ended the play when he felt that my portrayal was too realistic as it had exposed him to depth of darkness that he had not expected. I suspect that when I showed him the true terror and helplessness of the victim, it was the first time that he had thought about it so deeply and in so experiencing, this did not sit well with his psyche/soul and he found a new appreciation for the victims of rape and from then on took the topic more seriously. Now if our roleplay had been adapted into a proper story it would have been very dark and would not have ended happy at all, yet it potentially could have been very valuable for society to see rape for what it is rather than leaving it under the rug.

So in that sense, no darkness is too dark. We have war stories that show us the true horrors of war. We have gangster movies that show us the true ugliness of the mafia. We have serial killer movies that show us the truth about the psychopathic mind. To soften them or give them happy endings would often undo their meanings and leave their subjects under the rug.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I love dark stories; I love the gray areas, and the flawed (and sometimes evil) anti-hero.

 

[DaniChris]

that's part of the challenge...writing within the rules and guidelines...I like stories that take you to the 'edge' of your feelings and emotions..Not some twisted ranting of some perv hiding in his basement getting off with his (or her) keyboard. Stories can be erotic arousing and stimulating without pain, suffering and abuse.

 

[WeShallUnclench]

I will give an example of my roleplaying experience. I have engaged in forum roleplays (on other sites of course) where I played a rape victim. On a couple of occasions where my partner agreed that I would portray a realistic rape victim, my partner ended the play when he felt that my portrayal was too realistic as it had exposed him to depth of darkness that he had not expected. I suspect that when I showed him the true terror and helplessness of the victim, it was the first time that he had thought about it so deeply and in so experiencing, this did not sit well with his psyche/soul and he found a new appreciation for the victims of rape and from then on took the topic more seriously. Now if our roleplay had been adapted into a proper story it would have been very dark and would not have ended happy at all, yet it potentially could have been very valuable for society to see rape for what it is rather than leaving it under the rug.

Thank you for sharing, because this is indeed very interesting.

I cannot help but ask you a follow-up question, though:

What if you had played a rape victim in an absolutely unrealistic way, that didn't do the subject justice at all? If you had played your role in a silly way where you were the butt of a twisted joke, and your partner walked away from this entertained and feeling like a really big man? If you played the scenario as inconsequential and lighthearted?

Would that have been objectionable?

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Thank you for sharing, because this is indeed very interesting.

I cannot help but ask you a follow-up question, though:

What if you had played a rape victim in an absolutely unrealistic way, that didn't do the subject justice at all? If you had played your role in a silly way where you were the butt of a twisted joke, and your partner walked away from this entertained and feeling like a really big man? If you played the scenario as inconsequential and lighthearted?

Would that have been objectionable?

First, that role would not appeal to me. There are certain things that can take a reader 'out of the moment' and that particular 'happy rape' role would not even get me into the moment. I'm just talking about me though, and my tastes are irrelevant to the question that you ask. However, I might add that 'technically' this is the only type of rape story allowed on lit, and by not allowing the other side, lit paints a very distorted picture of non-consent. That is lit's choice. Perhaps you could ask Laurel that question instead of me.

If you are asking if I feel any obligation or duty to portray non-consent in a realistic and victim-sympathetic light, the answer is not at all. It is art and art has no obligation to morals. A piece of art can be moralistic, absolutely - that is up to the artist and the statement that he wishes to make - or not. There is no obligation. Art imitates life (so long as society allows it to) and by so doing, society gains a greater understanding of itself. Even in a superhero story where the super powers are very unrealistic, the human interactions between the characters do imitate real life, depicting aspects such as loyalty, bravery, justice/karma/revenge, long odds, grave danger, sacrifice, etc, these things are all real and a reflection of life itself. So who am I to say that a story that I don't enjoy or don't agree with should be shunned/banned/restricted in any way? Censorship does nothing but keep society dumber by denying ideas and feelings. When these are denied, we understand ourselves less. When they are out in the open we understand ourselves more and we are able to move forward with confidence for the better.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I realize that this wasn't asked of me. So what? I'm going to tell you what I know. The absolute worst thing for a woman who is raped is to orgasm while it happens. It shreds her dignity. Rips her self-respect from her. It makes her doubt her sanity. I've been raped, and I didn't climax. But I know several women who were raped, and of those, the ones that climaxed were the most fucked up afterward.

