Loving Wives

[Danccc]

It's their loss if they drive people away. I can post elsewhere. Several groups fit.

I have just read all 3 of you chapters, very well done! Very erotic, huge turn on for me!

 

[metropolinational]

beat some sense into younger me for falling for her…

My first, second and third loves were fine. It was 4-6 that were brutal. I should have left all of those relationships within 3 months. Instead I stuck it out and got traumatized each time. I had to go into a death spiral before I was ready for love again. I don't think I've ever been fully whole again. The reason I write in LW is largely to exorcise the demons I accumulated over those six years of total self-destruction and torture. Writing has always been purely therapeutic for me. The artistic side of it has been a nice surprise.

 

[consistentlyrepudiated]

I agree that it's a normal reaction to occasionally think fondly of former lovers or to keep mementos of them. However, it's a huge leap to go from there to "and therefore infidelity is okay, or at least forgivable" much less "it's perfectly reasonable to spend the rest of her life wishing she was with someone besides her husband, to the point where she'd rather have her ashes scattered at the place where she and her lover from several decades before hooked up than be buried next to her husband." You tack onto that the fact that she puts the burden of this knowledge on her kids... it's not good, is what I'm saying.

She made a choice that had a corrosive effect on her marriage. Maybe it was a bad marriage to begin with; it probably was, in fact. But she first made the choice to have an affair, then chose to hide it from her husband instead of talking with him about it and trying to find a way forward together, then placed that burden of knowledge on her children after she was gone. The book's defenders will say that she chose duty and loyalty to her family over love, but she didn't; she merely pushed the aftereffects of her weakness off onto everyone else. It's a story of a selfish person who sees herself as selfless... which arguably made it the perfect book for the times. But that's neither here nor there.

So, to bring it back around to the pieces that regularly appear in LW--although arguably less regularly these days--yes, of course the "I kicked her out and ruined her life" fantasy is kind of fucked up. But I'd argue it's no less fucked up than something like Bridges or The Notebook, stories that glorify cheating as being acceptable when it's ~~true love~~. In each case, the writers want us to focus on the story they were trying to tell (the wronged husband gets his revenge or the unhappy wife/girlfriend cheats but it's okay), but that's the thing about stories: the readers get to see in them what they want.

Did I accidentally walk into a church instead of a porn site? Why bring morality here, of all places? Why would I even judge the characters? Of course it's not right - the transgression is the story; forbidden fruit is what gives erotica its bite.

Bad people doing bad things is boring. Decent people doing bad things is a story worth reading.

The title says "Loving Wives" -- wives who have fun outside their marriages. Consensual or not. They are the focus.

If you want to identify with a victim, wallow in his pain and humiliation, share his sense of injustice, rejection, and betrayal, there are other categories for angry masochists.

 

[metropolinational]

If you want to identify with a victim, wallow in his pain and humiliation, share his sense of injustice, rejection, and betrayal, there are other categories for angry masochists.

That's literally what LW is for. Other than the angry masochists part, what you wrote describes half of LW perfectly. The masochists are just one faction within that.

 

[consistentlyrepudiated]

That's literally what LW is for. Other than the angry masochists part, what you wrote describes half of LW perfectly. The masochists are just one faction within that.

Midwives with Parkinson's should be out of work.

 

[NoTalentHack]

Did I accidentally walk into a church instead of a porn site? Why bring morality here, of all places? Why would I even judge the characters? Of course it's not right - the transgression is the story; forbidden fruit is what gives erotica its bite.

I've always found that to be such a strange argument.

Any time someone makes a creative work, they take the chance of it being misunderstood or misinterpreted. I've brought up Fahrenheit 451 before as an example; Bradbury thought he was writing a story about the dangers of television, but pretty much no one agreed with him on that opinion. Eventually, even he had to admit that he'd written a story about censorship without meaning to.

If someone is writing a story intended to evoke an emotion--even if that's only lust--they always take a chance on inspiring a different one instead, especially if what they're writing about is transgressive. Whether it's someone laughing at a horror movie because they find the monster more absurd than frightening or crying at a love song because it hits different for them due to a breakup, that's just a thing that happens. Here on Lit, with amateur writers and limited editing, taking aim at various kinks? That goes double. "Super hot" to you is "fuck, that's gross" to someone else.

Bad people doing bad things is boring. Decent people doing bad things is a story worth reading.

