Warning: "Language" is sexist and dangerous to a woman's health

[Pure]

AD said,
//I got pissed and tried to write a "REAL" rape story. Cunt in a SUV was then born. It's done its job. I think too well. LOL Now all of you think I could be a rapist.//

This *is* ironic. You set out to write a rape story, I gather, with a kind of 'in your face' brutality. (I'm not sure why the 'cum' scene is there, though it's not absolutely impossible. But leave that issue aside.**)

People read it and say, "That's really brutal what the guy does. It's shocking and sickening."

Then they say, not "Author you did your job" but "Hey, we think *you* are really brutal. The anger there must be yours, not just the character's; and further we think your anger will come out. You're a walking time bomb, about to 'become your character' as it were; your story is a kind of notification of intent. You are thus a real danger to women."

Hmmm. Dangerous occupation, writing.!

J.

[Added: 8-16, noon edt]
PS. I do have a question or two for you , demon.

1) How did you understand the 'nonconsent' category? Did you think it merely meant a) 'nonconsent' as opposed to

b) "nonconsenting, at least on the surface, but extremely pleasurable for the woman-- who ultimately is going to be glad the event happened to her"?

Do you see that a 'real' rape story would fit under definition a) but NOT under definition b); that, in general, only a fantasy is going to fit under definition b)?


2) If you were writing a 'real' rape story, why did you put an orgasm in there for the truly scared and brutalized woman? Surely you agree that fear, terror, and undergoing cruelty will keep orgasm from occurring 99.9% of the time.

 

[gauchecritic]

Eeh. I dunt know. I go away for a week and look what happens. Did it wait til I went? Is it someone else in disguise? Shame on the lot of you for responding. After all I did to fuck it off and then you let it back in. Tchah.

Gauche

 

[americandemon]

This is how I see the nonconsent area

Nonconsent means to me....against a persons will. Now if the writter wants to make it a real rape story and make it horrable or if the writter makes it so the woman secretly wants this dark thing to happen to her and she gets off on it....fine. Nonconsent means forced or made to do something you don't really want to happen. This may come as a shock to some of the women in here but my rape stories have gotten very good feedback from ...yes....mostly women. Who like the idea of being a...babymaker or breeder. Yes even raped. Do I make judgements on them for what they like? No.

Hey different strokes for different folks. Everyone is different. I respect that. Believe it or not I have had some guys say I should write more stories like Cunt in a Suv. Some even said I should have done worse things to the female of the story. This to me is scary. But I am not here to pass judgement on people. I am here to write stories. If I am lucky people will like them. I do have another nonconsent story written but now I am afraid to post it. But I will put in in soon. So those of you who don't like my nonconsent stories.....DON'T READ THEM!!!! There not for everyone. There in the nonconsent area for a reason. I am sorry if you can't understand that.
Demon

P.s I asked Laural about the nonconsent area in the notes of my Horror story. So, hopefully I will get a answer.

 

[Pure]

Demon, that sounds like an honest belief; it's a mistake but you weren't acquainted with the history. "nonconsent" wasn't quite set up that way, but how are you to know. in any case, categories might evolve over time.

So as not to hijack this thread, I've started a new thread on a possible category --rough trade--for stories such as yours, which according to some could now be placed only in 'extreme.'

Have a look, tell what you think, people.

J.

 

[Netzach]

Don't know nuthin' bout Derrida
Don't know nuthin' bout Irigaray

Don't know much about the esoteric
don't know much about the semiotic

all I do know is the story bit
really was a trifling piece o' shit
what a waste of our breath this can be

 

[Netzach]

c'mon sing it readers!

 

[rosco rathbone]

The story sucked; but it had honest feeling, expressed bluntly. I can easily see how it caused discomfort: the author was all-too-obviously relishing the fantasy.

 

[Netzach]

Sure did, it induced feelings of nausea and discomfort between grammatical errors for me, I'm right along with you.

But I don't need Irigaray Derrida and the Canadian court to tell me that it's my prerogative to say it's a turd and a turkey

and that it's ok for someone to publish said turd and turkey.

You can prints it I can critiques it.

Where do we need to elaborate that much more?

 

[Netzach]

As for language as a loaded gun...

it's powerful stuff, sure.

However, when people begin to ascribe it that much power, I often recommend a good long soak in reality.

 

[Pure]

Hey, often debates about content get raised with some pretty terrible stuff, if you've read some court decisions, like People v. HardDickyBoys and co; Regina v. MurderousPussies.

Roscoe, our patron saint has kinkly--ooops, I meant kindly--supplied a well written example of the genre 'rough trade', which it occurs to me, could just as well be called 'abusive sex acts' (adult, non-lethal).

The Sucking of a Jew, by Roscoe Rathbone

http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=63139

 

[Netzach]

RR is kindly enough to provide us with a specific description of what we will and will not be sucking on tonight beforehand.

And he can write, I dare anyone to get through that without some degree of delight at some point.

I know it when I see it.

As I said elsewhere, this is a site with an editor as I understand it. If you are looking for complete freedom of the press put one in your basement and learn to use it.

 

[Netzach]

I don't think another category is the answer, nor policing our existing ones more. I think it's this simple. This is a pornography clearning house to many people with many diverse tastes. Don't want irate readers saying "ugh." Don't post. Don't want to read things that will offend your sensibilities, don't read.

 

[Pure]

Netzach said,

[the approach should be]
//Don't want irate readers saying "ugh." Don't post. Don't want to read things that will offend your sensibilities, don't read.//

That sounds pretty much like the modified free speech approach of Laurel. The child sex ban is said to be for legal reasons. That leaves basically (great) violence and bestiality as permitted but sequestrable-- is that a word?-- and directed to 'extreme,' which takes a couple more clicks to get to.

Rape (forced sex fantasy) and incest, so long as they're described as adult fun for all, *don't* get sequestered. Though, iirc, this was not always the policy.

Oddly, violence is held to corrupt (or be offensive), unless consented to; but portraying other deviant behavior as consensual fun is not; --except stuff with animals.

It's a patchwork without overall rationale, since it's practices that evolved much as 'common law' did.