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

[SimonDoom]

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.

That certainly does NOT describe me. I welcome contrary opinions and I do not engage in ad hominem attacks against people just because I disagree with them.


You and I have disagreed about some things. I think your criticisms of this site have sometimes been over the top and unwarranted, and I've said so. But I think you are being genuine in your criticisms, and I haven't attacked you personally. Our disagreements have been civil.


But Kelliezgirl is making snarky remarks about the development of another author's prefrontal cortex. That's a whole different matter. That's taking us into "Tilan" territory. It's entirely appropriate to call someone out for going there. I don't know whether Kelliezgirl IS Tilan, or channeling Tilan, or just borrowing a page from the Tilan playbook, but regardless, it's a tedious style of interacting with fellow authors that brings the forum down, and it's appropriate to criticize it.

 

[AlexBailey]

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.



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 ...

I like how you use your examples but for me they also highlight differences in social contracts.

Since there are places with different social norms regarding nudity there are also different definitions on what is inappropriate exposure. Someone with a more prudish tendency may consider the mere presence of a visible penis to be offensive while someone who is open to nudity might not find offense unless it was being intentionally wagged in their face, but to some simply walking by is wagging. It’s much easier to define the lines when the rules are stricter.

I think many people who cross ‘the lines of decency’ consider Literotica to be a place where the social contract regarding open sexuality is more relaxed. Is it not more relaxed than IRL? Where is it clearly defined?

Similarly there are places in the world where a woman simply showing her face in public is considered offensive, while in most of western society a miniskirt and a crop top are acceptable.

Many stricter societies argue that they are more virtuous by protecting people from unwanted open sexuality, while for me, a society which demands burkas for women to keep men from having lustful thoughts shows weakness of character for men, not a strength in a sense of public decency.

The fine lines between decency and indecency are harder to draw when there is more tolerance. Can a skirt be “too short”? How exposed or how kinky can someone dress before they have broken the social contract?

There are places that have legally banned exposed g-string swimsuits, it’s hilarious to read the definitions of a “thong” used for law enforcement purposes.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

But Kelliezgirl is making snarky remarks about the development of another author's prefrontal cortex. That's a whole different matter. That's taking us into "Tilan" territory. It's entirely appropriate to call someone out for going there. I don't know whether Kelliezgirl IS Tilan, or channeling Tilan, or just borrowing a page from the Tilan playbook, but regardless, it's a tedious style of interacting with fellow authors that brings the forum down, and it's appropriate to criticize it.

Perhaps you missed it in your rush to judgement, but AwkwardMD started with the prefrontal cortex comments. Or am I not allowed to respond in kind?

 

[AwkwardlySet]

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

I understand that, but in that case, isn't "not engaging at all" the best choice?

@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.

Maybe to you those arguments seem rock-solid, and that is all fine. But my whole point is that there is no need for a "winner", or to "silence" the other side. You can all say your opinions without attacking the other side personally and be satisfied with that. We are all adults here and we can read and weigh all the arguments in our heads and decide where we stand. All of that can be done without ad hominem attacks.
Also, unless I am mistaken, there were no prior cases of Kelliezgirl strongly arguing with other people on this forum, so in that sense, these allegations towards her are premature at best, and pure bullying at worst.
My other point is that even if she were actually a guy, that shouldn't matter one bit. We can all be who we want to be here. All that matters here are actual arguments and the validity of opinion, so attack those and let the person be.
Of course, if over some longer period of time, we notice someone is arguing in a certain way just to provoke somebody else, we can and should call out such behavior directly.

 

[stickygirl]

When are you going to get around to proving me wrong?

Oh wow, so you were being serious. My very bad

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Oh wow, so you were being serious. My very bad

And stop calling me Shirley!

 

[AwkwardMD]

My other point is that even if she were actually a guy, that shouldn't matter one bit. We can all be who we want to be here. All that matters here are actual arguments and the validity of opinion, so attack those and let the person

I guess I'm just not so fragile I can't handle telling a guy no

This hits different.

 

[MrHereWriting]

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.

That certainly does NOT describe me. I welcome contrary opinions and I do not engage in ad hominem attacks against people just because I disagree with them.

and yet...

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

It directly applies to you. By comparing them to Tilan, you're attempting to discredit them without having to engage them in conversation or a debate.

The proof is in the posts.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

But Kelliezgirl is making snarky remarks about the development of another author's prefrontal cortex. That's a whole different matter. That's taking us into "Tilan" territory. It's entirely appropriate to call someone out for going there. I don't know whether Kelliezgirl IS Tilan, or channeling Tilan, or just borrowing a page from the Tilan playbook, but regardless, it's a tedious style of interacting with fellow authors that brings the forum down, and it's appropriate to criticize it.