I tend to agree; for me, however, it's less the things they're doing and more what comes before and after that I find interesting. When is infidelity forgivable? What are the limits to that forgiveness? How do people react to betrayal, and when is anger justified? When does it go too far? How do you rebuild trust, or is it even possible? That's the kind of stuff I find really interesting.

It's not smut, I admit, but other people here, readers and writers both, seem interested in it. And if people can put stories in the Romance category that have 30K words of slow burn followed by three paragraphs of tame, euphemism-laden sex, I don't really see the problem with a similar ratio in LW.

The title says "Loving Wives" -- wives who have fun outside their marriages. Consensual or not. They are the focus.

Sometimes? A lot of the sharing stories, both the stag/vixen and cuck/hotwife stuff are largely male POV, sometimes with the husband only imagining what the wife's doing. Hell, in the cuck stories, the focus is almost entirely on the husband's torment most of the time, albeit intended to be erotic rather than/in addition to being pathetic. Very often, the wife is little more than a sketch in these.

There are also plenty of swinging stories where the couples go to separate rooms, with the husband again only imagining what's going on in the other room while focused on the woman he's hooked up with. Admittedly, sometimes that's also another man's wife, but even then, it's rarely "about" that wife, instead being about the husband and his, for lack of a better term, use of the woman; a gross, but often unfortunately accurate way to put it.

In the cheating stories? Yeah, the wife is mostly the focus, although sometimes the story will follow the clueless husband around in his day-to-day to amp up the reader's interest.

So, no, not always. Arguably not even most of the time.

If you want to identify with a victim, wallow in his pain and humiliation, share his sense of injustice, rejection, and betrayal, there are other categories for angry masochists.

"Victim" is an interesting choice of word. In most of the stories that are about the repercussions of infidelity, the men don't usually come off as victims; they're actively fighting back or trying to work through the breach of trust, not passively taking whatever happens to them.

Bruce1971 has a series of fascinating essays analysing the marital drama/conflict subgenre's tropes and structures that argue that the reason the wife is such a cartoon in BTBs is due to their role in the story, i.e. that they an antagonist that the reader shouldn't care too much about. Much like in the cheating stories that are meant to be hot, where the husbands are usually non-entities described in the broadest strokes to invoke a specific reaction (clueless or sweet to amplify the heat; distant or abusive to absolve the wife's actions), the paper-thin characterization is a feature, not a bug.

That said, in most of my stories, the woman is a full-fledged, well-fleshed-out character of her own. I think reconciliation doesn't work out unless that's true, for one, and while only a minority of my stories (roughly a third) end in reconciliation, it's important to keep the reader on their toes; if reconciliation isn't on the table, then where's the conflict, right? For me, exploring the repercussions is only interesting if you also look at the causes, too.

 

[IWroteThis]

Did I accidentally walk into a church instead of a porn site? Why bring morality here, of all places? Why would I even judge the characters? Of course it's not right - the transgression is the story; forbidden fruit is what gives erotica its bite.

(Not really) sorry, but ethics and morals are not limited to religious groups. They just spell them out in more detail than most other people.

Bad people doing bad things is boring. Decent people doing bad things is a story worth reading.

Good people stopping bad people from doing bad things is a story worth reading as well.
Good people getting beat down before rising triumphant is also a story worth reading.

The title says "Loving Wives" -- wives who have fun outside their marriages. Consensual or not. They are the focus.

Actually, as I mentioned elsewhere, the focus is the wedding ring. That's really the only thing that separates Loving Wives from all of the other categories. Take away the ring, and all of your stories drop into other categories.

So, what is the significance of requiring that ring if that ring is not significant? The very existence of the category demands that the ring be significant, which means marital drama in the story, not just happy-go-lucky fucky-fucky. There are other categories for that.

If you want to identify with a victim, wallow in his pain and humiliation, share his sense of injustice, rejection, and betrayal, there are other categories for angry masochists.

Actually, you've described the start of a very popular hero's arc story line. This might surprise you, but the structure of Star Wars is basically the same as your typical BTB. So is Harry Potter, for that matter. I mean, Harry literally burnt Professor Quirrell to death, after all.

As for those angry masochists, they tend to like the willing cuck stories. You know, the ones where the pain, humiliation, injustice, rejection and betrayal are never challenged, much less overcome.
So, you're actually right, Fetish is the category for them, not Loving Wives.

 

[SmilingLez]

How bad would I be eviscerated if I posted a Loving Wives story with absolutely no sex scenes whatsoever?

A plot bunny is stuck in my head.

