Non-con but only Grope

[sussisub]

I don't know if these kind of stories exists but I would love to read stories where the woman is NOT groped by a stranger but a coworker or a male friend (basically someone the woman trusts), which the woman finds humiliating but later starts to like it or doesn't. Most stories I read have a complete stranger, even though i like it , it's more erotic when it's someone they know, and many stories don't explore how the women feel disgusted, awful and humiliated when someone gropes them the stories jumps directly to them loving it.

 

[StillStunned]

You might enjoy Fun with Fingers. Then again, you might not.

 

[sussisub]

If anyone has a story idea for this one feel free to reachout I will help with anything you need

 

[Rob_Royale]

I like the idea. In this scenario I usually think of, a mother-in-law and son-in-law. He catches her masturbating and then later comes up behind her in the kitchen offering to help her with any 'chores' she needs seen to. The firm hand that is creeping down around her waist and his breath in her ear makes sure she understands he's not talking about taking out the trash.

 

[sussisub]

I like the idea. In this scenario I usually think of, a mother-in-law and son-in-law. He catches her masturbating and then later comes up behind her in the kitchen offering to help her with any 'chores' she needs seen to. The firm hand that is creeping down around her waist and his breath in her ear makes sure she understands he's not talking about taking out the trash.

I like the idea but I would like the focus to be on groping not full on sex, also its more about how women feel in such situations, the disgust and anger

 

[Ash999]

https://ibb.co/bj1JL5vf

 

[Husky_Embrace]

I see you mean to focus on real life! Women are more likely to be touched or inappropriately used by someone they know than an actual stranger. It's because they're more likely to come in a situation where they are alone and "in private."

Non-con is always a difficult subject. It all too easily strays into rape and the like. One reason why I would allow it is because some stories require to delve into the darkness. It can create and deepen themes and morals. Create a starker contrast.

A friend of mine went to Italy. She was being whistled at all the time. She absolutely hated it. She was disgusted, felt unsafe, and no more than an object to be used or looked at. When she came back after half a year she walked passed some young people on scooters and... Nothing. No whistles, cat calls or inappropriate suggestions. To her surprise she felt bad about it, as if she wasn't good enough for it.

Now she definitely didn't want those thing to happen and it was only a short adjustment period. We could take it in the story and make it more of a grey area. We follow the FMC at work as she gets groped and gets inappropriate offers. She's disgusted. One day a new higher-up catches her at the copier late in the evening, with practically no one left in the building. She knows what to expect. Groping, kissing, lewd remarks, and possibly he'll force himself upon her. To her surprise nothing happens. He just has a friendly remark, like wishing a good evening. This causes turmoil inside her. Is she not good enough for such things?

We then follow her through the other days, where the occasional pat on her butt happens, or when she walks by the men she hears them talking about how they would do her, or someone offers a massage and starts without waiting for an answer.

She's still disgusted. Then again, there's this thought gnawing at her. Has she grown to like it? Is it a part of her personality now? Could she use it to her advantage?

She'll struggle with it as some things happen.

 

[SteelPoint]

Presumably any form of physical NC runs counter to Lit. policy..?

You know, e.g. a story where a character receives an approving pat on the back - without first having been asked for permission - would be immediately binned by the Lit. morality police..?

 

[CalBishForNow]

Presumably any form of physical NC runs counter to Lit. policy..?

You know, e.g. a story where a character receives an approving pat on the back - without first having been asked for permission - would be immediately binned by the Lit. morality police..?

This is a joke, right? Of course not. There's a whole "Reluctance/NonConsent" category.

 

[Husky_Embrace]

Presumably any form of physical NC runs counter to Lit. policy..?

You know, e.g. a story where a character receives an approving pat on the back - without first having been asked for permission - would be immediately binned by the Lit. morality police..?

