Non-Consent

[sr71plt]

Do I have to post again that the formula of the victim deciding to like it is the formula that the Web site editor here accepts and so you'll find a lot of that formula here? Take your gripes on this directly to the Web site editor, Laurel, who doesn't open e-mail. Send her a PM (Private Message system, upper right column on this page).

 

[Gotham_Central]

Do I have to post again that the formula of the victim deciding to like it is the formula that the Web site editor here accepts and so you'll find a lot of that formula here? Take your gripes on this directly to the Web site editor, Laurel, who doesn't open e-mail. Send her a PM (Private Message system, upper right column on this page).

I'm sorry, I didn't realize that your's was the last word on the topic, ending the need for anyone else to comment.

While we agree on the impact of the rules, my statement was in no way a gripe. Laurel's site. Laurel's rules.

My comment was simply the original poster, responding to what I -apparently mistakenly- thought was an on going discourse. A discussion not of the site rules, but if the stated topic.

(And, try not to be insulted, but it wasn't aimed at you.)

 

[sr71plt]

Snottiness will certainly work a charm. By all means be snotty to Laurel too when you contact her, the one who does the selection here and sets the submissions guidelines.

 

[Gotham_Central]

Let's consider snotty, shall we?

Do I have to post again that the formula of the victim deciding to like it is the formula that the Web site editor here accepts and so you'll find a lot of that formula here? Take your gripes on this directly to the Web site editor, Laurel, who doesn't open e-mail. Send her a PM (Private Message system, upper right column on this page).

Comes across as pretty self important and snotty, fly boy.

Again, not griping. Not going to Laurel, her rules.
I'm also not pimping my work on her site while encouraging others to complain about her site.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm not going to argue with you. This is your issue, not mine. I took the time to tell you why you saw so many nonconsent stories in the "decided to like it" vein here and who to contact about that and you were snotty in return. So, it can just remain your issue.

And I beg to differ. You are complaining about how this site is run.

 

[PhilippaMaQuente]

I understand why the guidelines are the way they are, in order to keep the content from becoming too graphic and truly offensive, despite the fact that 'non-consent' is a PC term for a very ugly thing (rape). I am also not going to petiton for the rules to be changed, I am just going to work within them to produce the best piece of work I can that upholds my purpose. At the same time, I don't think it is necessarily safe or healthy to "soften" rape fetish stories in that manner because of how it allows people to accept sexual assault as 'normal' or 'romantic'. Is there a middle ground? I don't know for sure. All I can say is that sexual violence is a multi-faceted subject, and when you have a kink for non-consent, it's already hard enough to unpack safely, sanely and consensually without being shamed or demonized for it. It becomes further complicated and murky when rape is written as 'romance with extra steps' by the end. That's just not reality.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I understand why the guidelines are the way they are, in order to keep the content from becoming too graphic and truly offensive, despite the fact that 'non-consent' is a PC term for a very ugly thing (rape). I am also not going to petiton for the rules to be changed, I am just going to work within them to produce the best piece of work I can that upholds my purpose. At the same time, I don't think it is necessarily safe or healthy to "soften" rape fetish stories in that manner because of how it allows people to accept sexual assault as 'normal' or 'romantic'. Is there a middle ground? I don't know for sure. All I can say is that sexual violence is a multi-faceted subject, and when you have a kink for non-consent, it's already hard enough to unpack safely, sanely and consensually without being shamed or demonized for it. It becomes further complicated and murky when rape is written as 'romance with extra steps' by the end. That's just not reality.

FWIW, I share your discomfort with the "victim must enjoy it" rule, for the sort of reasons you outline, but I can see where it's coming from.

Back in the mists of time before Literotica existed, I spent some time on various other erotica sites that didn't have this kind of restriction. Maybe somebody out there was using that freedom to write about sexual assault issues in more enlightened ways, but I don't think I ever saw that. What I did see was outright torture porn and in some cases snuff.

