Line Crossed

[AlinaX]

When I was young, too young, I read a thriller where a woman is strangled by her lover during sex. The scene, iirc, was described from her point of view. It was simultaneously disturbing and erotic, and the feeling of that scene still lingers darkly in my memory, even if all else has been forgot. (Published around about the same time as Greeley's The Cardinal Sins, which has a lovely cover, and which I also read but I don't think was the book, but maybe. I'm so old...)

As Erozetta was saying, being able to experience danger and horror while feeling ultimately safe can fuel eroticism. Acts that traumatise in real life, precisely because they strip away illusions of safety, can in fantasy be explored in powerful ways. A beautiful vampire seduces you and plunges deadly fangs into your neck? Nothing without the danger.

Non-con in fiction allows us to explore scenarios we'd never agree to in real life. Scenarios where we have no control over what happens to us. Terrifying in the real world. Safe in fantasy.

I have read and enjoyed stories about women being kidnapped and used as anonymous fuck toys. In know that the reality would be traumatic. The fantasy, though... Let me enjoy the ride, safe from consequences.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

I would note - not for the first time - that much of the objection to particular types of stories is that they have to potential to (at its simplest): (a) make people feel bad and (b) normalize or promote offensive behaviour.

I understand that objection, truly, but the counter to it is that it is that the objections are subjective. 'It makes me feel bad' or 'it makes many people feel bad'. The problem of course is that everything makes somebody uncomfortable.

In this case, it's forced sexual acts (with a hesitant nod to Mind Control). That's fine. Such behaviour IRL is highly objectionable. Yet how do those those people complaining about NC feel about other themes which other people find objectionable?

I'm not - not - aiming against our gay friends, but it is an absolute fact that there is a real, significant tranche of society which considers male homosexuality to be appalling. Whether they are right or wrong is immaterial for this discussion; they are sincere in their beliefs. If NC fiction is to be barred, must we not respect their views and ban gay fiction here?

Incest is IRL a horrible thing, almost always against a helpless child by an adult with power over them. I guess Bro-Sis consensual adult banging should be barred, too?

In the end, we either wind up with literary Pablum or go with (and kudos to!) AlinaX and SD above. It's fantasy and if it bothers you, go away and read something else.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I'm not - not - aiming against our gay friends, but it is an absolute fact that there is a real, significant tranche of society which considers male homosexuality to be appalling. Whether they are right or wrong is immaterial for this discussion; they are sincere in their beliefs. If NC fiction is to be barred, must we not respect their views and ban gay fiction here?

Well it's the same thing as trying to argue that mafia stories promote extortion and murder so we should ban them, and that war movies promote mass death and destruction so we should ban them all. Where does it stop? The only stories left to tell would be "We went for a picnic on a lovely sunny day under the perfect shade of the tree and nary a breeze, not even a single ant showed up. The iced-tea stayed perfectly cool in the thermos, the sandwiches did not at all become soggy and the watermelon was succulent and juicy yet did not drip on our fingers. Everyone was happy, the end." It's quite silly.

 

[MillieDynamite]

As a woman who has been raped, forced, whatever you want to call it, I have no fantasies of such treatment. However, I have written several stories that have rape, force, and/or reluctance in them. Some aren't able to be published here or much of anywhere these days. They were cathartic to write, allowing me to exorcise those demons. Sometimes, I have the victim turn the tables, and of course, that becomes snuff; no place to put those now.

I know more than a few women who have rape fantasies. They play it with lovers. I don't believe any of them actually want to be raped.

In many ways, vampire stories are seduction, reluctance, and rape stories. I love to write in the horror genre; rape is hiding behind the fangs. The snuff isn't so obvious, though Smashwords refused to publish one of Mary's because pushing the vampire into the sunlight after making love and allowing him to feed on her all night long was still snuff. I had to laugh at it, because Amazon didn't bat an eye. Mary was livid about it. In one of my vampire tales, Smashwords insisted that being in a coven of vampires and their calling themselves daughters, sisters, and brothers made it incest when they were in an orgy.

I don't believe rape or even snuff should be banned if they aren't a major part of the story. They're used (in graphic detail) in mainstream stories. Why should a person being an erotic writer make it wrong when Stephen King, James Patterson, and dozens of mainstream literature authors do the same stories?

