Shit stirrer

[Duleigh]

Actually, plenty of erotica authors and readers, certainly in AH, are quite judgemental about kinks that are not their own.

I would certainly love to see examples of which you accuse, I am sure you are ready to share, are you not? Personally I have found the VAST majority of authors in AH to be understanding or at least polite. This was by far the most universally groundless accusation I've seen in AH.

 

[lovecraft68]

Write what you can understand (or want to understand) via research.

Not the same. Research can give you knowledge, but real-life experience and emotions give a story depth and power. Its the difference between a story that may be technically accurate, but devoid of feeling, and one that hits home.

Give you can example.

I know a fair amount about various religions because I see them as mythology and therefore interesting. But I'm a non-believer so if I were to write about a character that has deep faith its going to fail because I have nothing in me to drive that. I have knowledge, but no faith or vested emotional interest.

On the other hand, my religious rants in some of my stories, are epic because it reflects my scorn towards an imaginary god because its driven by emotion.

If you don't feel it, neither will your reader.

 

[KeithD]

Not the same. Research can give you knowledge, but real-life experience and emotions give a story depth and power. Its the difference between a story that may be technically accurate, but devoid of feeling, and one that hits home.

"Write what you know" is given as an absolute and couched as what you've experienced. That's misleading for a writer. What you've researched also becomes part of what you know.

 

[Duleigh]

I know a fair amount about various religions because I see them as mythology and therefore interesting. But I'm a non-believer so if I were to write about a character that has deep faith its going to fail because I have nothing in me to drive that. I have knowledge, but no faith or vested emotional interest.

I have a similar problem. I cannot write accurately about a non-believer and I restrain from putting my opinions on non-belief in. My non-believers end up being NPCs in the story, and I let them carry on because I cannot envision being that alone in the universe. I also have a problem with foreign languages. I can research and I sometimes can come close, but the French language, and what a French speaking person would say are two different things.

For example
If you were angry with someone you might say "Il est stupide" He is stupid. But that's not was a native French speaking person would say, they might say
Il a été bercé trop près du mur which means "He's been cradled too close to the wall" inferring brain damage or he might say
Il est aussi stupide que ses pieds Whis means "he's as stupid as his feet" which makes little sense to me, but they say it. Or he might say
Il a une araignée au plafond. which means "He's got a spider in the ceiling" inferring a touch of insanity.

I just use these examples because it's what has been coming up in my work. Google Translate is going to give you a taste of things like this sometimes, but you need to reach out to a native speaker, or maybe do the unthinkable and sit down and have a rational discussion with someone whose view point does not match your own.

 

[StillStunned]

I have a similar problem. I cannot write accurately about a non-believer and I restrain from putting my opinions on non-belief in. My non-believers end up being NPCs in the story, and I let them carry on because I cannot envision being that alone in the universe. I also have a problem with foreign languages. I can research and I sometimes can come close, but the French language, and what a French speaking person would say are two different things.

For example
If you were angry with someone you might say "Il est stupide" He is stupid. But that's not was a native French speaking person would say, they might say
Il a été bercé trop près du mur which means "He's been cradled too close to the wall" inferring brain damage or he might say
Il est aussi stupide que ses pieds Whis means "he's as stupid as his feet" which makes little sense to me, but they say it. Or he might say
Il a une araignée au plafond. which means "He's got a spider in the ceiling" inferring a touch of insanity.

I just use these examples because it's what has been coming up in my work. Google Translate is going to give you a taste of things like this sometimes, but you need to reach out to a native speaker, or maybe do the unthinkable and sit down and have a rational discussion with someone whose view point does not match your own.

But if you translate them literally into English these things are great for conveying a sense of the exotic. I have a character who has a tendency to quote strange sayings from long-dead cultures, which are just literal translations of sayings from other languages.

(And I'll be adding your examples to my list.)

 

[TheLobster]

Trollism

Based on what I heard about the average denizen of LW, this is a very prescient name.

 

[KeithD]

When I pepper (less than salting) my stories with foreign language, which I do pretty frequently, I'm not going for complete accuracy in that language (and I do take Duleigh's point that a straight machine translation often doesn't do justice). I'm putting the reader into the foreign-language context of the story. I don't expect them to dwell on the phrase in a foreign language. I almost always given them the English translation I want to convey.

