Monster Porn article

[TheRedChamber]

As with a lot of kinks and proclivities, it's difficult to imagine how someone could possibly like something we find strange or repulsive. It's a common attitude toward people who tend to be into more niche things: watersports (these jetski weirdos, man), feet, BDSM, and yes, monster fucking stories. It's perfectly normal, the brain struggles with understanding the sexual appeal of something it derives no sexual pleasure from, or is actively repulsed by. You can try to put yourself in the headspace all you want, but at the end of the day, you can either figure out an academic reason for why someone likes it, or you can't find one at all. Sexual natures are an enormously difficult empathy gap to cross. Nothing wrong with that, it's just the brain. It's a wacky chunk of meat.

Very well said. Also relevant for that raceplay thread yesterday.

 

[lily_wall_]

Anyone here who likes monster sex but not furries, or the other way around?

I once read a story here about a woman falling for a wolf like man she meets on her bachelorette party and runs away. Is that monster sex or furry sex?

 

[MK_Whimsy]

That's a neat article, thanks for sharing! It was interesting how it explored some of the psychology behind this particular kink.

Having written some stories like this, I have personally found appeal in the exoticness of monsters. How they can represent the fear/allure of the unknown, as well as the excitement of going off the beaten path and discovering something new, even if it is scary or dangerous.

In some ways, I could relate to the feeling of "otherness" described in the article.

Then too, certain features of monsters such as claws can be downright spicy.

 

[anthrodisiac]

Anyone here who likes monster sex but not furries, or the other way around?

I'm very into anthros/monsters, but definitely not a furry. Costumes seem like a hassle, and at the end of the day, you're still fucking a human. There's a part of me that kinda wishes I were, because furries are definitely my type of people, but the realities of the situation kinda bring it down for me. But I've never tried it, so who knows, maybe I'd love it?

 

[RetroFan]

Totally valid, it's not for everyone. There are lots of reasons why people like them, it runs the gamut. Everyone has their proclivities and kinks, and it's what makes the human brain so fascinating, why somebody would like something that other people find weird or repulsive.

There is a lot of beauty in non-human forms (obviously, I would think that ). The appeal of a partner with such different anatomy and textures and abilities than a human is precisely because they aren't the same form I encounter all the time. I broke down why I came to find this so appealing a few years ago, a lot of introspective and analysis, and it explains a lot about me and why I'm in this space. But other people have different paths, so there's no one answer to, "Why would anyone like this?"

As with a lot of kinks and proclivities, it's difficult to imagine how someone could possibly like something we find strange or repulsive. It's a common attitude toward people who tend to be into more niche things: watersports (these jetski weirdos, man), feet, BDSM, and yes, monster fucking stories. It's perfectly normal, the brain struggles with understanding the sexual appeal of something it derives no sexual pleasure from, or is actively repulsed by. You can try to put yourself in the headspace all you want, but at the end of the day, you can either figure out an academic reason for why someone likes it, or you can't find one at all. Sexual natures are an enormously difficult empathy gap to cross. Nothing wrong with that, it's just the brain. It's a wacky chunk of meat.

Thanks for your reply, its very interesting and you make some great points.

I agree, it is very difficult to appreciate erotica or fiction in general about subjects in which we have no interest, or find to be an actual turn-off. To give an example with me, I find body piercing an absolute turn off (aside from standard ear piercings and possibly the navel), but am absolutely repulsed by body piercings to the private parts of the body, nipples and to the face such as lips, chin, eyebrows and especially to the nose. So I would not write a story in which the main protagonist has a ring through his or her nose. As for lack of interest, I have no interest in Westerns and find them boring, so would not write a story set in the American West in the 1800s, although that sort of setting would no doubt appeal to other writers or readers.