• Ravishment/non-consent fantasies in which the “victim” receives no thrill or enjoyment from the acts, or is seriously and/or permanently physically harmed/abused/maimed/killed.
• Ravishment, nonconsensual, dubiously consensual, or consensual-nonconsensual fantasies involving real-life people, groups/organizations, or copyrighted characters. Literotica does not publish non-con fanfic.

There is no physical constraint. It is harm that's the problem. Besides that, I feel that with many stories there's still a lot of leniency.

You always have moral police. To put it in the words as you do it suggests all moral policing is wrong. That's absolutely not the case. Like some examples above and more, like sexualised murder or child abuse.

Some moral policing of things you deem acceptable will always happen. The world isn't made up of one personality. Most people even flip flop depending with whom they're with. Best to just ignore those.

Though is many people are saying it, consider what you're doing is immoral.

 

[SteelPoint]

• Ravishment/non-consent fantasies in which the “victim” receives no thrill or enjoyment from the acts, or is seriously and/or permanently physically harmed/abused/maimed/killed.
• Ravishment, nonconsensual, dubiously consensual, or consensual-nonconsensual fantasies involving real-life people, groups/organizations, or copyrighted characters. Literotica does not publish non-con fanfic.

There is no physical constraint. It is harm that's the problem. Besides that, I feel that with many stories there's still a lot of leniency.

You always have moral police. To put it in the words as you do it suggests all moral policing is wrong. That's absolutely not the case. Like some examples above and more, like sexualised murder or child abuse.

Some moral policing of things you deem acceptable will always happen. The world isn't made up of one personality. Most people even flip flop depending with whom they're with. Best to just ignore those.

Though is many people are saying it, consider what you're doing is immoral.

I'm afraid you're up against the 'where do you draw the line?' problem. Where does non-serious harm become serious? If a law can't be clear, it shouldn't be law. Full stop. How can you possibly be blamed for 'breaking' it? If there was no roadside speed limit signage, how would you feel about being taken to court for driving at someone else's idea of a 'seriously' dangerous speed?

As far as Lit. goes, what the whole thing amounts to, when you remove all the frills and fine-sounding high moral tone, is a protection of the bottom line... the profits. There's actually no ethical position. It's just that they don't want to risk a nice little earner being taken away through forced closure... yes, by the morality police and their idea of what's 'serious'...

 

[liz_fun]

I love this fantasy - although IRL I would freak out for sure.

https://www.literotica.com/s/molested-in-the-back-seat

 

[ChuckWolf]

Maybe a Halloween/costume party type deal where the main character gets "playfully" locked into stocks/pillory (that had been placed there as decoration) and then gets felt up and groped by people they know (although some could be masked).

This kind of story scenario is more believable if booze and/or drugs are involved, IMO.

This kind of story could also allow for tickling, if that's a kink you're into.

 

[CalBishForNow]

I'm afraid you're up against the 'where do you draw the line?' problem. Where does non-serious harm become serious? If a law can't be clear, it shouldn't be law. Full stop. How can you possibly be blamed for 'breaking' it? If there was no roadside speed limit signage, how would you feel about being taken to court for driving at someone else's idea of a 'seriously' dangerous speed?

As far as Lit. goes, what the whole thing amounts to, when you remove all the frills and fine-sounding high moral tone, is a protection of the bottom line... the profits. There's actually no ethical position. It's just that they don't want to risk a nice little earner being taken away through forced closure... yes, by the morality police and their idea of what's 'serious'...

I don't understand what you're saying here. Lit shouldn't have the R/NC category at all? (It was discussed here, but that discussion was closed, which might tell you something.) Lit should have it and should get rid of the limitations it currently has on it, i.e. the victim doesn't have to enjoy it and real people are fair game? Something else?

 

[TheLobster]

A friend of mine went to Italy. She was being whistled at all the time. She absolutely hated it. She was disgusted, felt unsafe, and no more than an object to be used or looked at.

