I've learned my lesson

[karmadog]

OK, I'll go with the DSMIII on the technical def., although my dictionary gives a somewhat different one. What the DSMII leaves out is that there is no known cure for pedophiles, they have a frighteningly high recidivism rate from what I've read.

I didn't read "American Psycho" so I have no opinion on that, except that Ellis is the most over-rated writer I have ever read. However, I must disagree with you on some of those movies. Clint in "Unforgiven" skillfully showed how disgusting and wrong killing is. When he shot the young man in the belly, his face showed his regret. Later, after The Kid had shot the man taking a crap, he got sick, and later drunk. Clint's character describes exactly what is wrong with killing, "It's a terrible thing killing a man. You take a way all he is and all he ever will be." At the end, he goes on a brutal killing spree, but he has to get himself as drunk as he can.

"Scarface" is about a psycopath who ultimately gets his comeuppance in a very brutal fashion. I failed to see any glorification of violence. Yes, they did go over the top on the gore, but I think that was intended to frighten the audience rather than tittilate.

It's been a very long time since I've seen the other movies, but I suspect there are similar situations. As I said before, it is not the fault of the writer if the reader or viewer doesn't get it.

 

[abashed-dreamer]

[On Unforgiven]
Clint's character describes exactly what is wrong with killing, "It's a terrible thing killing a man. You take a way all he is and all he ever will be." At the end, he goes on a brutal killing spree, but he has to get himself as drunk as he can.

"Scarface" is about a psycopath who ultimately gets his comeuppance in a very brutal fashion. I failed to see any glorification of violence. Yes, they did go over the top on the gore, but I think that was intended to frighten the audience rather than tittilate.

It's been a very long time since I've seen the other movies, but I suspect there are similar situations. As I said before, it is not the fault of the writer if the reader or viewer doesn't get it. [/B]

Hi KD,

"Getting it" is not so simple, if you mean the author's intent, his/her 'message' or the story's message. You don't know that Scarface's violent end 'was intended to frighten', though maybe it frightened you.

A spectacularly violent end MIGHT have a kind of glory to it. And in a way make it appealing. Butch Cassidy, or Bonnie and Clyde have the 'riddled with bullets' ending, but maybe that's 'going out in style.'

Good writers don't hit you on the head with a 'moral.' Nor can one presume that a lead character speaks for the author. Yes the lead in Unforgiven has regrets, he's reformed his life; yet a job has to be done and the pay is good. He justifies it to himself and to his Black friend, on the grounds of mayhem to the woman. His last shouted words to the town remind them he's a killer of women and children. He ends up, apparently, in a quiet life in San Francisco, hardly a 'bad end' for a multiple killer. Is that an endorsement? No.

My humble opinion is that the killing is depicted as having a kind of 'fatality' in how it unfolds, and it has a logic or even justification at each point. A woman was terribly wronged and a sheriff made a mockery of justice in having the pimp paid damages. You take it from there. Clint is, you might say, the avenging angel, as in a number of other movies.

A Hollywood approach for years was to tack on a 'bad end' and that would supposedly convey a message of condemnation. The prostitute in Butterfield 8 dies in a car crash. So much for her glamorous life, one might say. But surely that's all bull shit.

Coming to erotica. If the man character says "I love fucking sheep" and is described as enjoying it.... Is the author recommending the practice? Is s/he seeking to titillate? I don't think we can tell, except in the real 'hack' cases. Were the author to tack on a bad end, would that make the story a condemnation? No, it might ring utterly false.

When there is 'graphic detail' or apparent neutrality (no condemnation) social conservatives have been quick to say the work *encourages* the practice. To SHOW premarital sex is to ENDORSE it, esp. if the offenders fail to come to a bad end.

But what exactly can you infer from 'graphic detail'? That the intent is to 'titillate' or 'to appeal to prurient interest'. Seems doubtful as a general rule, and the bogus argument was made against such classics as Lady Chatterly's Lover. Lawrence talks about pricks and pussies maybe because he wanted to, it's not clear he aimed for a 'turn on.'

KM's story of Greta's 'absolution' has a whole lot of graphic detail that would surely strike our parents as 'prurient'? Was she trying to 'turn us on'. Who knows; and it doesn't matter ultimately what she says. Maybe the detail makes the message harder hitting; that's an artistic judgement. Writers' statements are to be taken with a grain of salt, for they often say "Symbolism? what symbolism? I never thought of it, it's just a good sea tale."

Best,
Jack.

 

[KillerMuffin]

I had always thought of myself as pretty rational about writers' license to content.

But I suppose I'm not. Not in regards to pedophilia. The harm isn't in the writer or the writing or even the existence of the story. The harm is all in the reader and how s/he reacts to it.