 

[mrs_mackenzie]

Just speaking personally for a moment, I find there are often two kinds of 'consensual' non-consent stories:

1. She's into it, but tries to deny that in some way, whether through fantasy or psychology whatever.
2. He makes her do things she doesn't want to but it's okay because in the end she likes it. This includes bets, 'arrangements', sex-for-pay etc.

I don't mind 1, although generally I don't like NC/R. I really dislike 2. But 2 is present in so many stories in all categories, because society has a real problem with establishing proper consent. I often agonise over whether a sexual encounter is 'consensual' in my stories when, frankly, it wouldn't even register on the consent scale compared to others in perfectly vanilla categories.

A particular example of this is voyeurism: 'getting an eyeful' when a woman is changing or something and doesn't realise is not fun, it's non-consensual. Or 'help, I'm stuck', 'give me a better grade and I'll...', which are such prevalent tropes even in mainstream media, TV shows, novels etc.

Honestly, maybe I am speaking too generally, but this is a common reason why (some) women don't like porn or certain types of erotica or the way sex is often presented in the mainstream. Consent is paramount and so often society ignores this inconvenient fact.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Historically, the woman was the property of her husband, and consent isn't required by property. I mean, that goes back to the foundation of society. Therefore, through history, there was rape, and then there was no rape because he had the right to her. The woman being property of her master\husband often was extended to those she dated. Especially if she was poor, he was wealthy. I think that particular historical thing should be portrayed in period stories.

But it is also true women have used sex as a weapon in the past (and now, and in the future, it will continue).

Women have seduced reluctant men with great efficiency. Which is a form of rape, just some seduction of women by men (booze, dope, whatever) is rape. Strong women have raped men; the mean gets an erection from Adrien and fear. Those stories might not even raise an eyebrow. There's a movie where Denzel Washington plays a DA that is kidnapped by a criminal, and a hooker rapes him while he is tied to a chair, and he is begging her not to do it.

Rape is the go-to trope to show a man's evil.

 

[AlinaX]

In an ethically healthy civilisation, all sex should be consensual. I do think that the more this is an expectation, the more shocking we find transgressions.

 

[lovecraft68]

This is in the looking for a story forum

https://forum.literotica.com/threads/a-husband-and-wife-rape-a-lesbian.1615552/

I invite anyone who thinks this site polices anything to drift through that forum and look at some of the stories people have read here and how often they are flat out rape stories.

Then when you're done go over to Story Ideas where many suggestions are flat out non con and even when they're not, within three posts someone is spinning it that way.

This site supports non con material in every way. How anyone doesn't see this is beyond me. Are some people do afraid of looking like they're calling out site BS that they can't come out and simply say, "Yeah, this shouldn't be here, why is it?"

 

[SimonDoom]

This is in the looking for a story forum

https://forum.literotica.com/threads/a-husband-and-wife-rape-a-lesbian.1615552/

I invite anyone who thinks this site polices anything to drift through that forum and look at some of the stories people have read here and how often they are flat out rape stories.

Then when you're done go over to Story Ideas where many suggestions are flat out non con and even when they're not, within three posts someone is spinning it that way.

This site supports non con material in every way. How anyone doesn't see this is beyond me. Are some people do afraid of looking like they're calling out site BS that they can't come out and simply say, "Yeah, this shouldn't be here, why is it?"

The only evidence we have of this is the poster's description of the story, not the story itself, so we don't have much to go on. But here's what the poster says about the story:

If I remember it was pretty rough, I think in the end she liked it.

So, based on what we know from the post you cited, this story conforms to the Site's rule. It is not evidence that the Site is hypocritical or inconsistent.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

This site supports non con material in every way. How anyone doesn't see this is beyond me. Are some people do afraid of looking like they're calling out site BS that they can't come out and simply say, "Yeah, this shouldn't be here, why is it?"

I'd even go one further. The site supports full non-con while hiding behind the consensual non-con ass cover rule to pretend that they don't. I'm not sure that they intended that at the outset but that is how it's working out.

I've seen straight up non-con thoroughly unenjoyable rape on lit more than once (and I don't actively seek it out). I won't name names because I don't want to out anyone and get their story sent back.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I honestly fail to see the purpose of this thread. It seems to me that the same people are arguing both against and for rape stories, while voicing their particular taste in such stories?
I mean, I would understand the potential criticism towards Literotica's lack of vigilance in enforcing their own non-con rules, or even a disagreement with their specific rule that the victim has to enjoy it (which personally, I find particularly bad and prone to abuse), or even a full out criticism of the existence of the non-con category, but only few posters touched on those points. Seriously, what is this thread about?