Thank you for sharing, because this is indeed very interesting.

I cannot help but ask you a follow-up question, though:

What if you had played a rape victim in an absolutely unrealistic way, that didn't do the subject justice at all? If you had played your role in a silly way where you were the butt of a twisted joke, and your partner walked away from this entertained and feeling like a really big man? If you played the scenario as inconsequential and lighthearted?

Would that have been objectionable?

 

[SimonDoom]

What if you had played a rape victim in an absolutely unrealistic way, that didn't do the subject justice at all? If you had played your role in a silly way where you were the butt of a twisted joke, and your partner walked away from this entertained and feeling like a really big man? If you played the scenario as inconsequential and lighthearted?

Would that have been objectionable?

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that there are a large number of people who fantasize about rape: women who fantasize about rape and derive some erotic satisfaction from their fantasy, and men who fantasize about rape and feel the same way.

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that although they enjoy indulging these fantasies they have no desire to experience or commit rape in real life.

Is it wrong to write stories that cater to these fantasies, despite the fact that they are not realistic and present something as erotic that in real life most of the fantasizers would regard as abhorrent?

I would say "no." It's not wrong.

The stories are fantasy stories. They play to people's fantasies, and thoughts are not a crime.

As Lovecraft mentioned above, we have a Jungian shadow/dark side. I think art has an important function in representing that shadow side, and it's important to have the freedom to do that.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Is it wrong to write stories that cater to these fantasies, despite the fact that they are not realistic and present something as erotic that in real life most of the fantasizers would regard as abhorrent?

I would say "no." It's not wrong.

The stories are fantasy stories. They play to people's fantasies, and thoughts are not a crime.

Not only do I agree with this, I would also add the parallel to incest. Incest is the biggest kink around by a mile even though most people believe that it is 'wrong' even including the majority of people who are hot for it. It certainly icks me right out (blechh). However, on lit it's just a fantasy. No one is getting hurt here, so go for it.

 

[SimonDoom]

Not only do I agree with this, I would also add the parallel to incest. Incest is the biggest kink around by a mile even though most people believe that it is 'wrong' even including the majority of people who are hot for it. It certainly icks me right out (blechh). However, on lit it's just a fantasy. No one is getting hurt here, so go for it.

There's some history in this forum of non-con fans who think that anyone who enjoys incest is sick and of incest fans who think anyone who enjoys non-con is sick.

I think we're equally non-sick. We're just twisted, which isn't the same thing.

 

[Voboy]

This is that rare thing, a forthright and reasonably civil discussion of a fraught topic that everyone can learn from. Well done, AH!

 

[MillieDynamite]

But if it is a fantasy rape, I want it declared to be. Not written in such a way as to justify rape because the woman got off during it. Now, they had a forced sex story that was a fantasy (between two women), and only revealed at the end they were long-time lovers with a history of role-play. If you show the woman getting off on a real rape, show her devastated after the event is over. That way, you can adhere to the rules and show it based on reality at the same time.

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that there are a large number of people who fantasize about rape: women who fantasize about rape and derive some erotic satisfaction from their fantasy, and men who fantasize about rape and feel the same way.

Let's suppose for the sake of argument that although they enjoy indulging these fantasies they have no desire to experience or commit rape in real life.

Is it wrong to write stories that cater to these fantasies, despite the fact that they are not realistic and present something as erotic that in real life most of the fantasizers would regard as abhorrent?

I would say "no." It's not wrong.

The stories are fantasy stories. They play to people's fantasies, and thoughts are not a crime.

As Lovecraft mentioned above, we have a Jungian shadow/dark side. I think art has an important function in representing that shadow side, and it's important to have the freedom to do that.