I guess the main thing I struggle to understand is how the non-human erotica thing has become so popular over recent years, when it would normally be a niche with limited mainstream appeal. Again to give an example from my own works, I often write about menstruation in my stories. Sometimes this is for erotica, sometimes for other plot devices like comedy, drama, character development or story setting. I have had plenty of positive feedback about this (especially about girls wearing belted sanitary napkins in stories set in the past which somewhat surprised me) and equally negative reactions from readers who subscribe fully to the 'no periods, period!' trope in their erotica. Regardless though, menstruation is a very niche fetish and a sensitive even controversial subject, and the number of stories about girls having their periods or even references to ladies things are few and far between. So even though I frequently write stories about women who are menstruating it would be a huge surprise to me if suddenly periods became the in thing to write about and Literotica was flooded (pun fully intended) with period stories across most categories, and menstruation became a major plot device in books and short stories on other online fiction sites too.

 

[lily_wall_]

I'm very into anthros/monsters, but definitely not a furry. Costumes seem like a hassle, and at the end of the day, you're still fucking a human. There's a part of me that kinda wishes I were, because furries are definitely my type of people, but the realities of the situation kinda bring it down for me. But I've never tried it, so who knows, maybe I'd love it?

I thought when there's known/common animals in human form that's furry and when there's supernatural/mythological then its monster sex. I see I've been wrong

 

[anthrodisiac]

I guess the main thing I struggle to understand is how the non-human erotica thing has become so popular over recent years, when it would normally be a niche with limited mainstream appeal. Again to give an example from my own works, I often write about menstruation in my stories. Sometimes this is for erotica, sometimes for other plot devices like comedy, drama, character development or story setting. I have had plenty of positive feedback about this (especially about girls wearing belted sanitary napkins in stories set in the past which somewhat surprised me) and equally negative reactions from readers who subscribe fully to the 'no periods, period!' trope in their erotica. Regardless though, menstruation is a very niche fetish and a sensitive even controversial subject, and the number of stories about girls having their periods or even references to ladies things are few and far between. So even though I frequently write stories about women who are menstruating it would be a huge surprise to me if suddenly periods became the in thing to write about and Literotica was flooded (pun fully intended) with period stories across most categories, and menstruation became a major plot device in books and short stories on other online fiction sites too.

I dunno, I was into it before it was cool 2002, baby!

Probably a lot of reasons. Not the least of which is just the simple fact that there is more monster/non-human erotica and it's pretty easily accessible, so anybody can stumble across and read it, and then go, "Oh shit, I'm into that." I've had a couple comments to that effect on my anthro stuff, and I'm very proud that I flipped a switch in someone's brain and corrupted them helped them see the beauty in non-humans.

It's also crept into more mainstream stuff, like you mentioned. The rise of fantasy over the last couple decades has certainly played a role in putting out more fantasy-based shows/movies, which will inevitably bring monsters and creatures to audiences that might have otherwise missed it, and that exposure can bring people around to it. Earlier exposure to creatures at younger ages, which is when fetishes tend to start, probably plays a role, too.

Let's also not forget the "it was there the whole time but we couldn't talk about it" aspect. Not dissimilar to talk about periods, it just "wasn't done." Same with being gay or trans. There's a willingness to discuss it as people's views toward sex in general become more liberal, which is going to allow people to be more comfortable sharing. And in that liberalness toward sex, more types of interests become permissible, so the person who might have liked it, but was societally trained that it was a sin or a moral failing might not have pursued it. But in a society and age where you have communities of likeminded people who are there to validate and nurturing these kinks, that person instead finds their tribe and can be themselves.

 

[MK_Whimsy]

I'm actually wondering now. Is it possible to be a sucker for tentacles?

 

[anthrodisiac]

I thought when there's known animals in human form that's furry and when there's supernatural/mythological then its monster sex. I see I've been wrong

You're not necessarily wrong, us non-humanites throw around terms that can be context dependent. Furry is a variable term, depending on what you're using it for.

Furry (real life): People who dress up in animal costumes; tending to have "fursonas," the animal they identify with.
Furry (in erotica not featuring real-life furries): Mammalian anthros with hair (foxes, cats, dogs).

So in erotica, when we're not referring to people dressing up and we use "furry" we're referring to a subcategory of non-human writing that focuses on mammalian species. We also use scalie for reptiles, and from there the terms are a bit less agreed-upon, given they aren't as common, so we haven't fully coalesced around any single term, but instead different people call them different things.

Monster sex is also kind of loose, because it can (and does) overlap with anthro to some extent, especially with monster girls/guys.