She responded to an ad hominem with an ad hominem. Is that so strange? If you wanted to call out personal attacks, I couldn't support you more in that sense, but you should have done the same with everyone else who was resorting to ad hominem, no matter if Kellie's personal attacks were more or less insulting than the attacks that provoked them. Yet only she is "Tilan"
To be fair, I agree that you are one of those with whom I had generally civil differences in opinion and one of those who are generally civilized and reasonable when disagreeing. That is exactly why I called you out, and I am sure you understand that.

I'll use this same post to say to Kelliezgirl that she should also do better and not resort to ad hominem, provoked or not. We should try to make forums a better place, not worse. That being said, she should feel free to express her opinion without being targeted as a troll or any other way. We all come to Lit from different upbringings, different countries, cultures, religions, education, age... so big differences in the way we see the world are to be expected.

 

[SimonDoom]

and yet...


It directly applies to you. By comparing them to Tilan, you're attempting to discredit them without having to engage them in conversation or a debate.

The proof is in the posts.

No. My comment was a response to what was, itself, an ad hominem attack. I compared it to Tilan, because that comment was, in fact, Tilanesque in its tendency to attack people's capacities rather than dealing with the merits of the matter. I have never made an ad hominem response to someone merely because they said something I disagreed with.

 

[alohadave]

This is how trolls operate. Derail a thread so that everyone is talking about them instead of the subject of the thread.

@AwkwardlySet I'm curious if she'd call you out for white knighting on her behalf, or if it's different because it supports her.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

This is how trolls operate. Derail a thread so that everyone is talking about them instead of the subject of the thread.

@AwkwardlySet I'm curious if she'd call you out for white knighting on her behalf, or if it's different because it supports her.

If you go through my posts carefully you will see that I wasn't defending her or even taking her side of the argument, I was merely defending her right to say her opinion and argue her points without being called out as a troll or worse, which you are still continuing to do, by the way. I even said I mostly disagreed with her and called her out for her own ad hominem. I don't see how anyone could interpret that as white-knighting.

 

[alohadave]

If you go through my posts carefully, you will see that I wasn't defending her, or even taking her side of the argument, I was merely defending her right to say her opinion and argue her points, without being called out as a troll or worse, which you are still continuing to do. I even said I mostly disagreed with her and called her out for her own ad hominem.

Yes I am calling her a troll. That's why I put her on ignore. And since this thread is completely derailed, I'm out.

She has every right to post, and I'm not stopping her. I have never said that she couldn't. But acting like a troll will get you called out eventually.

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

Wow, how'd I miss this thread?

 

[MrHereWriting]

No. My comment was a response to what was, itself, an ad hominem attack. I compared it to Tilan, because that comment was, in fact, Tilanesque in its tendency to attack people's capacities rather than dealing with the merits of the matter. I have never made an ad hominem response to someone merely because they said something I disagreed with.

and yet...

Perhaps you missed it in your rush to judgement, but AwkwardMD started with the prefrontal cortex comments. Or am I not allowed to respond in kind?

The second quote was directed at you, Simon.

 

[Euphony]

 

[MediocreAuthor]

View attachment 2291805

"You're dressed like a hotdog"

"So's that guy!"

 

[Euphony]

"You're dressed like a hotdog"

"So's that guy!"
View attachment 2291820

(e) weiners crashing in ruin even the best parties. *sigh*

 

[stickygirl]

Wow, how'd I miss this thread?

It circled the drain for a while

 

[Mastered_again]

Any solicitations for pics, sexting or any other unwanted correspondence...my reply is a leave a thoughtful, provenanced comment on one of my stories and then we can talk.

*crickets*

 

[Bramblethorn]

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.

By the point where Simon made the Tilan comment, I had already pointed out that she was repeatedly misrepresenting what I'd said in this discussion. That's not a "strong opinion", it's dishonesty, and there's no hope of a productive discussion with somebody who's resorted to that kind of strawman tactic.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Girls,

I think we are getting a severe case of post mangling here. It’s hard to keep track of who is replying to who about what when a lot of lengthy posts are flying about.

I honestly think there not as much difference in opinions as it might seem.

I think we are arguing about edge cases. Maybe focus on what we can agree on.

Peace.

Em

 

[Kelliezgirl]

By the point where Simon made the Tilan comment, I had already pointed out that she was repeatedly misrepresenting what I'd said in this discussion. That's not a "strong opinion", it's dishonesty, and there's no hope of a productive discussion with somebody who's resorted to that kind of strawman tactic.

And I disagree with your characterization

You dismiss reasonable questions that cut to the heart of your argument as "strawmen" because you can't answer them

 

[AlinaX]

Say, fellas, I lost my little pussy cat. Will you help me find him?
My pussy has no stripes, and besides...

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Say, fellas, I lost my little pussy cat. Will you help me find him?

What does he look like?