For those stories, the line wasn't "women enjoy being raped" but rather "rape is a great way to make women suffer, and here are some ideas for making that as horrific as possible". I get the impression Literotica's rule was established as a response to that kind of content, and in that light it's probably an improvement over what came before.

I'd like to see the rule updated and improved, but the site has been pending a grand revamp for quite some time now, and that sort of content update probably isn't a priority.

I will also note that the wording of the guidelines allows some wiggle room: "These judgments are subjective, and thus we can't give an exact definition of what exactly is "too much"... We generally do not accept submissions of nonconsensual sex in which the "victim" gets absolutely no sort of thrill or enjoyment from the acts...".

If your story is compatible with the intent of the rule, Laurel might let it through even if it doesn't adhere to the letter. But probably best to discuss that with her before putting a lot of work into it!

 

[Gotham_Central]

FWIW, I share your discomfort with the "victim must enjoy it" rule, for the sort of reasons you outline, but I can see where it's coming from.

Back in the ... .... is compatible with the intent of the rule, Laurel might let it through even if it doesn't adhere to the letter. But probably best to discuss that with her before putting a lot of work into it!

Where is the "Like" button?

 

[AngelaSaxon]

Again, there are endless, popular stories and writers on this site who pay no attention to this rule whatsoever, so if it is enforced sometimes it seems like either it is VERY arbitrary, or according to rules which are not stated and also clearly not those that ARE stated.

Almost everything by GeorgeTasker, and that was not exactly some recent laxity in rule application, for instance. Maybe it is ok if it is ridiculous and 'comic'?

volescamper is another.

And I could literally list a dozen more who are not exactly obscure.

So maybe the rule is more about whether the person deciding finds it really nasty and unpleasant. But that isn't the written rule, it seems, and it isn't what people here are de facto pretending is the norm.

Even though it very much is not the norm.

It might be common, but only someone blind or not looking could really pretend there aren't hundreds of stories here that very very clearly do not follow those rules. Not even remotely.

The other point is the one I made before: while the rule may have been created to avoid the worst of torture porn or whatever - what do I know? - if followed the primary effect is precisely to validate rapist mythology - the way in which actual real-world rapists think and the ideas they actually deploy to justify their actions - she enjoyed it, she wanted it really, whatever. Making that practice COMPULSORY is just...a weird version of being more 'ethical'.

You know, because it is, at least arguably, less ethical by any standard concerned with the relation to what happens in the real world, rather than what makes some people comfortable here?

So yes, I am being somewhat critical of this site and the rules of this site, for their fictional qualities, and the crappiness of certain implications when they ARE followed. Is that a problem?

And very concretely it is why I can't stand a lot of stories by, for example, as I mentioned before, Ashson. Who is a festival of rape-victims coming to love it. A new one every week. Boy do his victims love it.

He cites the rule as why he writes this way, but again I don't understand why it is a problem for him but not for...well, so many many others. It seems.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Again, there are endless, popular stories and writers on this site who pay no attention to this rule whatsoever, so if it is enforced sometimes it seems like either it is VERY arbitrary, or according to rules which are not stated and also clearly not those that ARE stated.

Almost everything by GeorgeTasker, and that was not exactly some recent laxity in rule application, for instance. Maybe it is ok if it is ridiculous and 'comic'?

Perhaps so. The guidelines do state that the line on "excessive violence" is not drawn sharply, that interpretation is influenced by context, and that the "victim should enjoy it at some point" bit is a generalisation (not the cast-iron rule that it's sometimes suggested to be). Ultimately it comes back to "if you're not sure what will be allowed, best to ask Laurel via DM".

 

[PhilippaMaQuente]

If your story is compatible with the intent of the rule, Laurel might let it through even if it doesn't adhere to the letter. But probably best to discuss that with her before putting a lot of work into it!