Anthros: Animals in humanoid form (werewolves, minotaurs, mermaids, etc); generally able to talk; usually bipedal, though there are exceptions if the writer chooses to go with non-bipedal forms (snakes, some aquatics, insects, cephalopods). Also sometimes includes mythological creatures like dragons if they're in a more human form than their "monster form" normally would be.
Monsters: Generally more feral-styled bodies (quadrapedal, serpentine, blob, eldrich horror) that are mostly devoid of human-specific components; sometimes non-verbal, tending more toward instinct than reason; includes some demons, some non-sapient aliens (xenomorphs - though that's also kinda on the edge, arachnids - Starship Troopers, Rancor - Star Wars, etc.)
Monster girls/guys: Basically monsters, but anthropomorphized

Rule of thumb:
Anthro: Base creature in humanoid form is a natural animal found on Earth, no matter how weird (I'm looking at you anthro tardigrade!)
Monster girl/guy: Base creature is part of that monster category, but with a more humanoid form

It can get murky with mythological creatures that have real animal analogues:
Lamia: Technically a snake girl (many variants), but also a mythological creature that was considered a monster; both anthro and monster girl/guy, context dependent on whether you're using the mythological version or you're anthropomorphizing a snake.
Minotaur: Bull (usually male); but the mythology aspect and the fact that they can be portrayed as a sapient creature (which would tilt it more toward anthro) or a non-verbal creature of instinct (more on the monster side) muddies the waters.

And then, there's dragons, which are a whole thing. If you anthropomorphize a dragon, it could fall into monster fucking, or it could fall into anthro. More a personal preference on what you call it at that point.

It's a very complicated and diverse space with tons and tons of subgenre and niches, and we welcome all types

 

[TheLobster]

I guess the main thing I struggle to understand is how the non-human erotica thing has become so popular over recent years, when it would normally be a niche with limited mainstream appeal.

It’s still a niche, it’s just that the internet can easily make every small thing seem mainstream by the sheer absolute amount of content relating to it.

A separate factor is also the fact that MF in particular appeals specifically to the opinion makers in publications like GQ, i.e., affluent urban liberal women, so it gets outsized exposure and implicit approval. You won’t see lifestyle magazines talk in journalistic or scholarly terms about what kind of porn men like, and definitely not approvingly, but it’s not a problem when the editorial staff draws from the same demographic that finds this stuff appealing.

 

[RocketGrunt]

The key concept is one of the Uncanny Valley. As something becomes less humanlike it becomes hideous, but when it becomes even less humanlike it can become beautiful again. A Ferrari can be a beautiful car without looking like a human. Beautiful cats and parrots are not judged by the humanness of their eyes.

Different people experience the uncanny valley differently. Some people have a visceral reaction of revulsion to furries as their mind interprets them as deformed humans. Other people find the same furries beautiful because they fall on one side or the other of the uncanny valley for them.

A dragon can unquestionably be beautiful, and most dragons are sufficiently inhuman looking as to not fall into the uncanny valley. Some dragons are just monsters and beasts, but some have language and wisdom such that they could be consenting sexual partners.

So yes, there are some people for whom sex fantasies involving "talking beasts" are A-OK, but sex fantasies involving anthropomorphic "beast folk" are gross. It just depends on where your uncanny valley is.

 

[SimonDoom]

Is that monster sex or furry sex?

This is the only place I know where people ask questions like this. It's why I like this place so much.

 

[Ianus4]

I guess the main thing I struggle to understand is how the non-human erotica thing has become so popular over recent years, when it would normally be a niche with limited mainstream appeal.

I think there are many reasons for this, and fur itself is only a relatively small part of it.
Basically, it's a kind of escapism, a desire to escape from today's atomized, individualistic society. It is about acceptance; for example, the issue of monster rights is a common element in environments that include both humans and anthros, and in many cases parallels can be drawn with abolitionism or the black civil rights movement.
It is often about the desire for a perfect, lifelong partner. Nowadays, many people do not want a lifelong partner for themselves (and they loudly proclaim that monogamy is outdated - hello LW), so for those who desire monogamy, the mating (for life) instinct of anthros can be appealing. That is why canine anthro characters are common, for example: canines are symbol of fidelity. And for example in many stories, the genitals of humans and their anthro partners fit together perfectly when they first mate, and from then on, they can only achieve happiness with each other. In other cases, partners are selected based on psychological profiles—on the one hand, this is a darker romance, but subconsciously, it may also conceal a desire for security.
Or the exact opposite: in an NH story, you can freely create a harem or a reverse harem.
And although not entirely NH, but a related area: we haven't even mentioned the surprisingly popular hucow fantasies among women.

