Female Lit authors: How much unsolicited sexual advances have you dealt with as a result of your writing?

[Kelliezgirl]

Aside from the Literotica examples, I posted three cases, not two: the LA Times article, the Sticky Fingers interview, and the "almost 30 years old" Nabozny v. Podlesny.

It's not a particularly easy term to search on in this context, because it's become the standard way to summarise that particular mindset, so there are a lot of extraneous uses to pick through, and I have things to do with my time besides operating a search engine for people not prepared to make the effort. But if you'd like me to go look for more, I'm happy to discuss my consulting rates.



"Works of fiction?"

You seem to have misunderstood what part of Literotica those posts come from. They're all from the forum side, not the story side.



According to that report, boys account for 51% of enrolment but 67% of in-school suspensions, about 70% of out-of-school suspensions, and 74% of expulsions. So, sure, they're being disciplined for misbehaviour more often.

But that's not directly relevant to this discussion, because we were talking about how often they get away with misbehaviour (for various definitions of "misbehaviour") and the report doesn't tell us anything about how often that happens.

If boys' behaviour was identical to that of girls, we'd expect them to account for 51% of the misbehaviour in the school system, and in a fair system they'd be catching 51% of the suspensions/expulsions. In that scenario, those rates of 67%-74% would suggest that boys were getting much tougher treatment than girls.

But is it reasonable to suppose that boys misbehave at the same rate as girls? I doubt you'd find a lot of takers for that assumption.

I'm not aware of any good stats for male vs. female misbehaviour at schools. But for adult violent crime, perpetrators generally skew about 80% male, according to FBI data. For murder, where the data tends to be better quality, it's more like 90% for cases where the perp's gender is known.

If the rates are similar in schools, then the numbers from your report would actually indicate that boys are being treated more leniently than girls.

Of course, they might not be. But if you have some reason for thinking the ratio is much more even in schools than it is in adulthood, it's on you to provide some evidence for that.



Ask Brock Turner.

No matter how you spin it, you only found two criminal cases, one of which is older than I am.
Again, if the problem is as widespread as you claim it should be easy to find lots of cases.
You made a claim, that this is a common, widespread thing, the burden of proof is on YOU to provide the evidence to support your case.
If you want me to find evidence to support your misinformed opinion we can discuss MY consulting rates.

So, boys are disciplined at a higher rate than girls, and this proves they aren't held accountable.
It's amazing the mental gymnastics you must go through to defend your prejudice.
Now we are basing it on the assumption that boys must misbehave at an even higher rate, which of course there is no evidence to support, to "prove" that they aren't punished enough.

You do know Brock Turner went to prison, right? That he's a registered sex offender, and a convicted felon?That's being held accountable.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

One could, perhaps, but one hasn't.

Do better, we all know you can.

 

[SimonDoom]

That aside, why has all this breaking of taboos and "enlightenment" led to worse behavior?

Has it? I don't see that.

I believe that over time human behavior has improved. Not in a steady, linear way, and there's nothing inevitable about it. But I think it's hard to defend the position that people in the USA behave worse today than they did in, say, the 1950s, or that people in the world today behave worse overall than they did in 1914, or in 1787, or during the time of Cortez arriving in Mexico, or in Medieval times, or during the Roman empire, or in the era of Atilla the Hun. There is no such thing as the "good old days." When people say "Make America great again" my response is, are you kidding me? Which version of great America do you want to go back to?

Read the Bible. Sexual depravity was rampant, taboos notwithstanding.

Don't get me wrong: taboos, I agree, can serve a purpose. But the gradual disappearance of sexual taboos in a whole host of areas--homosexuality, interracial sex, anal sex--is a very, very good thing.

Reality aside, as a literary device, a taboo is an excellent thing, because it creates dramatic conflict, and it gives an erotic story a delicious sizzle. Shame, humiliation, and taboos are great for erotic stories.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Has it? I don't see that.

I believe that over time human behavior has improved. Not in a steady, linear way, and there's nothing inevitable about it. But I think it's hard to defend the position that people in the USA behave worse today than they did in, say, the 1950s, or that people in the world today behave worse overall than they did in 1914, or in 1787, or during the time of Cortez arriving in Mexico, or in Medieval times, or during the Roman empire, or in the era of Atilla the Hun. There is no such thing as the "good old days." When people say "Make America great again" my response is, are you kidding me? Which version of great America do you want to go back to?