Most read Lolita and are provoked to thought. A few read Lolita and begin eyeing the twelve year old up the road.

Is it Nabokov's fault?
Should Nabokov have written Lolita?
Should morality or ethics dictate what and where a writer produces his or her stuff?

My ethics, perhaps it's merely my unreason, prevent me from writing pedophilia positively or from being associated with places that present pedophilia positively.

 

[vgrey]

"His act did not o'ertake his bad intent,
And must be buried but as an intent
That perished by the way.
Thoughts are no subjects, intents but merely thoughts."

(Measure for Measure Act V. i)

Certainly a fine line divides this issue of a crime of "intent" and is worthy of discussion in any free speech forum.

 

[Sandia]

Asstr

KillerMuffin said:

ASSTR supports pedophilia and there's simply no way to rationalize that. Anyone who posts on ASSTR and places like it may not support pedophilia, but they condone it by turning a blind eye to it. Anyone who frequents ASSTR condones pedophilia by turning a blind eye to it. You simply cannot permit that content and not approve of it at the same time.


I hate to post on a topic like this, especially as a xxx - extra virgin.
But.
I feel compelled to defend ASSTR.
ASSM was my introduction to online erotica, and was the first place I ever posted. I've gotten a lot of good feedback from there, and even made a friend. I still post there, and intend to keep on doing so.
I guess I think condemning them (or me) because there's pedophiles there is a little like condemning the internet because there's pedophiles here.

One good thing about ASSTR - at least they don't have these $@%#$ ads. (!)

 

[abashed-dreamer]

Good points, Sandia.

I had been thinking of a similar comparison. I believe it's a fact that asstr is, as it says, a repository. If a story has proper spelling, grammar, etc and is of a sexual nature it may go in; the owners do NOT select by subject, but ask for writers to 'self label'.

Hence it's not clear that the owners 'condone' as KillerMuffin suggests, some particular act. In fact surely KM does not think the Lit. owners 'condone' certain acts depicted here. Nor do other posters 'condone' or necessarily approve of acts depicted.

It's like a restaurant. Suppose one finds out that the local mafia has lunch there on Fridays. Do we say, "The restaurant support/condones/approves the mafia"? No. Do we say, "If one goes there as a customer ANY time of the week, one is supporting a mafia hangout?" No. Do we say, "If one goes there as a customer, s/he is 'hanging out' with mafiosi and implicitly condoning their behavior"? No.

The internet has such facilities in free wheeling bulletin boards, etc. It is a host. SOME bulletin boards are controlled by topic, some are not. There might be a NOTE on a 'free' board, 'handsome young stud wants to suck cock, call....' which puts me off, but if there's a classification scheme, as at asstr, then I can avoid the area of gay solicitation ads if they bother me.

It will be said: Surely a 'free' board cannot be a place of conspiratorial messages planning crimes or of solicitations to crime. Reply. Yes, and so it should be. But a story is a depiction of something imagined, and perhaps that thing is criminal. A story is not a conspiratorial plan or a solicitation. The analogy is bogus.

Jack

 

[Svenskaflicka]

You Americans are really sold on this word "freedom", aren't you? I think that freedom is rather neutral, it's what it's combined with that gives it its value.

Now, if you are free to

• believe in whatever religion you want
• choose whom you're going to marry
• choose what kind of education you want

this is all good.

But if you are free to say, write and publish anything you want, you risk

• people taking advantage of their freedom in order to satisfy desires that will hurt others
• people spreading racistic, sexistic or religious propaganda, which ultimately can lead to some morons actually believing in this bs, and hurting those who will not fit into their own pattern of life
• people hurting each other's feelings.

Freedom... of what? Ofcourse we shouldn't censor everything, so that we can't even swear for the fear of not being PC, but I think everyone must consider the consequences of their speech and actions.

 

[Uther_Pendragon]

I don't doubt they'll remove it anyway.

ASSTR supports pedophilia and there's simply no way to rationalize that. Anyone who posts on ASSTR and places like it may not support pedophilia, but they condone it by turning a blind eye to it. Anyone who frequents ASSTR condones pedophilia by turning a blind eye to it. You simply cannot permit that content and not approve of it at the same time.





I categorically refuse to condone pedophilia and I refuse to be a part of anyone who does.



You are correct, Couture. I will insert the appropriate codes as soon as possible. Pedophiles will adore the story and get off to my suffering. Pathetic.

|
Well, we know that KM approves of every action, including rape, described in every story posted on Literotica.
We know this because she says that authors on a site approveof all the actions described in stories on that site.
Or is that only *OTHER* authors are responsible?