 

[AlinaX]

I thought I was clear. It is possible to write stories where non-consensuality feeds the eroticism. I'm aware that I have written things that treat the sensitivity of the subject area too casually, and that I risk being hypocritical in condemning others.

That said, I detest stories where a victim is made to suffer and what attempt there is at eroticism is derived from that suffering.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'd even go one further. The site supports full non-con while hiding behind the consensual non-con ass cover rule to pretend that they don't. I'm not sure that they intended that at the outset but that is how it's working out.

I've seen straight up non-con thoroughly unenjoyable rape on lit more than once (and I don't actively seek it out). I won't name names because I don't want to out anyone and get their story sent back.

The site doesn't pretend that it allows only "consensual non-con." That's a misunderstanding. It purports to allow real non-con, but only where the victim enjoys it. That's not the same thing as "consensual non-con." There may be overlap, but they are not the same thing.

"Consensual non-con" is where the characters in a story play at going through a non-con experience, such as where a man and woman plan a fake rape scene. That has nothing to do with the Site's rule.

I don't understand this attitude that you and Lovecraft have that it's just absolutely appalling that the Site allows this material, but by God you're not going to cite to it because you don't want the story getting sent back. It makes me feel like I'm back in high school. If you truly thing it is wrong that it's here, put your money where your mouth is. I get tired of hearing about how obvious it is that the Site allows this content but nobody provides any evidence because, you know, nobody wants to be a snitch. Let's grow up, folks.

The one example Lovecraft gave in this thread is NOT an example, because the person he cited who described the story said that the victim in that story enjoyed it.

 

[SimonDoom]

I thought I was clear. It is possible to write stories where non-consensuality feeds the eroticism. I'm aware that I have written things that treat the sensitivity of the subject area too casually, and that I risk being hypocritical in condemning others.

That said, I detest stories where a victim is made to suffer and what attempt there is at eroticism is derived from that suffering.

My view, too, although "detest" might be too strong a word for me. As long as the victim as portrayed as enjoying it and THAT's the focus of the eroticism, that's OK with me, no matter how preposterous it is.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I don't understand this attitude that you and Lovecraft have that it's just absolutely appalling that the Site allows this material, but by God you're not going to cite to it because you don't want the story getting sent back. It makes me feel like I'm back in high school. If you truly thing it is wrong that it's here, put your money where your mouth is. I get tired of hearing about how obvious it is that the Site allows this content but nobody provides any evidence because, you know, nobody wants to be a snitch. Let's grow up, folks.

Because I think the RULE is silly, not the stories. The stroies are fine. If I out the story, the story gets punished and the rule keeps on keepin' on, which would only be worse. That's where my mouth is and has always been on the issue.

Lit can have any rule that they want. It's their site and that's fine, but if a rule is stupid I'm still going to call it stupid.

 

[AlinaX]

My view, too, although "detest" might be too strong a word for me. As long as the victim as portrayed as enjoying it and THAT's the focus of the eroticism, that's OK with me, no matter how preposterous it is.

If it's preposterous, surely the author is guilty of a lack of imagination.

 

[AlinaX]

Because I think the RULE is silly, not the stories. The stroies are fine. If I out the story, the story gets punished and the rule keeps on keepin' on, which would only be worse. That's where my mouth is and has always been on the issue.

Lit can have any rule that they want. It's their site and that's fine, but if a rule is stupid I'm still going to call it stupid.

I know I'm only half awake, but that makes no sense at all.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I know I'm only half awake, but that makes no sense at all.

What precisely does not make sense? Give me a starting point.

 

[CyranoJ]

I'd even go one further. The site supports full non-con while hiding behind the consensual non-con ass cover rule to pretend that they don't.

I see that Simon has already pointed out (quite correctly) that this statement is just factually wrong. Beyond that, whether or not you view the rule as a cop-out is up to you; AFAICT it just reflects the site owner's personal tastes and what they can personally tolerate in re: the particular kink, I don't remember Lit ever pretending to any particular ethical standard beyond that.

The "argument" about whether those tastes are high-minded enough or not kind of misses that point about what kinks are and how they work, IMO. Which is par for the course for the poster you're replying to (and whose stale, repetitive and tiresome moral peacocking act I long ago stopped taking seriously in any way) but I do like to remind people from time to time that they don't, in fact, have to follow suit with that line of non-thought.