Actually the story I've been posting here is well underway, and I am working perfectly fine within the guidelines. I'm turning the 'abduction' trope on its head. My heroine absolutely does enjoy everything her captors do to her because she has a massive rape kink; she's just not afraid to call them out for what they've done. At the same time, their intent isn't to torture her. They want her willing.

My chief problem lies in that most rape isn't of the torture and murder variety. Most rape is committed by someone the victim knows and trusts without physical force- it's a lack of clear consent, or manipulation of consent, or simple disregard for consent. Writing gratuitous rape-and-torture falls more along the lines of a horror story, not an erotic story with a non-consent theme. To be exact, when writers use non-consensual sex WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING IT'S RAPE and having the heroine just 'give in' at the end without ever demanding redress for her violation, THAT'S where I find the most problems. I counteract this by having my heroine tell her rapists in no uncertain terms that what they're doing is wrong, and by dint of that, she gains pleasure. She also uses their personalities and behavior to retain control of herself and her choices, turning the paradigm upside down.

There are ways to work within the guidelines. In fact, I think it's on the AUTHORS for the most part not to perpetuate lazy tropes. I understand why the site, and Laurel, would not want the kind of torture porn you mention.

And, well said, AngelaSaxon! I admit I have not read much on the site as opposed to posting, but I have found a few of the stories I did read to be distasteful for some of those reasons. I don't care for crudity and I have a taste for storytelling. Thanks for the heads-up on a few.

 

[Gotham_Central]

Where on the sliding scale of acceptable would a story fit, in which the sex starts out as reluctant, even non-consensual, but at a point the female protagonist fights back and "takes" her assailant? Sort if a "you want fucked, big boy, let's see you keep up" sort of angry hate fuck?

 

[Bramblethorn]

My chief problem lies in that most rape isn't of the torture and murder variety. Most rape is committed by someone the victim knows and trusts without physical force- it's a lack of clear consent, or manipulation of consent, or simple disregard for consent. Writing gratuitous rape-and-torture falls more along the lines of a horror story, not an erotic story with a non-consent theme.

Hmm. I won't say it's a universal rule, and of course you can't always control how readers will receive a story... but I think the norm for horror is to get the reader sympathising with the victim, have them feel that fear. With those gratuitous stories, the authors seem to be aiming for sympathy for the perp; AFAICT they're written for people who get off on the idea of torturing others, aiming to arouse sexual interest through violence. So I would consider them erotica, even though they draw heavily on horrific scenarios.

To be exact, when writers use non-consensual sex WITHOUT ACKNOWLEDGING IT'S RAPE and having the heroine just 'give in' at the end without ever demanding redress for her violation, THAT'S where I find the most problems.

Yes. I have no objection to stories that depict fantasy, or evil, but I get uncomfortable when it starts feeling like the author doesn't know the difference between right and wrong, and is passing that confusion along to their readers.

I get the impression a lot of people enjoy the Stockholm Syndrome "she ends up loving it" stories; for various reasons, it pushes a lot of people's happy buttons. Sometimes even mine! Nothing wrong with catering to those fantasies, but I don't think it's healthy to do it to the exclusion of all other takes.

Me, I mostly come at it from the other side of things, by writing stories where people negotiate their consent and respect one another's boundaries. But it sounds like you've found a creative way to approach it within the NC category - good luck with it!

 

[ElectricBlue]

Where on the sliding scale of acceptable would a story fit, in which the sex starts out as reluctant, even non-consensual, but at a point the female protagonist fights back and "takes" her assailant? Sort if a "you want fucked, big boy, let's see you keep up" sort of angry hate fuck?

Why are you worried about a "sliding scale of acceptable"?

Some readers will hate it (the male misogynists who can't handle a strong woman turning the tables). Others will love it, precisely because of that.

I think writers should think about whether they're empowering women in their erotic worlds, or subjugating them. That's just my world view, though - I always write strong but equal women, because that's my philosophy of life. But then I don't write non-con, so I can't speak on behalf of anyone else.