 

[Couture]

Uther, I think there are some personal issues at work in this instance. It's not likely that logic will do much good and likely I would feel the same way if I were in this person's shoes.

Svensaflicker, yes we Americans are sold on the idea of freedom. We've lost enough of it recently that I for one get riled up when there are attempts made on the remainder. Your political correctness is just another name for facism.

people hurting each other's feelings.

If you had an iq above that of an eggplant, you would know that people will always hurt each other's feelings. It's like the weather. If temperatures were to stay between 70 and 75 all year round, and if this went on long enough, people would think that 75 was hot.

Hell, it is impossible to live in this modern day politically correct society without becoming a machine. It is certainly doing a good job of keeping the drug companies in business with prosac etc.

 

[peterpan]

I am not saying anything new here, so I guess I am just putting my vote in.

I don't want pedophilia next to my stuff, but I find quite a lot of stuff here repugnant too. Pedophilia is merely easy to define numerically.

Perhaps an arguable difference is that there are apparently people out there trying to normalise pedophilia, whereas I don't think there is anyone trying to normalise sexual murder and cannibalism. Oh wait...

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Svensaflicker, yes we Americans are sold on the idea of freedom. We've lost enough of it recently that I for one get riled up when there are attempts made on the remainder. Your political correctness is just another name for facism.

Well, my dear, bad-spelling one, I COULD mention quite a few countries that have lost a lot more than freedom THANKS TO USA...

And if you confuse consideration of other people's feelings with fascism, then I think you should go back to history class and study up on that term...

people hurting each other's feelings.

If you had an iq above that of an eggplant, you would know that people will always hurt each other's feelings. It's like the weather. If temperatures were to stay between 70 and 75 all year round, and if this went on long enough, people would think that 75 was hot.

I will not even comment on your rudeness...

But you do have a point that people's actions are like the weather - in time, you can get used to anything. Anything is relative. But does that make it a GOOD thing? If a black man is being called "nigger" every day, he'll eventually get used to it, but is that a development we should allow?

My idea is the contrary, that we should try to improve society!

Hell, it is impossible to live in this modern day politically correct society without becoming a machine. It is certainly doing a good job of keeping the drug companies in business with prosac etc.

And still WE manage..?

 

[Couture]

If you called white people niggers every day and all the time they would get used to it. The word alone has no special powers and if we allowed it, then maybe some people would have to get the fuck over their hangups.

It is only when you say, "Don't call me nigger cause I'm offended," that you give it special power.

Does censoring me somehow improve society? No. All it does is open another avenue to control the population. A sure sign of despots.

I think you are a fascist prig. A well meaning fascist, but a fascist just the same.

 

[Coolville]

For americans 'freedom' is a word - written on a piece of paper somewhere.

For citizens of the rest of the western world it is an action, a way of life.

There is nothing Americans can do in their country that Europeans, australasians or Canadians cannot do in theirs. Apart from owning firearms.

"Calling someone a "facist" merely because they don't share your views is sad and weak. Especially when you live in a country that puts a teenaged girl in jail for wearing an anti-Bush t-shirt in the months after September 11th, among far too many other incidents.

 

[Coolville]

"Freedom - a term so porous that there is little interpretation that it seems to resist."
Isaiah Berlin

 

[Svenskaflicka]

There is nothing Americans can do in their country that Europeans, australasians or Canadians cannot do in theirs. Apart from owning firearms.

"Calling someone a "facist" merely because they don't share your views is sad and weak. Especially when you live in a country that puts a teenaged girl in jail for wearing an anti-Bush t-shirt in the months after September 11th, among far too many other incidents.

Bra sagt, broder!

Couture, I'm not trying to censor you - I'm trying to encourage you to censor yourself. True, you have the right to say whatever you want to, even call me an idiot, if that will make you feel better. But since it will not make me, your fellow human being, feel better, then why would you use that right?

Before you use your freedom, think about the consequences your speech and actions will have. It's not a matter of control, it's a matter of being nice to others.
Ever heard of that before?

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Freedom

It's remarkable that Americans, who speak so passionately about everyone's right to say and think whatever they want to, tend to use such upset and insulting words when facing someone who disagree with them on some topic...

 

[karmadog]

The flipside of freedom of speech is the likelihood of being offended by someone else exercising their freedom of speech.

I also think that the flipside of having manners is cultivating a thick skin.

In other words, don't offend others easily and don't take offense easily.

 

[Couture]

Asking someone to censor themselves is even worse in my opinion. Enough has been done to pacify people like you. I think the appropriate action is to help you develop a thicker skin.

I'm only doing my part.