 

[PennyThompson]

How bad would I be eviscerated if I posted a Loving Wives story with absolutely no sex scenes whatsoever?

A plot bunny is stuck in my head.

If it's a story about infidelity followed by either revenge or reconciliation, you'll probably get a lot of engagement.

I bet you'll get some comments complaining about lack of sex, but a big part of the LW audience is genuinely just focused on the emotional and moral arc of cheating followed by resolution, and they're going to either love or hate the story based on how they perceive that arc, regardless of sex scenes!

When @Actingup and I wrote Ain't Gonna Happen, we got comments complaining that there wasn't enough sex, and comments complaining that the sex felt forced and unnecessary

 

[consistentlyrepudiated]

a Loving Wives story with absolutely no sex scenes whatsoever?

They couldn't care less. Most of them are at an age where their last erection occurred in the previous millennium.

 

[NoTalentHack]

How bad would I be eviscerated if I posted a Loving Wives story with absolutely no sex scenes whatsoever?

A plot bunny is stuck in my head.

I've posted plenty without. They can work just fine.

 

[metropolinational]

A plot bunny is stuck in my head.

change 'in' to 'on' and that's more sex than your average LW story...

 

[SmilingLez]

I just submitted my flash fiction story to LW. Decided on a title - Happily Ever After. Hope that's enough of a hint.

 

[SmilingLez]

I just submitted my flash fiction story to LW. Decided on a title - Happily Ever After. Hope that's enough of a hint.

I did add a SFW tag

 

[PennyThompson]

I just submitted my flash fiction story to LW. Decided on a title - Happily Ever After. Hope that's enough of a hint.

 

[anthrodisiac]

I made this a while back.

 

[Seurat]

I just submitted my flash fiction story to LW. Decided on a title - Happily Ever After. Hope that's enough of a hint.

I haunt LW and see how the readers react. Most wouldn't know a hint if it hit them in the back of the head with a brick wrapped in paper with the work 'hint' written on it.

 

[SmilingLez]

I haunt LW and see how the readers react. Most wouldn't know a hint if it hit them in the back of the head with a brick wrapped in paper with the work 'hint' written on it.

From what I've read here on the forum, I am growing my thick skin. The LW groupies seem to be an interesting batch

 

[lc69hunter]

Been away from this thread for a couple of days. Amazed at a four page discussion of Bridges of Madison County, and whether Meryl Streep's character was evil. I saw the movie, and then read the book, and I thought of it as a beautiful love story, and that she made the right choice in the end.

Of course, those of you that know me and my thoughts, both in this forum, and in my stories and comments, this should not surprise you. I have always believed, both for others, and for myself, that non-monogamy, no matter the form, cheating or otherwise, is not inherently wrong or evil, as long as it doesn't harm or hurt the other party. It is life, and a character of our species since we came down out of the trees in Africa, thousands of years ago. It is what it is.

 

[Ianus4]

I have always believed, both for others, and for myself, that non-monogamy, no matter the form, cheating or otherwise, is not inherently wrong or evil, as long as it doesn't harm or hurt the other party.

The problem is that the damage often only becomes apparent over time—through a lack of honesty, warmth, and respect. The unfaithful partner often doesn’t even realize that their behavior has changed.

 

[SmilingLez]

The problem is that the damage often only becomes apparent over time—through a lack of honesty, warmth, and respect. The unfaithful partner often doesn’t even realize that their behavior has changed.

You hit the theme of my still pending LW flash fiction dark story Happily Ever After.

 

[metropolinational]

non-monogamy, no matter the form, cheating or otherwise, is not inherently wrong or evil, as long as it doesn't harm or hurt the other party.

This is a completely non-confrontational question. I would simply like to understand what you are saying here.

Let's say someone offered you a billion dollars to perform a task, plus a matching billion dollars to a charity of your choice. The task is simple. Sneak a poison pill into the daily vitamin bottle of someone you love, and then remove it after one day. There are 500 pills in the bottle, so there is a 1 in 500 chance that your loved one will take the pill during that one day. The task is very easy because this person loves you and trusts you completely. You have total access to them and sneaking the poison pill in and out of the bottle is trivial. Now you don't really know what the pill will do. It will be somewhere between bad (a night worshipping the porcelain gods), very bad (a week in the hospital), horrific (permanent lifetime disability) to death. The catastrophic outcomes are less likely than the merely bad outcomes, but they are still possible (if rare). Your loved one will only know it was you who put the pill in there if they take the poison pill, otherwise they will live in blissful ignorance unless you confess. There will be zero negative financial or legal consequences for you either way, other than receiving the reward.