As to what Alina says upthread: there are different registers of NC/R fantasy, and some stories are written largely (to put it very roughly) toward either the pleasures of sexual sadism and domination or toward the pleasures of sexual masochism and submission. (Oversimplifying, of course: many stories don't fit into a neat binary this way, but the further they lean into one of those axes, the more unmistakable it is.) The Hopeless Fate trope in NC/R stories (as one might call it), where characters are bundled off into permanent sexual slavery, is an especially impossible-to-mistake manifestation of the former axis. Definitely not going to be for everyone.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I see that Simon has already pointed out (quite correctly) that this statement is just factually wrong. Beyond that, whether or not you view the rule as a cop-out is up to you; AFAICT it just reflects the site owner's personal tastes and what they can personally tolerate in re: the particular kink, I don't remember Lit ever pretending to any particular ethical standard beyond that.

Like I said, the site can make any rule that it wants for any reason that it wants. Having said that, this site allows all kinds of crazy stuff, incest, mind control, non-human, all kinds of weird stuff, but no snuff, no beasty, no underage and no actual rape. That's fine, but to say that the non-con rule is not a legal ass cover is flat wrong is wrong. I have my opinion and you have yours. That's what this is, one opinion against another, so don't try to tell me that I'm just flat wrong.

Why is snuff against the rules? Because there are legalities around it that may or may not get hairy and the site doesn't want to deal with that potential dumpster fire.

Why is beastie against the rules? Same deal.

Why is underage against the rules? Legalities. Period.

Why is straight rape against the rules? Dunno, site just has it's whimsical tastes? No, doesn't add up. Not to me anyway. Incest allowed is not a matter of taste. Alien tentacles is not a matter of taste. Martian slut ray is not a matter of taste. There's just no legal hassle over that stuff. That's the difference. It makes way more sense than, 'meh, I guess Laurel just isn't into rape'. Furthermore legalities are the reason that ANY site has rules against non-con, underage, snuff etc.

That is the logic behind my opinion and you can certainly disagree with it but you can't dismiss it and just say it's totally wrong. It makes more than enough sense to be completely dismissed like you have.

 

[CyranoJ]

Like I said, the site can make any rule that it wants for any reason that it wants. Having said that, this site allows all kinds of crazy stuff, incest, mind control, non-human, all kinds of weird stuff, but no snuff, no beasty, no underage and no actual rape. That's fine, but to say that the non-con rule is not a legal ass cover is flat wrong is wrong.

Here is what you said:

The site supports full non-con while hiding behind the consensual non-con ass cover rule to pretend that they don't.

"Consensual non-con" is a specific thing that very obviously has nothing to do with the rule. As in the rule doesn't mention it and it factually is not necessary at all to what the rule does mention. That is what Simon said (and I'm agreeing) is factually wrong.

(I kinda feel like the switch to "legal ass cover" is goalpost-shifting, but maybe that's just legit why you thought bringing up CNC was relevant? Whatever: it isn't much more interesting, since AFAIK there still aren't laws against non-con tropes in fiction. But mainly, don't try to pretend you didn't just say the thing you super-obviously said. And it's actually far better for your credibility to just admit mistakes where they happen and move on with life than to try to bluster your way out of them.)

Again, if you personally feel that "the victim must get pleasure at some point" is a cop-out rule, that's up to you. It's not up to me to dictate what your tastes should be. I personally don't see why people feel the pressing need to announce stuff like this at full volume every time someone mentions the category, because frankly it isn't news to anyone else that Opinions Vary about either the category or the rule at this point? *shrug* Whatever.

 

[SimonDoom]

Why is straight rape against the rules? Dunno, site just has it's whimsical tastes? No, doesn't add up. Not to me anyway. Incest allowed is not a matter of taste. Alien tentacles is not a matter of taste. Martian slut ray is not a matter of taste. There's just no legal hassle over that stuff. That's the difference. It makes way more sense than, 'meh, I guess Laurel just isn't into rape'. Furthermore legalities are the reason that ANY site has rules against non-con, underage, snuff etc.