 

[old_prof]

It’s still a niche, it’s just that the internet can easily make every small thing seem mainstream by the sheer absolute amount of content relating to it.

A separate factor is also the fact that MF in particular appeals specifically to the opinion makers in publications like GQ, i.e., affluent urban liberal women, so it gets outsized exposure and implicit approval. You won’t see lifestyle magazines talk in journalistic or scholarly terms about what kind of porn men like, and definitely not approvingly, but it’s not a problem when the editorial staff draws from the same demographic that finds this stuff appealing.

I'm not a monster porn person. It doesn't do much for me. But I have taken the time to understand it at least a bit.

If you take the broadest definition of monster porn, erotic tales involving non-humans, it's certainly not niche and it's certainly not a product of the internet. Have you perhaps heard of Twilight? Far from my cup of tea, but it's hard to call that niche. Are you familiar with the Japanese print called (in English) The Fisherman's Wife? That's from the 19th century, which despite Abraham Lincoln's claims to the contrary, predates the internet by a century. It's the second most famous picture of probably Japan's most famous artist. And it is most definitely monster porn.

You also attribute it to affluent urban liberal women (better than attributing it to incels at least) but I think that's just your own biases creeping in. Some of authors here who have written monster porn fit that category. Many don't. The women is largely correct, although not exclusively. I think all three of your adjectives are completely irrelevant.

 

[Bramblethorn]

If you take the broadest definition of monster porn, erotic tales involving non-humans, it's certainly not niche and it's certainly not a product of the internet. Have you perhaps heard of Twilight? Far from my cup of tea, but it's hard to call that niche. Are you familiar with the Japanese print called (in English) The Fisherman's Wife? That's from the 19th century, which despite Abraham Lincoln's claims to the contrary, predates the internet by a century. It's the second most famous picture of probably Japan's most famous artist. And it is most definitely monster porn.

Both these examples are nonconsensual, but:

The original (1933) version of King Kong had a highly suggestive scene that was often censored for later screenings. It begins at about 50:00:

Classical painters loved the story of Perseus, Cetus and Andromeda as an opportunity to draw a scantily-clad damsel being menaced by a sea monster.

 

[TheLobster]

Have you perhaps heard of Twilight? Far from my cup of tea, but it's hard to call that niche. (...)

It's hard to call it monster fucking either, considering the "monster" is just sparkly effeminate human and the suggestive scenes do not, as far as I remember, include anything that would preclude a PG-13 rating if filmed.

Similar for the proto-hentai example from Meiji Japan; it doesn't seem particularly relevant to Western culture almost 200 years later.

You also attribute it to affluent urban liberal women (better than attributing it to incels at least) but I think that's just your own biases creeping in.

The demographic breakdown of the editorial rooms of magazines like GQ is not the matter of mine or anyone else's biases. It's just a simple fact.

 

[Actingup]

Both these examples are nonconsensual, but:

The original (1933) version of King Kong had a highly suggestive scene that was often censored for later screenings. It begins at about 50:00:

I love that you knew that. Of course, she should have died by his rough handling, by being snatched and then dropped by the pterodactyl, by the fall off the cliff, and then of course by being hit by stray machine gun bullets in the final scene, but what they censored was the hint of non-consensual monster sex as she screamed prettily.

 

[old_prof]

Similar for the proto-hentai example from Meiji Japan; it doesn't seem particularly relevant to Western culture almost 200 years later.

How many posters of The Fisherman's Wife do you think have been sold in modern western culture? It's still very popular for dorm room walls. I think that shows that it's still extremely relevant to modern western culture.