In a hypothetical story that fits OP's theme, I'd pursue exactly this kind of culture clash angle. Let FMC move to a country where the culture is much more touchy-feely than in the US, way beyond even the most stereotypical portrayals of the Mediterranean. Where groping women you know is not only permissible but even expected, and a pat on the bottom or even copping a feel of a breast is treated simply as a more familiar / intimate version of a shoulder pat.

The FMC would understandably struggle to adapt to the office culture at her place of work. Perhaps she meets a local woman that acts a sort of mentor to her -- maybe trying to sympathize, or maybe quite the opposite: making fun of her when she panics about stuff that she came to know as not a big deal at all. Perhaps there is another female coworker or friend who's also an immigrant and shares some of the same struggle, which enables some more interesting dynamic; perhaps that other person is male and tries to defend his new acquaintance from the 'advances' of local men, which causes tension, possibly including romantic one.

I'm sure there are many more potential options in this setting, and not only at FMC's place of work.

 

[Husky_Embrace]

I'm afraid you're up against the 'where do you draw the line?' problem. Where does non-serious harm become serious? If a law can't be clear, it shouldn't be law. Full stop. How can you possibly be blamed for 'breaking' it? If there was no roadside speed limit signage, how would you feel about being taken to court for driving at someone else's idea of a 'seriously' dangerous speed?

As far as Lit. goes, what the whole thing amounts to, when you remove all the frills and fine-sounding high moral tone, is a protection of the bottom line... the profits. There's actually no ethical position. It's just that they don't want to risk a nice little earner being taken away through forced closure... yes, by the morality police and their idea of what's 'serious'...

I'm with @CalBishForNow on this one.

Laws often stem from morals and ideas, which can be ill defined. Take your speed limit as an example. Even with signage, the speed limit was determined by someone else's idea what's safe. Ask then anyone speeding, and one of the arguments is likely to be that they can drive this speed safely. Truth he told, they might be expert drivers that can. Yet they are held to the same standards. Is that moral? Is that just?

Even on our clearest laws we see things turn out weird. Premeditated murder doesn't get everyone the same sentence. Grey area's make it a debate on what is fair as punishment. You can also take the idea of 18yo being grown, allowing them to vite, or be "available" on the sexual market. It is an arbitrary line drawn, where some people could be eligible to whatever standards made us choose 18 in many countries, whereas others might not reach those standards in their lifetimes.

If we follow your logic there is no way to have law, thus everything is permitted. Society is build upon giving up some freedoms for security in other things. That means we have a morality problem right from the start. I think it's better we have some laws.

That means that given the opportunity I would never have sex with someone a day short of being 18. I would wait that extra day for them to become 18. Maybe they're mature enough. Maybe they're ready, fulfilling every standard we have to be mature in body and mind. They are not 18+, so they're off limits.

 

[000zing]

And I'm with basic, human common sense. The law that you respect IS an ass in this instance. It makes no common sense distinctions but instead adopts a one-size-fits-all approach which is made to suit legislative convenience rather than humanity. Everybody knows it.

Are you sure that youngster was 18... even after waiting that extra day?? Have you at least checked the birth certificate? No use accepting the teenager's word, after all. If we follow your logic, that's what we all have to do.

Better still, did you go the extra mile and question the surviving relatives of the now-deceased official who stamped the birth certificate of the teenager to make absolutely sure they weren't a day... or a week... or a month or two short? It's known for dates on documents to be wrong so that would be entirely appropriate.

And it's no use protesting that would be exaggerated - of course you would do that to ensure you weren't committing the dastardly crime of sexual assault. We're not talking dropping a sweet wrapping here.

 

[000zing]

This is a joke, right? Of course not. There's a whole "Reluctance/NonConsent" category

Physically touching any part of another individual without explicit permission can legally be termed an assault on the person.

After that it's just a matter of degree.