Read the Bible. Sexual depravity was rampant, taboos notwithstanding.

Don't get me wrong: taboos, I agree, can serve a purpose. But the gradual disappearance of sexual taboos in a whole host of areas--homosexuality, interracial sex, anal sex--is a very, very good thing.

Reality aside, as a literary device, a taboo is an excellent thing, because it creates dramatic conflict, and it gives an erotic story a delicious sizzle. Shame, humiliation, and taboos are great for erotic stories.

Impossible Simon! Impossible! Woman are getting unsolicited dick pics on the internet. This is quite possibly the most horrendous thing that has happened in the history of things! How dare you not jump aboard your noble steed and join these other white knights who are gallantly protecting us all from the horror of the dreaded "unwanted advance".
And right now some ignorant, unenlightened woman is cleaning up a mess made by her two year old and excusing it as "Boys will be Boys" guaranteeing he will grow up to be a rapist who will never, ever be held accountable.

 

[SimonDoom]

Impossible Simon! Impossible! Woman are getting unsolicited dick pics on the internet. This is quite possibly the most horrendous thing that has happened in the history of things! How dare you not jump aboard your noble steed and join these other white knights who are gallantly protecting us all from the horror of the dreaded "unwanted advance".
And right now some ignorant, unenlightened woman is cleaning up a mess made by her two year old and excusing it as "Boys will be Boys" guaranteeing he will grow up to be a rapist who will never, ever be held accountable.

I think I'm being played . . .

 

[AwkwardMD]

That aside, why has all this breaking of taboos and "enlightenment" led to worse behavior?

This user, with this pfp, with that self-styled forum title, with this opinion, has written and published at least two incest stories.

This is what incoherence looks like. The less likely scenario here is that some of you are arguing with a prefrontal cortex still in development. A hypocrite, but an honest one who just hasn't confronted themselves on some things. The more likely scenario is that some of these things are lies, and this person is not engaging genuinely with a serious conversation, and should be ignored.

 

[alohadave]

Impossible Simon! Impossible! Woman are getting unsolicited dick pics on the internet. This is quite possibly the most horrendous thing that has happened in the history of things! How dare you not jump aboard your noble steed and join these other white knights who are gallantly protecting us all from the horror of the dreaded "unwanted advance".
And right now some ignorant, unenlightened woman is cleaning up a mess made by her two year old and excusing it as "Boys will be Boys" guaranteeing he will grow up to be a rapist who will never, ever be held accountable.

Hyperbole much?

 

[MediocreAuthor]

It is interesting to see where this conversation has evolved since I went to bed.

I believe I was the first person in this thread to mention "Boys Will Be Boys" and perhaps it would be beneficial if I explained the exact context in which I intended it.

"Boys will be boys" is (to me) a statement which, when used properly, highlights the biological differences between males and females, and also points to the acceptable societal differences between the two.

However, as shown above, the expression can easily be applied to unacceptable behavior as well.

---

"My son has so much more energy than his sister, and he struggles to focus on school." -- "Be patient with him. After all, Boys will be boys."

"My son has been behaving inappropriately with girls his age, and he's been showing aggressive tendencies." -- "Don't worry. Boys will be boys"

---

Like any other topic, we aren't allowed going to see eye-to-eye, but I think we can all agree that blatant sexual advances made towards a stranger are unacceptable, even on Literotica.

ESPECIALLY when the woman's profile specifically mentions that she's married, monogamous, and uninterested in anything other than writing.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

This user, with this pfp, with that self-styled forum title, with this opinion, has written and published at least two incest stories.

This is what incoherence looks like. The less likely scenario here is that some of you are arguing with a prefrontal cortex still in development. A hypocrite, but an honest one who just hasn't confronted themselves on some things. The more likely scenario is that some of these things are lies, and this person is not engaging genuinely with a serious conversation, and should be ignored.

Hyperbole much?

White knight much?
Your little cabal is comparing internet messages to rape. Not sure you have a leg to stand on regarding hyperbole.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

This user, with this pfp, with that self-styled forum title, with this opinion, has written and published at least two incest stories.