 

[lovecraft68]

I have a similar problem. I cannot write accurately about a non-believer and I restrain from putting my opinions on non-belief in. My non-believers end up being NPCs in the story, and I let them carry on because I cannot envision being that alone in the universe.

My wife says the same thing. She feels bad for me that I have nothing to comfort me.

She's an ordained minister and has an online teaching chapter.

We have interesting conversations, she tried to get me to buy in, I disprove all her alleged "divine" examples.

But end of the day, I respect her faith, as I respect faith in general. Faith is personal, religion is business and often times corrupts faith more than it helps. And she....pities me.

 

[Plathfan]

I'm a non-believer so if I were to write about a character that has deep faith its going to fail because I have nothing in me to drive that. I have knowledge, but no faith or vested emotional interest.

It's not going to fail because you lack faith, but because you've made a clear choice. As a creator, you can bring any character to life; you just need to listen and empathize. Sure, as a creator you have the right to choose beforehand which characters to exclude, but doing so significantly limits creative freedom. Leave personal agendas out.

 

[lovecraft68]

It's not going to fail because you lack faith, but because you've made a clear choice. As a creator, you can bring any character to life; you just need to listen and empathize. Sure, as a creator you have the right to choose beforehand which characters to exclude, but doing so significantly limits creative freedom. Leave personal agendas out.

Semantics. Lack of empathy is pretty much what I was getting at. Maybe mixed in with the fact I just can't bring myself to have a character who drinks that particular Kool Aid.

I've often said that for myself, I don't spend time writing things that I don't want to write. I have limited time to write so why spend it forcing myself as some type of challenge.

There's a difference between can't and won't. If I want to, there's nothing I can't pull off in a story, it's the want to part that prevents it.

I have no real interest in satire, but the one time I wanted to do it, came out pretty well. Well enough that you really enjoyed it. Because I was amused by the source material

 

[Plathfan]

Semantics. Lack of empathy is pretty much what I was getting at. Maybe mixed in with the fact I just can't bring myself to have a character who drinks that particular Kool Aid.

I've often said that for myself, I don't spend time writing things that I don't want to write. I have limited time to write so why spend it forcing myself as some type of challenge.

There's a difference between can't and won't. If I want to, there's nothing I can't pull off in a story, it's the want to part that prevents it.

I have no real interest in satire, but the one time I wanted to do it, came out pretty well. Well enough that you really enjoyed it. Because I was amused by the source material

Conceptually, erotica and sin often go hand in hand, so I find it hard to believe you've crafted an entire erotic universe made up only of atheists. Some of your characters must have a deep faith; you've simply chosen to suppress that aspect.

 

[MediocreAuthor]

The question was, "If your wife or girlfriend is out of town, away from family or friends, and happens to sample a strange cock, likes it, and brings home he increased libido and energy to bed, and as a male, you respond and all at once your love life, which was in embers, is all at once in flames, as it was when you married, and then sometime later, maybe even much later, a friend tells you that she fucked a guy at a conference years ago.

Please tell me what you think you lost, as opposed to what you have gained. As, I do not understand the misplaced rage you exhibit.

So this reminds me of the classic conundrum about hedonism.

Would you rather live your entire life believing a pleasant lie? Or would you rather know the unpleasant truth? A pure hedonist would prefer the lie, because they want whatever made them happy. But most humans don't think that way.

To me, my marriage was a contract that included (among other things) the stipulation that I won't fuck other men and vice versa.

If I was in the situation where my husband cheated on me, I would consider that a betrayal, regardless of what positive effects that betrayal might cause.

You might consider that silly, but you must at least be able to understand my thought process.

"Would you be willing to accept a million dollars in exchange for your wife/husband having sex with someone else?"

Many people would answer "No" to this (myself included), and I'd say that a million dollars is worth a lot more than a slightly increased libido or whatever.

Hopefully that's the reasoned response you're looking for, even if you don't agree.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Conceptually, erotica and sin often go hand in hand, so I find it hard to believe you've crafted an entire erotic universe made up only of atheists. Some of your characters must have a deep faith; you've simply chosen to suppress that aspect.

Nobody cares for agnostics or skeptics...

 

[SimonDoom]

My wife says the same thing. She feels bad for me that I have nothing to comfort me.