The demographic breakdown of the editorial rooms of magazines like GQ is not the matter of mine or anyone else's biases. It's just a simple fact.

But your original statement implied strongly that MF appeals particularly to affluent urban liberal women. And that is just demonstrably false. You may be right as to why GQ chose to run the story, but the phenomenon itself, whether you want to accept it or not, is real.

It's hard to call it monster fucking either, considering the "monster" is just sparkly effeminate human and the suggestive scenes do not, as far as I remember, include anything that would preclude a PG-13 rating if filmed.

No doubt the twilight stuff is watered down. So are you limiting the discussion to hard core pornography. You can argue that all of that is a niche. But if you think the 15 yr old girls are not having sexual fantasies about the characters, you're disconnected (although we're not allowed to mention those fantasies here, they still exist.)

Did you even read the article at all? There is discussion in there about the history of stories of human/non-human sex through recorded history. The Greek myths are full of it. Beauty and the Beast is a kid's version of what is essentially monster porn.

The fantasy has been there in many people for a very long time. It is not some creation of modern liberals.

BTW, I just checked. The editorial board for GQ is overwhelmingly male. And yes there market is affluent urban males (that's who has money), so they tend to reflect that taste. I don't know Europe as well, but in the US, where GQ is based, urban correlates to liberal (although not exclusively). But publishers have always tended to be conservative, relative to the general population, and editors have been getting dragged that way, especially recently. So I'm not sure how liberal they actually are.

 

[SimonDoom]

Both these examples are nonconsensual, but:

The original (1933) version of King Kong had a highly suggestive scene that was often censored for later screenings. It begins at about 50:00:

Classical painters loved the story of Perseus, Cetus and Andromeda as an opportunity to draw a scantily-clad damsel being menaced by a sea monster.

It's amazing how erotic that scene is, considering it's from a movie made in 1933. That was right before the Hays Code was implemented, and movies under that Code became more conservative in what they could show for the next thirty years, until the 1960s busted everything open.

If I recall there are some risque scenes involving Jane in pre-Code Tarzan movies. He's not a monster but he does embody the ideal of the animalistic man.

 

[old_prof]

It's amazing how erotic that scene is, considering it's from a movie made in 1933.

Ecstasy is not an American film (it's Czech) and it's definitely not MF, but it's the same year as KK and has some amazingly erotic scenes of Hedy Lamarr. If you can find a copy of it and don't mind watching subtitled movies (or speak Czech), it's well worth the watch. I think it's one of the most erotic movies ever made.

If I recall there are some risque scenes involving Jane in pre-Code Tarzan movies. He's not a monster but he does embody the ideal of the animalistic man.

There's a beautiful scene of Jane swimming naked on one of the first two Tarzan does that certainly would have been banned a few years later.

 

[TheLobster]

But your original statement implied strongly that MF appeals particularly to affluent urban liberal women. And that is just demonstrably false.

I'm sorry, but unless I harbor a serious misapprehension as to the kind of social circles you move through -- an assumption based on your profession -- the fact that you so vehemently profess the attraction to MF is a widespread phenomenon serves as evidence that it is not.

There is discussion in there about the history of stories of human/non-human sex through recorded history.

Yes, the article is indeed doing cartwheels to try and contort everything within five millennia radius to fit its preconceived hypothesis. The "it's always been thing" routine that authors like that like to pull off is honestly pretty tiring.

 

[Bamagan]

I guess this is the real reason for why so many women answered 'bear' for that 'encounter in the woods' scenario.

 

[RocketGrunt]

Yes, the article is indeed doing cartwheels to try and contort everything within five millennia radius to fit its preconceived hypothesis. The "it's always been thing" routine that authors like that like to pull off is honestly pretty tiring.

Well... I mean it HAS always been a thing. Beauty and the Beast was published in 1740. Leda and the Swan in the first eroticized version I am aware of is from 300 BCE. Outside Europe, the Yakshi of Didarganj is from the 300s BCE as well.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I think that's just your own biases creeping in

Ya think?

- [Relatively] affluent (we’re lucky), suburban, center-left, occasional writer of monster porn.

 

[Rob_Royale]

My publisher had mentioned to me recently that this was a thing, to include dino-erotica.