This is what incoherence looks like. The less likely scenario here is that some of you are arguing with a prefrontal cortex still in development. A hypocrite, but an honest one who just hasn't confronted themselves on some things. The more likely scenario is that some of these things are lies, and this person is not engaging genuinely with a serious conversation, and should be ignored.

Or perhaps, your prefrontal cortex hasn't developed to the point to understand the point being made, so you feel the need to contribute nothing to the discussion and engage in ad hominem attacks instead.

 

[Bramblethorn]

No matter how you spin it, you only found two criminal cases, one of which is older than I am.

Once again, for the slow of counting, I provided links and quotes from three separate cases.

If your intended argument that the Sticky Fingers case is "not a criminal case" because he wasn't prosecuted for his self-admitted "violence", well, that rather seems consistent with [edit: forgot to finish the sentence] the idea that guys are sometimes getting away with violent behaviour.

Again, if the problem is as widespread as you claim it should be easy to find lots of cases.
You made a claim, that this is a common, widespread thing,

No, I did not. You may have confused me with other folk in this thread.

I made no claim about how often it's used, I was just responding to your claim of not having heard it other than as a strawman.

If you want me to find evidence to support your misinformed opinion we can discuss MY consulting rates.

So, boys are disciplined at a higher rate than girls, and this proves they aren't held accountable.

And here you're outright lying about what I said.

The only one suggesting that those figures proved anything about accountability was you. I pointed out why they don't provide sufficient information to make that judgement, and gave an example of how such figures could in fact be consistent with lower accountability for boys. I was very clear in flagging the assumptions underlying both those scenarios, and noting that these assumptions might not hold.

It's amazing the mental gymnastics you must go through to defend your prejudice.
Now we are basing it on the assumption that boys must misbehave at an even higher rate,

Again, you're lying about what I said.

You do know Brock Turner went to prison, right?

For three months. For a sexual assault that caused "significant trauma (physical injury, bruising, etc.) and penetrating trauma (piercing and cutting injuries)".

That he's a registered sex offender, and a convicted felon?

Putting him in the same league as that 17-year-old who was convicted on child porn offences for sending a photo of his own dick. Whoop de doo.

Anyway, since you don't appear to be capable of discussing this without repeatedly lying about the post you're responding to, I'm going to improve my timeline by adding you to the ignore list. Have a nice life!

 

[Kelliezgirl]

It is interesting to see where this conversation has evolved since I went to bed.

I believe I was the first person in this thread to mention "Boys Will Be Boys" and perhaps it would be beneficial if I explained the exact context in which I intended it.

"Boys will be boys" is (to me) a statement which, when used properly, highlights the biological differences between males and females, and also points to the acceptable societal differences between the two.

However, as shown above, the expression can easily be applied to unacceptable behavior as well.

---

"My son has so much more energy than his sister, and he struggles to focus on school." -- "Be patient with him. After all, Boys will be boys."

"My son has been behaving inappropriately with girls his age, and he's been showing aggressive tendencies." -- "Don't worry. Boys will be boys"

---

Like any other topic, we aren't allowed going to see eye-to-eye, but I think we can all agree that blatant sexual advances made towards a stranger are unacceptable, even on Literotica.

ESPECIALLY when the woman's profile specifically mentions that she's married, monogamous, and uninterested in anything other than writing.

Well said.

 

[alohadave]

White knight much?
Your little cabal is comparing internet messages to rape. Not sure you have a leg to stand on regarding hyperbole.

Who exactly am I white knighting?

I have no cabal, I'm part of no star chamber, I have no crew. When I speak, I speak for myself. Other people can handle themselves.

Based on your trolling in this thread it's not worth engaging with you further. Have a nice day.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Once again, for the slow of counting, I provided links and quotes from three separate cases.

If your intended argument that the Sticky Fingers case is "not a criminal case" because he wasn't prosecuted for his self-admitted "violence", well, that rather seems consistent with the idea that



No, I did not. You may have confused me with other folk in this thread.

I made no claim about how often it's used, I was just responding to your claim of not having heard it other than as a strawman.



And here you're outright lying about what I said.

The only one suggesting that those figures proved anything about accountability was you. I pointed out why they don't provide sufficient information to make that judgement, and gave an example of how such figures could in fact be consistent with lower accountability for boys. I was very clear in flagging the assumptions underlying both those scenarios, and noting that these assumptions might not hold.