If this is true, then why is it a "silly rule" as you call it? If they really believe that rape content puts them at risk of legal jeopardy then it sure as hell makes sense to me to limit the kind of rape content that is most risky. If they believe that non-con content that involves actual enjoyment does not involve risk, or less risk, then it makes sense to allow that content, but not the other kind. And if they believe that partial but sometimes puzzlingly inconsistent enforcement of this rule will still keep them out of legal jeopardy, then power to them. It's all completely logical.

I don't actually believe this theory of why they are doing what they are doing, but you seem to, and if you're right, I don't see what the problem is.

I often break speeding laws when I drive. I don't do so all the time, and I don't overdo it. I adapt how I drive to specific circumstances to avoid legal jeopardy, but sometimes my speed varies relative to the speed limit purely because of inattentiveness. I'm inconsistent. So what? I don't understand the obsessive concern for consistency. Inconsistency is the most minor of all sins. This is a mom and pop operation. OF COURSE they are not going to enforce the rules consistently or perfectly. Who cares?

I'm not a mind reader, but I suspect that they are not motivated by the risk of legal jeopardy so much as personal distaste. Their tastes seem to be somewhat similar to mine: they prefer to avoid offering a forum that features stories that present suffering as a source of erotic pleasure for the reader. So they add the "she has to enjoy it" rule to avoid this problem. I don't see why there's anything wrong with that.

Your guess about their motivation is as good as mine, but I don't see how it matters what their motivation is. The rule has its own logic whatever the motivation is.

 

[MediocreAuthor]

My own line is idiosyncratic, arguably hypocritical, personal, and at times inconsistent. I have a few boxes that have to be checked, in order for me to have a chance of enjoying a story though.

1) Both parties have to enjoy themselves (by the end at least). This is the bare minimum and required by the site, and I'm likely to report any story that fails to meet this requirement.

2) No weapons or threats of serious harm. This one is allowed by the site, but it ruins things for me 99% of the time. Blade play etc is arousing to some people, apparently... but I find it terrifying and a huge turn off.

3) Nothing too real. I was recently watching Naruto with my kid (I enjoyed it when I was a teen), and I realized to my amusement that the show really is all about the creation of child soldiers. If the show was about the glorification of real child soldiers throughout history I'd hate it. But in a fantasy world devoid of realism I'm more likely to give it a pass. Most of my stories contain something to set them firmly outside the reality. Price of Embezzlement and The Understudy both take place in a semi-realistic world, but both are far more Reluctance than NC.

4) No kidnapping or human trafficking. It's just too real and scary. I could probably handle a fantasy version with warriors taking someone as a spoil of war, but in the modern day setting I can't stomach it.

5) No stalking POV as a rapist closes in in his victim. To me, being watched from the shadows seems too horrifying to depict... as odd as that might seem.

I'm sure there are more, but those are the first ones I thought of.

---

Btw, for the record, this site does not ban depictions of realistic rape. The only stipulations is that the victim experiences pleasure during the act.

A quick Google search will show that a victim orgasming during rape does sometimes occur, so there is nothing stopping someone from writing and publishing a story with uncomfortably realistic rape scenarios in it.

Personally, I'd hate such a story, as explained above... but it is allowed.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

If this is true, then why is it a "silly rule" as you call it?

Because it effectively does the opposite of what they intend. The site ass covers themselves against the optics of glorifying rape by not allowing realistic rape, but by allowing fake happy rape the site paints a picture that actually could glorify rape. Without the real rape to counter balance the optics, the irony of it all makes it silly.

And if they believe that partial but sometimes puzzlingly inconsistent enforcement of this rule will still keep them out of legal jeopardy, then power to them. It's all completely logical.

Then you agree that it's a legal ass cover.

I don't understand the obsessive concern for consistency.

I'm not obsessive over it - or I'm as obsessive as you need me to be to make me the villain. Do you see me starting threads on this topic? Have I flooded the admin with PMs? Have I tagged Laurel and Manu to get their asses into these threads and do something about it? You know the answer to all of these questions. I don't have to tell you. Now and then this topic comes up in a new thread and sometimes I voice my opinion on it and sometimes I don't bother. I've also said many many countless times (including in this thread) that lit can make any rule that they want, it's their site, not mine. I just think that this particular rule is silly and tragically ironic.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I kinda feel like the switch to "legal ass cover" is goalpost-shifting

When did I switch? I've always said that it's a legal ass cover, for a year and a half on this forum. And since you said ...

the pressing need to announce stuff like this at full volume every time someone mentions the category

You must be familliar with my stance, so yet you still have it wrong.