An answer though - what is acceptable to one reader will be unacceptable to the next. You'll find someone in every place on your scale. Black, white, and every shade of grey. Write your story, and find out for yourself. But if you trying please everyone, you'll please no-one, least of all yourself.

Write and be damned, I say

 

[PhilippaMaQuente]

Where on the sliding scale of acceptable would a story fit, in which the sex starts out as reluctant, even non-consensual, but at a point the female protagonist fights back and "takes" her assailant? Sort if a "you want fucked, big boy, let's see you keep up" sort of angry hate fuck?

That could still be part of the non-con; a turn-of-the-tables of sorts. I'd certainly enjoy seeing more stories that switched it up like that. The hate-fuck is a valid romantic device. What would make it better would be if the woman handcuffed the guy, took back her power sexually, and then got away. Maybe send the cops to sort him out.

Hmm. I won't say it's a universal rule, and of course you can't always control how readers will receive a story... but I think the norm for horror is to get the reader sympathising with the victim, have them feel that fear. With those gratuitous stories, the authors seem to be aiming for sympathy for the perp; AFAICT they're written for people who get off on the idea of torturing others, aiming to arouse sexual interest through violence. So I would consider them erotica, even though they draw heavily on horrific scenarios.

Just to be clear, I meant in real life, most rapes are committed by someone the victim knows and trusts, without physical force.

As to the differences between horror and erotica, I would disagree that the point of horror is to sympathize with the victim- simply because so many times the victim winds up dead or irrevocaby destroyed by the end of the story, be it in film or novel, but particularly in classic horror cinema. Many times the victims are making stupid choices or acting "immorally" and that's why they wind up dying at the hands of a slasher. Horror is a particular favorite of mine genre-wise, so I think about its purpose and applications a lot. The term I use to describe my NC piece is "dark erotica"- i.e., pornographic material that teeters between horror and romance, in which the romance is inherently horrific, but despite that, there's a heartfelt pang of genuine emotion at play. Sheer torture/rape porn that happens to be pornographic isn't "erotica", to me. It might be dickering, but I would argue that straight-up "erotica" is generally considered "romance" with sexually explicit material. I would consider a piece, if its sole purpose was to portray rape and torture in the most gratuitous and violent manner possible, to be straight horror, or at least "horrotica", where the focus is the violence, not the romance or sex. Genre can be complex. Just my two storyteller cents.

Me, I mostly come at it from the other side of things, by writing stories where people negotiate their consent and respect one another's boundaries. But it sounds like you've found a creative way to approach it within the NC category - good luck with it!

Thank you. I do write other things too, mostly consensual BDSM and some erotic pieces that experiment with sci-fi and fantasy overlays. I just tried posting the NC piece after seeing there was a board for it and thinking "Why not?" In all cases, my work winds up being very much about consent and communication, even that one. It's important to me. I feel that if I don't like the selections out there, I must contribute something I find better, something that teaches the lessons I find lacking in so many pieces. In the Non-Con case in particular it is a legitimate fetish, and for those of us who want to satisfy it in a healthy manner, there has to exist material that handles the topic in an honest, responsible manner. That's my aim.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Sheer torture/rape porn that happens to be pornographic isn't "erotica", to me. It might be dickering, but I would argue that straight-up "erotica" is generally considered "romance" with sexually explicit material. I would consider a piece, if its sole purpose was to portray rape and torture in the most gratuitous and violent manner possible, to be straight horror, or at least "horrotica", where the focus is the violence, not the romance or sex. Genre can be complex. Just my two storyteller cents.

IMHO it's one of those irregular nouns: I write erotica, you write pornography, he/she/they write obscenity ;-)

 

[PhilippaMaQuente]

IMHO it's one of those irregular nouns: I write erotica, you write pornography, he/she/they write obscenity ;-)

To me there's a greal of nuance in the terms. Although 'obscenity' is such a marvelous word.