Again, you're lying about what I said.



For three months. For a sexual assault that caused "significant trauma (physical injury, bruising, etc.) and penetrating trauma (piercing and cutting injuries)".



Putting him in the same league as that 17-year-old who was convicted on child porn offences for sending a photo of his own dick. Whoop de doo.

Anyway, since you don't appear to be capable of discussing this without repeatedly lying about the post you're responding to, I'm going to improve my timeline by adding you to the ignore list. Have a nice life!

Thank you!

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Who exactly am I white knighting?

I have no cabal, I'm part of no star chamber, I have no crew. When I speak, I speak for myself. Other people can handle themselves.

Based on your trolling in this thread it's not worth engaging with you further. Have a nice day.

White knight doesn't know what a white knight is.
Aloha!

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Let's not put words in other people's mouths, and stop with the hyperbole and trying to cast aspersions about bullies and dictators. If you want to have an intellectual conversation then do so. Those cheap theatrics don't help.

Yes please don't put words in my mouth, as you tried to do a few posts back when you assumed what I might find offensive or not, and I gave you the chance to clarify yet you refused.

And no, my analogy is not hyperbole. I do use hyperbole fairly often but not this time, not in the slightest. Telling people what you want them to think and do without explaining why is the easiest way to spot an agenda-toting bully. Period. Consider yourself spotted.

That aside, why has all this breaking of taboos and "enlightenment" led to worse behavior?
You claim history has "proven" over and over that the approach doesn't work, but it demonstrably does.
The taboo against incest is deeply ingrained in people, and it doesn't require an explanation of the genetic consequences of inbreeding.
History has shown the taboo works, regardless of what you'd like to think.
Why shouldn't men expose themselves to women every chance they get, why is that taboo in our culture? Make a purely logical, intellectual argument for why they shouldn't.

No. The anonymity of the internet has led to worse behavior in chats forums and messaging but in most cases in society behavior between men and women is better than it was a couple of generations ago.

What is wrong with explaining the genetic consequences of in breeding? That has nothing to do with the taboo. If knowing that lusting for your sister could get you haemophiliac children I think a lot less people would be lusting after their sister than by blind taboo alone. That argument doesn't wash at all.

I never said that men should expose themselves. That's not the point at all. But allow me to expose your (straw) man. The point is how to ensure that people know not to go around exposing themselves to people. We both seem to agree that people should know. Your method is to simply drum into them what not to do and then forbid any more discussion. This only harbors curiosity and resentment. The better method is to explain what is expected and then to explain why. Consider the following two situations.

#1
Don't swim in the pond. It is forbidden.
-Why not? It's a lovely looking pond and it's a nice day and I want to go for a swim. Why can't I swim in the pond?
It's forbidden! Now shut up and stay out of the pond!
-Fuck you, who made you king? I'm going for a swim.

#2
Don't swim in the pond. There are alligators in it.
-Gotcha. I'm staying ashore, thanks.

Comparatively

#1
Don't go around showing your junk to women.
-Why not? I want them to see my junk. I think it'll turn them on and eventually one of them will start sucking on it.
Just don't! It's forbidden, so shut up and don't ask why.
-Well who the hell are you? I don't know what all the fuss is about so I'm going to try anyway.

#2
Don't go around showing your junk to women because women generally find it offensive as it's not something that they should have to deal with all day, and what's more, if you do it then it won't be long before someone calls the cops and has you arrested, or beats the crap out of you for it, or both.
-Ahh, thanks for letting me know. I'll keep my pants on.

Also, by giving the reasons why, you assure to the person that it is in their best interests to comply. Countless times in history regimes have insisted on compliance while forbidding discussion or explanation. They do so because to actually explain the truth why would be admitting that compliance is not in the public's best interest, far from it, it's in the public's contempt. So instead to hide the agenda, the bully simply insists "Just comply dammit!" It;s a dead giveaway.

So, if you have any more straws ...