 

[peachykeen]

It's interesting reading how this thread has developed.

If you go back and read KM's original post, it is actually quite simple - she says she has found out that this other site posts things that she is in complete disagreement with (to the point of nausea) and that as a result she will absolutely not consider posting there in the future.

....and that's all!

She doesn't say, oh, let's get this shut down; or, don't any of the rest of you do it either. She's just letting people know what she's learned and how she feels about it. Not a thing wrong with that. Yet somehow it has devolved into name-calling and rudeness and charges of fascism!

Personally I have never been to this other site and now, knowing what I know, likely never will. So thanks for bringing it to my attention, KM, I think it's pretty sick too.

 

[tenyari]

But a few posts down KM also states she wrote a story in the exact theme she objects to and posted it...

 

[Couture]

The internet has all kind of sick shit posted on it too, but you are still on it aren't you?

Asstr.org doesn't post stories. They only give webspace to authors to post their own erotic stories.

There is one person running it as a volunteer and since the website is run by donations, they still have a full time job. The webmaster doesn't have time to censor even if he had the inclination.

If you don't like certain stories, then don't read them. Nobody is going to force you to read them. There is no money being made for either the author or the webmaster, so by having your stories there, you are not supporting anything.

Granted, there is a lot of crap there that I find offensive and I don't read them. However, there are a lot of gems that were posted by some of the best net erotica authors in the early days of the net that can only be found there.

 

[BgMma]

First of all, I think we have to agree to disagree.
It isn't about censorship, but about how people react to forbidden subjects.
I do not condone any type of child porn, be it stories, photos, or even the suggestion of it. But, in all fairness, not everyone is me. KM was right in her belief. If she does not accept that behaviour, then she has every right to distance herself from it.
It is the author who is to be held responsible for his/her actions and I commend KM for bringing her concerns to light. Lord knows I wouldn't want to have to wade through those types of things, but again, that is me. And KM and a majority of you all here.
I don't want to tell others what they can read or see or do. But I have objections for the victims. A story does not bother me as much as a photo does. You can read fantasy all you like, but it's when you take a real person and put a face on that fantasy that you have crossed a line.
Like several people here, I too, have been molested by several people. Even clear up until I was thirteen, so I do not feel any sympathy for the sickos that do this.
I applaud those who decided to no longer submit to the site, but I don't dislike the folks who still go there. We are all individuals and if you choose to look at child porn, that is your business, I personally don't wish to hear of it. But, there are other people there who aren't into that and I would hate to see their work go unacknowledged, just because of a few folks I disagree with.
Be concerned. Absolutely. But be accepting. There is nothing any of us can do other than ignore those we do not wish to deal with.
Speak out, but for Pete's sake, do it with a bit of tact and understanding. Some don't realise that quite a few of these people are don't know they are doing anything wrong. Believe me, it's true. I have obviously met several.
I like nothing better than to see thosr who hurt me dead, but I don't even look at them when I see them. I know I did the right thing by bringing it light and that is my solace.
You do what you feel is right and then you can move on.
I won't go there because I don't think I would belong, but you might. You may be able to get past the issues I have, and that is good for you. Make your own decision, make your own opinions and I will accept it as you accept mine.
Don't let this become a censorship issue, let it become a personal issue. If you don't to go there, don't. If you do, then you do. I will not hold it against anyone. There is no real reason to.
But that is only my opinion. Thanks

 

[Guest]

I've written a story based loosely on fact. Both the main characters were abused by their father as children, but this is about them as twenty-five year olds, and the disfucntional sexual realtionships they both have.
Can this be posted on lit? Can I even mention child abuse? Can I at leats say "as children, they were abused", i.e. not go into titillating detail, and get the story accepted?


Josh.

 

[BgMma]

You sure can post your story. As long as you have a reminder that the story is not complete fact.
Let your readers know what the situation is with your characters to give them dimension and by all means, be as truthful as you can.
Don't let someone else tell you how to write, hon. Not everyone will like your story, but it's not those folks who count. In my opinion, again--MY OPINION only, it would be a good idea to leave out the sex with minors and maybe have them reminisce instead of actually going through the motions of telling the reader what had happened in detail.
But that is my opinon. I would like to read it when you have it posted. I think it would be refreshing to have an honest subject introduced that is as close to fact as it can get. That is, assuming the names have been chaged to protect privacy and all that!
Good luck here at literotica!!

 

[Guest]

BgMama, I always though they were pretty strict about age. So if people in story are 25 now and say (as one character does in my story) after being complemented on her sexual expertise after a fuck

"Well, Liam, I'm pretty experienced. I've had fifteen fucking years experience",

that's ok?