I grew up a nonbeliever and have always been a nonbeliever, so I never feel like I'm missing something. I think this is something that believers have a difficult time understanding. Pascal's Wager has always seemed transparently silly to me. It's the idea, "You might as well believe in God, because you have nothing to lose, whereas if you choose not to believe in God, you have everything to lose." Of course, that begs the question, "Even if this makes some sense, which God do I believe in? If I guess wrong, I'm just as cooked as if I choose non-belief." It also dodges the fundamental problem that one cannot (in my opinion) choose to believe something. I either believe it or I don't. I cannot choose to believe that there is an invisible tree in the yard across the street. That makes no sense.

But I can imagine being a believer. I've read the Bible and I've read plenty of Christian apologetics and at one point in my life I attended a church for a while, and I get it, sort of. I don't think I would have much difficulty in writing a religious character and describing the character's religiosity in a realistic way, with a little bit of research and some imagination and empathy.

 

[SimonDoom]

Conceptually, erotica and sin often go hand in hand, so I find it hard to believe you've crafted an entire erotic universe made up only of atheists. Some of your characters must have a deep faith; you've simply chosen to suppress that aspect.

I agree with this. A world full of religion and taboos and social and internal repression is far more erotic than a world where everyone is tolerant and rational and everything goes. All that repression and conflict adds erotic sizzle.

 

[Plathfan]

Nobody cares for agnostics or skeptics...

What's the appeal of two agnostics "going at it"? No inhibitions, no inner compass, no conflict, no sense of sin, no distinction between right and wrong. Everything is permitted; everything is bland and casual.

Mixing an atheist with a believer can create some intriguing dynamics. But placing two or more atheists in bed? It's like watching a poorly executed porn scene or rabbits humping in the backyard, which, evidently and regrettably, is quite popular.

 

[SimonDoom]

What's the appeal of two agnostics "going at it"? No inhibitions, no inner compass, no conflict, no sense of sin, no distinction between right and wrong. Everything is permitted; everything is bland and casual.

Mixing an atheist with a believer can create some intriguing dynamics. But placing two or more atheists in bed? It's like watching a poorly executed porn scene or rabbits humping in the backyard, which, evidently and regrettably, is quite popular.

One can have inhibitions, an inner compass, internal conflict, and a strong sense of right and wrong without being religious. To deny that is to refuse to confront the reality that the world is filled with people who manifest all of these things without the slightest belief in a deity.

In most of my stories, especially stories involving taboo subjects like incest, the characters manifest internal conflict but religion never comes up. One is free to infer or not to infer that they might have a religious background, but it's certainly not necessary.

 

[Plathfan]

One can have inhibitions, an inner compass, internal conflict, and a strong sense of right and wrong without being religious. To deny that is to refuse to confront the reality that the world is filled with people who manifest all of these things without the slightest belief in a deity.

In most of my stories, especially stories involving taboo subjects like incest, the characters manifest internal conflict but religion never comes up. One is free to infer or not to infer that they might have a religious background, but it's certainly not necessary.

If you have a strong sense of right and wrong, you definitely believe in something. Agnostics or skeptics doubt everything and ultimately resort to apathy. If everything is just matter, the whole concept of good and evil is absurd. Maybe you don't believe in a deity who is essentially a human being with superpowers, but you have to believe in something.

 

[KeithD]

Neither agnostics nor skeptics doubt EVERYTHING. They just doubt some things. In the case of agnostics, it's a specific doubting--but not an active denial--of the existence of an ultimate reality, ergo god. They believe in lots of other things.

Not sure how/why this discussion has turned to religion. I don't really include religion in my stories much. It's rarely needed in erotica.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

What's the appeal of two agnostics "going at it"? No inhibitions, no inner compass, no conflict, no sense of sin, no distinction between right and wrong. Everything is permitted; everything is bland and casual.

Mixing an atheist with a believer can create some intriguing dynamics. But placing two or more atheists in bed? It's like watching a poorly executed porn scene or rabbits humping in the backyard, which, evidently and regrettably, is quite popular.

And what happens if you put two devout Catholics in bed? A Hallelujah?
I agree about the sparks that come out when you put together a believer and a non-believer. The clash can often lead to a good discussion, although it almost never leads to any changes in opinion.