 

[AlexBailey]

That's pretty much what dating is for most men. Women outnumber us, are generally more selective, and I imagine dealing with the amount of advances is like Laurel with submissions. So you're out there casting every pole, knowing maybe two will get a bite and maybe one of those bites will be a catch. While you're fishing in the lake, so are several other men that may have a better boat with better equipment, more poles, bigger poles, some on rickety boats with a stick, string and a paper clip. Dating is fucked up and modern dating just makes shit worse.

It’s always been interesting to me how common fishing analogies are when it comes to dating, though in my experience it’s mostly used by angling men.

I love the (mostly lesbian) saying “A woman without a man is like a fish without a bicycle.” I’m not sure it’s a direct answer to the fishing analogy but it makes sense to me.

I used to get referred to as my girlfriends “bike” among our lesbian friends.

 

[SimonDoom]

Or perhaps, your prefrontal cortex hasn't developed to the point to understand the point being made, so you feel the need to contribute nothing to the discussion and engage in ad hominem attacks instead.

I'm getting a "Tilan is back" vibe.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

#1
Don't go around showing your junk to women.
-Why not? I want them to see my junk. I think it'll turn them on and eventually one of them will start sucking on it.
Just don't! It's forbidden, so shut up and don't ask why.
-Well who the hell are you? I don't know what all the fuss is about so I'm going to try anyway.

#2
Don't go around showing your junk to women because women generally find it offensive as it's not something that they should have to deal with all day, and what's more, if you do it then it won't be long before someone calls the cops and has you arrested, or beats the crap out of you for it, or both.
-Ahh, thanks for letting me know. I'll keep my pants on.

Also, by giving the reasons why, you assure to the person that it is in their best interests to comply. Countless times in history regimes have insisted on compliance while forbidding discussion or explanation. They do so because to actually explain the truth why would be admitting that compliance is not in the public's best interest, far from it, it's in the public's contempt. So instead to hide the agenda, the bully simply insists "Just comply dammit!" It;s a dead giveaway.

So, if you have any more straws ...

Ohhhh I've been "spotted". How lovely!

Let's analyze your answer to #2. You know, the question I asked, not the one you made up.

Men shouldn't show their junk because "women find it offensive?"
Why is it considered offensive? Please explain?
Why should someone be arrested for it? Isn't public nudity just another societal taboo we should get rid of? Isn't it the mark of a totalitarian state that they would arrest you for doing something and not explain why? Telling someone "don't do it, or you will get in trouble" Isn't actual explaining the reasons, it's enforcing a taboo by a different method.
And your last reason, "someone will come kick your ass".
Why would someone consider it necessary to physically assault someone for simply exposing a little flesh?

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Ohhhh I've been "spotted". How lovely!

Let's analyze your answer to #2. You know, the question I asked, not the one you made up.

Men shouldn't show their junk because "women find it offensive?"
Why is it considered offensive? Please explain?
Why should someone be arrested for it? Isn't public nudity just another societal taboo we should get rid of? Isn't it the mark of a totalitarian state that they would arrest you for doing something and not explain why? Telling someone "don't do it, or you will get in trouble" Isn't actual explaining the reasons, it's enforcing a taboo by a different method.
And your last reason, "someone will come kick your ass".
Why would someone consider it necessary to physically assault someone for simply exposing a little flesh?

The question that you asked was a straw question ... and I still answered it. You want to argue in circles for the sake of it, the treadmill is all yours but I;'m not talking the bait. Waaaayyy too much straw here. A whole fucking haystack. Perhaps you could continue this with a horse or a cow.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

In my previous post, I mentioned one very positive side of Lit. What we see here is the so common and pervading bad side of Lit (forums) Many people here can't separate disagreeing with someone's opinion and attacking that same someone personally. I've had that same treatment from multiple people on this forum more than once.
The irony is that the same people who are arguing against bullying are doing it in this thread. I see theories emerging already about the hidden identity of Kelliezgirl based on her posts about this topic. She is posting some strong-minded opinions, and to be honest here I mostly disagree with them, even if there are some interesting points. But because some people disagree, she is now being accused of being a male hiding behind a female persona, of being Tilan (who is writing stories in the Romance category?), and so on.
You can posture all you want, but many among you can't handle someone expressing an opinion contrary to your own without resorting to ad hominem. Do better.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

The question that you asked was a straw question ... and I still answered it. You want to argue in circles for the sake of it, the treadmill is all yours but I;'m not talking the bait. Waaaayyy too much straw here. A whole fucking haystack. Perhaps you could continue this with a horse or a cow.