 

[SimonDoom]

But if it is a fantasy rape, I want it declared to be. Not written in such a way as to justify rape because the woman got off during it. Now, they had a forced sex story that was a fantasy (between two women), and only revealed at the end they were long-time lovers with a history of role-play. If you show the woman getting off on a real rape, show her devastated after the event is over. That way, you can adhere to the rules and show it based on reality at the same time.

But how do you do this in way that delivers the fantasy that readers want? After all, if you write a story like this, you are writing for the readers that like the fantasy, not those who will object to rape being presented in this way.

 

[XerXesXu]

Obviously, I haven't conducted studies. I doubt there are any studies that test the hypothesis that authors of erotica make less reliable babysitters.

My default position with all statements is to be skeptical: prove to me there's a connection.

I know from my own experience that my life has little to do with the content of my erotica. I've had conversations with other people I know about their erotic tastes, and I would say the same thing about them.

I'm going out on a limb a bit more by saying that, with respect to my fellow Lit authors, I see no obvious connection between the content of their stories and whether they seem like decent people in the way they deal with others in this forum. But it's something.

So while I wouldn't be comfortable making the affirmative statement that there is no connection between a person's erotic stories and that person's fitness as a possible babysitter of my kids, I can say confidently that based on my observations and experience I see no reason for concern, and the burden of proof is on the person asserting the connection.

That approach - unless they conclusively be proved harmful, I will assume they're harmless - caused a huge number of deaths from smoking cigarettes. With your children, would you not reverse the burden of proof - unless they're conclusively proved to be harmless, I will assume they're harmful.

Social media is flooded with groomers who seem like decent people. Beyond 'You are what you write,' I'm not sure we have any guide as to who they really are.

 

[WeShallUnclench]

But if it is a fantasy rape, I want it declared to be. Not written in such a way as to justify rape because the woman got off during it. Now, they had a forced sex story that was a fantasy (between two women), and only revealed at the end they were long-time lovers with a history of role-play. If you show the woman getting off on a real rape, show her devastated after the event is over. That way, you can adhere to the rules and show it based on reality at the same time.

So I feel this might be getting at the core of the matter, at least for me.

I wanna ask you to elaborate, but at the same time I really, really don't want to push too far and move into something upsetting/scary/infuriating you really don't need to hear from a rando on a random forum thread.

So my question regarding "rape presented in a harmless way" will be under the spoiler. It will be a general question again, not a personal one, but please don't engage with it if you got a "Fck No" vibe about all this.

(Of everyone else, I kindly ask the same, and also don't reply directly to the spoiler part if you choose to read this, unless the person I ask first replies outside of spoiler).




As I said, this goes to the core of this thread -

If the assault is presented as something the characters shrug off without consequence and lasting hurt (maybe even derive pleasure from), the exact opposite of the devastation you talk about -

is that a story you would just personally dislike and stay away from?

is that an evil/harmful story that should not be posted at all, for anyone?

The basic idea is that violence isn't always represented realistically. In a cartoon, a character gets flattened like a pancake and then just pops back into shape, alive and well.

The question is, do you feel there are subjects that cannot be treated in such a carefree way, and must be portrayed with a degree of realism and respect?
And of course this goes for any noncon scenario specifically.

Again, not just "must do the subject justice for me to like it" but "must be truthful or else that story should not be shared at all, and either banned per the rules or protested by the community".


(Technical sidenote, do spoilers work differently here from other forums? I posted the message between the [Spoiler] parts, but I cannot click on it to open it in the post. Can you guys read it fine?)
Update: Now Inline spoiler.

 

[StillStunned]

(Technical sidenote, do spoilers work differently here from other forums? I posted the message between the [Spoiler] parts, but I cannot click on it to open it in the post. Can you guys read it fine?)

It doesn't work for me. Perhaps try the "Inline spoiler" formatting option (the mask).

 

[WeShallUnclench]

It doesn't work for me. Perhaps try the "Inline spoiler" formatting option (the mask).

Thanks, inline seems to work. Kinda wonder why there even is the other spoiler option.