By the way, your opinion of agnostics is nothing short of childish. I can't fathom why you would think that they have no inhibitions, inner conflict, or a sense of right and wrong.
You think people are born agnostic? It takes time to get there, often through a lot of inner conflict and trying to understand the world. In my experience, most believers are people who were taught to believe from an early age and never dared to truly question it. You need doubt and questioning, you need to try to make sense of the world before you can truly embrace either position. Some believers do that, true, yet almost all atheists and agnostics do that as well. The percentages are very much in favor of the latter.

 

[StillStunned]

I agree about the sparks that come out when you put together a believer and a non-believer.

They should be safe as long as neither of them starts exclaiming "Oh God!" (or, as the case may be, "No God!").

 

[lc69hunter]

So this reminds me of the classic conundrum about hedonism.

Would you rather live your entire life believing a pleasant lie? Or would you rather know the unpleasant truth? A pure hedonist would prefer the lie, because they want whatever made them happy. But most humans don't think that way.

To me, my marriage was a contract that included (among other things) the stipulation that I won't fuck other men and vice versa.

If I was in the situation where my husband cheated on me, I would consider that a betrayal, regardless of what positive effects that betrayal might cause.

You might consider that silly, but you must at least be able to understand my thought process.

"Would you be willing to accept a million dollars in exchange for your wife/husband having sex with someone else?"

Many people would answer "No" to this (myself included), and I'd say that a million dollars is worth a lot more than a slightly increased libido or whatever.

Hopefully that's the reasoned response you're looking for, even if you don't agree.

I love your reasoned response. Whether I agree or not is not relevant, as we are all different. But at least you thought it out, and didn't give a kneejerk response, as many men would do, as they put women on a pedestal they neither want nor deserve, and when they fall off of that pedestal, they are crushed.

I have strong thoughts on this issue, but this is not the place for a theological discussion of women's wants or needs or desires.
Thanks

 

[SimonDoom]

If you have a strong sense of right and wrong, you definitely believe in something. Agnostics or skeptics doubt everything and ultimately resort to apathy. If everything is just matter, the whole concept of good and evil is absurd. Maybe you don't believe in a deity who is essentially a human being with superpowers, but you have to believe in something.

No. This is just nonsense. This is a good example of elevating one's personal subjective ideological views over provable fact. There's no evidence that agnostics are more apathetic than believers. There's no evidence that agnostics and atheists in fact have a weaker sense of right and wrong than believers. As far as I know, there's little to no evidence that religious belief in actual practice makes people behave more ethically. Religious people cheat on their spouses and murder people just as often as nonreligious people do.

I don't know what it means to believe in "something." That means nothing to me. I'm open to the possibility that there is an intelligence of some kind that created the world, but I see no reason to believe that's the case, and I don't believe in things like that without evidence, and even if I did believe in such an intelligence I don't see why it would necessarily dictate my moral beliefs. That strikes me as problematic because I'm turning over my morality to a cosmic dictator, which I refuse to do.

The most plausible explanation for morality is that it's a product of social evolution, created slowly over time and flourishing because societies that have strong moral codes are more likely to be successful than those that don't. This is just my working theory. I don't know and don't claim to know for certain.

As a matter of courtesy in discourse, you shouldn't tell other people what they "must" believe. You have no idea what I believe or must believe, any more than I know what you believe, other than what I've told you or what my various posts indicate I believe.

 

[Rob_Royale]

I am agnostic, but I believe there is a divine architect as the Masons would say. A creator. I believe that it is a far above us as we, the ameoba. And to assume knowledge of its mind is the ultimate in vanity and thusly do I see all organized religions.

I live a moral life because I choose to, because it's the best way for people to live together. I know good and bad and believe in personal honor. I am who I am, because I chose to be and not because I fear damnation, nor expect divine reward.

When I die, I shall cease to be and I've not the vanity to lament it.

 

[Plathfan]

As a matter of courtesy in discourse, you shouldn't tell other people what they "must" believe. You have no idea what I believe or must believe, any more than I know what you believe, other than what I've told you or what my various posts indicate I believe.

Absolute nonbelievers are a rarity. Most people, regardless of their stance on organized religion or traditional deities, maintain some form of belief, whether in a higher power, aliens, or philosophical principles.

If we are nothing more than a cluster of atoms, debating about morals makes little sense. However, if there's more to us than atoms, this "more" marks the inception of belief.