 

[PervOtaku]

As far as what the category really is it should be pointed out that the actually term on Literotica is "Nonconsentual/ Reluctance"

Reluctance can be very different.

Lots of erotica sites lump "rape" stories together with reluctance or BDSM or whatever thing that it really doesn't belong with. It's a limitation of having set categories in the first place.

Obviously there are some pretty popular writers on Literotica who write stories in which rape takes place and there is no suggestion that the person in any way consents or indeed in any way enjoys.

What I find bizarre is that there is a norm here, at least in theory, in which someone like Ashson is considered somehow the more acceptable version of a rape story because his victims ALWAYS end up loving it and actively participating.

So apparently the ethical position is to write your rape stories to directly validate precisely one of the primary rape-justifying mythologies actively deployed by actual real-world rapists.

I think this is bizarre, and utterly the reverse of actual ethics.

For that reason, and for the reason of my actual kinks, in fiction I prefer my nonconsent stories to be actual nonconsent stories, not reluctance-becomes-consent, not nonconsent-becomes-loves-it, not woman-learns-to-love-being-submissive, not any version of sub-dom stuff.

As has been discussed, it's the site rules. My theory is the site owners don't want to encourage unenjoyed rape by having stories about it. (Similar to how they don't allow bestiality with real-world animals, but with fictional creatures it's fine.) But since you put it that way, I guess I can't really disagree with you.

Girls that have a victim fetish aren't going to care how the victim character ends up, but we don't really want to encourage guys with predator tendencies to go out and do anything of the sort unless it's prearranged with a willing girl.

Still, I think there's something extra naughty and therefore extra sexy about a victim character whose body and mind betrays her and can't help but enjoy something that she doesn't want to enjoy. Internal conflicts of fighting one's own desires are amazingly hot.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Still, I think there's something extra naughty and therefore extra sexy about a victim character whose body and mind betrays her and can't help but enjoy something that she doesn't want to enjoy. Internal conflicts of fighting one's own desires are amazingly hot.

Whatever the reasons, it's a very old trope. This story is more than a hundred years old, but with a few tweaks to the language it wouldn't be out of place in Literotica's NC section.

 

[PhilippaMaQuente]

Still, I think there's something extra naughty and therefore extra sexy about a victim character whose body and mind betrays her and can't help but enjoy something that she doesn't want to enjoy. Internal conflicts of fighting one's own desires are amazingly hot.

I don't disagree; in fact I'm using that very edge in my work.

Whatever the reasons, it's a very old trope. This story is more than a hundred years old, but with a few tweaks to the language it wouldn't be out of place in Literotica's NC section.

I''ll see your "Way of a Man With a Maid" and raise you The Lustful Turk. It's even older. Bloody Victorian perverts, eh?

 

[thomas1965]

A raped woman having an orgasm turns me off.
Even fiction should be realistic.
Fear, anger, hatred or self-pity are the emotions I found realistic by a rape victim.

 

[EquinoxRising]

A raped woman having an orgasm turns me off.
Even fiction should be realistic.
Fear, anger, hatred or self-pity are the emotions I found realistic by a rape victim.

Lit only allows the former, not the latter.

 

[AngelaSaxon]

Lit only allows the former, not the latter.

As if. You must be looking at a different site - I could name you a dozen stories that do not follow that 'allowingness' with no difficulty.

There are really hundreds in which nonconsensual sex does not involve the woman loving it or cumming.

Literotica does not simply equal Ashson.

Literotica does not simply equal whatever 'rules' are allegedly real but not actually real.

 

[EquinoxRising]

It's been my understanding that Laurel won't allow stories if "the victim didn't like it by the end" and that that was their official stance on the subject.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I''ll see your "Way of a Man With a Maid" and raise you The Lustful Turk. It's even older. Bloody Victorian perverts, eh?

Well, my education has been furthered today.