You didn't answer my question, and you are demonstrating the weakness of your "just explain it to them" argument.
You are talking about an issue of morals and ethics, that is demonstrably different than simple safety.
Yeah, don't swim, there are gators is easy and obvious, but when the answer is "you can't do this because other people won't like it" then your answer is no better than, "because it's taboo".

 

[AwkwardMD]

In my previous post, I mentioned one very positive side of Lit. What we see here is the so common and pervading bad side of Lit (forums) Many people here can't separate disagreeing with someone's opinion and attacking that same someone personally. I've had that same treatment from multiple people on this forum more than once.
The irony is that the same people who are arguing against bullying are doing it in this thread. I see theories emerging already about the hidden identity of Kelliezgirl based on her posts about this topic. She is posting some strong-minded opinions, and to be honest here I mostly disagree with them, even if there are some interesting points. But because some people disagree, she is now being accused of being a male hiding behind a female persona, of being Tilan (who is writing stories in the Romance category?), and so on.
You can posture all you want, but many among you can't handle someone expressing an opinion contrary to your own without resorting to ad hominem. Do better.

From a purely logical perspective, you are correct. That was ad hominem. I pointed out inconsistencies in the avatar, history, and usage habits of a sex content site because the shape those things does not align with the arguments being made.

I do not owe kelliezgirl my time or energy, both of which are what is required to engage with

Men shouldn't show their junk because "women find it offensive?"
Why is it considered offensive? Please explain?

This is an obvious level of disingenuousness given the context of the larger conversation, women complaining about men showing them their junk when that is not wanted. It's unserious on the face of it while at the same time requiring increasingly absurd standards of proof.

This is not a winnable argument in the sense that, if enough evidence is provided kelliezgirl would yield and shake hands. That's not a reasonable conclusion with the given evidence.

@AwkwardlySet what is the alternative? How long should one continue to rattle off legal cases, personal experience, historical facts? There is no arbiting body that will decide a winner, so all one can do is say their peace and move on.

 

[Zootonius]

I haven't weighed in on this thread, trying to integrate my thoughts. My two cents is society give a incongruous signals to boys. On one hand, parents, teachers, etc. teach being respectful. Then with a wink, wink, you have characters like James Bond being held up. Basically, 'forget all that other stuff.' I use Bond as a perfect example of objectifying women, but there are plenty of other example saying 'Guys? Don't you want to be like them?'

There are men who don't let their libidos rule their empathy. And there are men who are just the opposite. And I've seen plenty of the latter in my life. I hope I'm in the former group, and I think It's why I've had such a boring love life. When a women says 'no' I take her at her word. Fortunately, I eventually met a women with odd tastes in men.

(not sure if this contributes)

 

[Kelliezgirl]

From a purely logical perspective, you are correct. That was ad hominem. I pointed out inconsistencies in the avatar, history, and usage habits of a sex content site because the shape those things does not align with the arguments being made.

I do not owe kelliezgirl my time or energy, both of which are what is required to engage with



This is an obvious level of disingenuousness given the context of the larger conversation, women complaining about men showing them their junk when that is not wanted. It's unserious on the face of it while at the same time requiring increasingly absurd standards of proof.

This is not a winnable argument in the sense that, if enough evidence is provided kelliezgirl would yield and shake hands. That's not a reasonable conclusion with the given evidence.

@AwkwardlySet what is the alternative? How long should one continue to rattle off legal cases, personal experience, historical facts? There is no arbiting body that will decide a winner, so all one can do is say their peace and move on.

I'm curious why you think "the shape of things" doesn't align with the argument being made?
What thoughts am I not allowed to think to remain consistent with your world view?

If enough evidence is provided would YOU shake hands and admit you were wrong?

As to my question on morality, my point stands, no matter how desperately you and silk glove want to avoid answering it.
Her point was that it was better to explain the reasoning behind a restriction rather than simply say it was taboo, but neither of you will provide a real reason for the taboo.

According to you two if someone says
"You can't do that it's taboo". That's bad.
If someone says, "You can't do it, because other people find it offensive" then that's an acceptable answer and you don't have to explain why it's offensive.