 

[MikeXIrons]

I don't know if these kind of stories exists but I would love to read stories where the woman is NOT groped by a stranger but a coworker or a male friend (basically someone the woman trusts), which the woman finds humiliating but later starts to like it or doesn't. Most stories I read have a complete stranger, even though i like it , it's more erotic when it's someone they know, and many stories don't explore how the women feel disgusted, awful and humiliated when someone gropes them the stories jumps directly to them loving it.

I’ve always liked the idea of an otherwise well-behaved woman finding herself slowly in a situation that gets out of hand - maybe starting as just a little grope, but, once she says nothing about it, gets caught as the situation escalates.

Or maybe it starts where it’s consensual because she thinks it’s her husband or BF doing the groping? Like maybe she and her husband are standing on a very crowded train or subway. At a stop, more people get on and the crowd crushes them together. As the crowd pushes in, she backs up, pressing against her husband behind her, who puts a hand on her waist. As the train bumps along, her husband’s hand starts to subtly caress her waist, then hip, hidden by the crowd. He slips his hand under her sweater and up to cup her breast. She blushes and smiles at the young man facing her, surprised that her husband is being so daring and fresh. She reaches behind her and squeezes his hardon through his pants. Then his hand slides back down to her hip, then to her leg, and under her short skirt to fondle her ass. She’s dripping wet when his finger pushes her tiny panties aside and teases her pussy lips and clit from behind. She’s dying to feel his fingers in her, but can’t believe he’s being so bold. She leans back and turns her head a little trying to make eye contact with him. To her horror, she makes eye contact with her husband before she expected… he’s a little behind her, but more to her left than she expected. She turns to her head to the right and finds herself face-to-face with a very attractive man whose slight grin lets her know that it’s his fingers that are slick with her juices, teasingly about to enter her. She turns back to her husband and isn’t sure what to do. Does she tell him? How does she explain letting things go this far? Then she remembers that she still has her hand on the other man’s hard cock… also hard to explain. She tries to step away from the man behind her, but, in the crowd there’s nowhere to go. She finds herself a little relieved that there’s no escape, because her body is craving more. So, she’s looking into her husband’s eyes as the stranger’s fingers slide slowly into her, making her legs weak as an orgasm starts to build. She grabs her husband’s arm to steady herself (with the hand not gripping the other man’s cock). Her husband grabs her arm as well to steady her, thinking she’s lost her balance because of the moving train. And so, her husband helps steady her as the man behind her finger fucks her faster and harder. She hugs her husband when the orgasm starts, hiding her face in his shoulder, knowing her face would give it away.

 

[Husky_Embrace]

And I'm with basic, human common sense. The law that you respect IS an ass in this instance. It makes no common sense distinctions but instead adopts a one-size-fits-all approach which is made to suit legislative convenience rather than humanity. Everybody knows it.

Are you sure that youngster was 18... even after waiting that extra day?? Have you at least checked the birth certificate? No use accepting the teenager's word, after all. If we follow your logic, that's what we all have to do.

Better still, did you go the extra mile and question the surviving relatives of the now-deceased official who stamped the birth certificate of the teenager to make absolutely sure they weren't a day... or a week... or a month or two short? It's known for dates on documents to be wrong so that would be entirely appropriate.

And it's no use protesting that would be exaggerated - of course you would do that to ensure you weren't committing the dastardly crime of sexual assault. We're not talking dropping a sweet wrapping here.

It is impressive how you're repeating my exact point, but try to weaponise for a reason that eludes me. It looks like you're trying to ridicule my position, but as we're both in principle saying that laws can't be a one size fits all solution, aren't you ridiculing yourself?

We can take your ridicule further. Did you check for each road you used who signed off on that speed limit? Checked the plans? The psychology behind it?

Of course you didn't. Yet following these rules saves lives. If you do break the rule you can still argue special circumstances. Laws aren't rigid.

What's worrying is that your argument is in essence arguing for sex with children. You've cherry picked a hypothetical, tried to twist it to something it clearly isn't, to what end?