Would it be inherently evil to agree to this deal? How many times would you be willing to agree to this if the reward doubled each time you did it?

 

[SmilingLez]

This is a completely non-confrontational question. I would simply like to understand what you are saying here.

Let's say someone offered you a billion dollars to perform a task, plus a matching billion dollars to a charity of your choice. The task is simple. Sneak a poison pill into the daily vitamin bottle of someone you love, and then remove it after one day. There are 500 pills in the bottle, so there is a 1 in 500 chance that your loved one will take the pill during that one day. The task is very easy because this person loves you and trusts you completely. You have total access to them and sneaking the poison pill in and out of the bottle is trivial. Now you don't really know what the pill will do. It will be somewhere between bad (a night worshipping the porcelain gods), very bad (a week in the hospital), horrific (permanent lifetime disability) to death. The catastrophic outcomes are less likely than the merely bad outcomes, but they are still possible (if rare). Your loved one will only know it was you who put the pill in there if they take the poison pill, otherwise they will live in blissful ignorance unless you confess. There will be zero negative financial or legal consequences for you either way, other than receiving the reward.

Would it be inherently evil to agree to this deal? How many times would you be willing to agree to this if the reward doubled each time you did it?

Inherently evil, no; but only a morally bankrupt person would accept that bet. YMMV

 

[anthrodisiac]

This is a completely non-confrontational question. I would simply like to understand what you are saying here.

Let's say someone offered you a billion dollars to perform a task, plus a matching billion dollars to a charity of your choice. The task is simple. Sneak a poison pill into the daily vitamin bottle of someone you love, and then remove it after one day. There are 500 pills in the bottle, so there is a 1 in 500 chance that your loved one will take the pill during that one day. The task is very easy because this person loves you and trusts you completely. You have total access to them and sneaking the poison pill in and out of the bottle is trivial. Now you don't really know what the pill will do. It will be somewhere between bad (a night worshipping the porcelain gods), very bad (a week in the hospital), horrific (permanent lifetime disability) to death. The catastrophic outcomes are less likely than the merely bad outcomes, but they are still possible (if rare). Your loved one will only know it was you who put the pill in there if they take the poison pill, otherwise they will live in blissful ignorance unless you confess. There will be zero negative financial or legal consequences for you either way, other than receiving the reward.

Would it be inherently evil to agree to this deal? How many times would you be willing to agree to this if the reward doubled each time you did it?

Inherently evil, no; but only a morally bankrupt person would accept that bet. YMMV

Oh, I disagree with that. Humans are very, very complex. Someone who is utilitarian isn't necessarily morally bankrupt. You have a chance to potentially save a lot of lives, depending on the charity. Isn't it morally incumbent upon you to save the most lives possible? You have a slim chance of causing severe harm to someone you love or a concrete way of saving potentially hundreds of lives. The more selfish, morally bankrupt choice in this case would be to selfishly decide that the slight risk to one person isn't worth helping hundreds or thousands of people if you couch it in those terms. Now, would that person feel good about it? God no. It would probably be horrible, and the guilt would eat away at them even if nothing happened. But they did something good and worthwhile for the benefit of people they don't even know. That's about as altruistic as it gets, and altruism, in most people's mind, is objectively "good."

Trolley Problem

 

[SmilingLez]

Oh, I disagree with that. Humans are very, very complex. Someone who is utilitarian isn't necessarily morally bankrupt. You have a chance to potentially save a lot of lives, depending on the charity. Isn't it morally incumbent upon you to save the most lives possible? You have a slim chance of causing severe harm to someone you love or a concrete way of saving potentially hundreds of lives. The more selfish, morally bankrupt choice in this case would be to selfishly decide that the slight risk to one person isn't worth helping hundreds or thousands of people if you couch it in those terms. Now, would that person feel good about it? God no. It would probably be horrible, and the guilt would eat away at them even if nothing happened. But they did something good and worthwhile for the benefit of people they don't even know. That's about as altruistic as it gets, and altruism, in most people's mind, is objectively "good."

Trolley Problem

Still disagree The difference is, if you are a religious person and by that I mean in the judeo-christian realm, The ten commandments say thou shalt not kill. By accepting the offer, you have morally and ethically violated that commandment even though there is a chance, a good one, that the person wouldn't die. Now my question to you, If instead of a poison pill it was a Uzi machine gun that had 500 rounds and just one bullet would you still take the bet?