NonConsent/Reluctance category guidelines

[AlinaX]

I think there are a number of assumptions at play for such stories to be genuinely erotic:

1. The stories are just fantasies. They're not real. They're safe to indulge in, and no one needs to know.
2. Their authors are not rapists, wannabe rapists, or inciting rape; that, indeed, such stories are a safe space for authors to explore similar rape fantasies.

Thus, in a story where the main character is raped, degraded and humiliated, the author should be seeking to explore the erotic potential for the victim. If only the aggressor delights in it, then is there truly justification for it?

What, for example, of a time-stop story where victims may be entirely unaware of the abuses heaped upon them, and we don't necessarily know whether they enjoyed it? Should such stories be allowed?

 

[KeithD]

The only assumption that is in play on whether anything is erotic is whether a specific person is aroused by it or not. If they are, it was genuinely erotic--for them.

 

[AlinaX]

Sure. Just ignore the point being made.

 

[KeithD]

I won't ignore attempts to limit based on personal preference. I think I posted directly to that issue. Your assumptions are trying to force others to be you.

 

[AlinaX]

My assumptions weren't trying to force anything. They are at the heart of the question of why we allow ourselves to enjoy fantasies that would traumatise us if made real.

I'm certainly not trying to say X makes story Y erotic for everyone.

 

[starsong1977]

I think there are a number of assumptions at play for such stories to be genuinely erotic:

1. The stories are just fantasies. They're not real. They're safe to indulge in, and no one needs to know.
2. Their authors are not rapists, wannabe rapists, or inciting rape; that, indeed, such stories are a safe space for authors to explore similar rape fantasies.

Thus, in a story where the main character is raped, degraded and humiliated, the author should be seeking to explore the erotic potential for the victim. If only the aggressor delights in it, then is there truly justification for it?

What, for example, of a time-stop story where victims may be entirely unaware of the abuses heaped upon them, and we don't necessarily know whether they enjoyed it? Should such stories be allowed?

I would hope 1 and 2 are always the case but to me it's pretty obvious when a story is demented. Yet. It can still be erotic to some. The other well known site ( used by many of literotica authors) contains a TON of creepy sick shit which would never be accepted here. I asked the owner why he/she allows stories that are shockingly disgusting and the response was freedom of speech/expression. I should have expected it but I truly wonder if he/she has any idea of the actual purpose and intent of free speech and expression. Here in the US we are granted larger freedom due to how the first amendment was constructed (for good or not) but there are still limits.

To your point about the erotic potential for the victim, there are numerous stories with these themes. I have seen many stories where a woman is attacked, she fights to submission, acceptance to arousal with the conclusion detailing that it was a game between a committed couple, or she asked a friend etc. Yet even in these, it only takes a couple of minutes of time to write an ending that changes a home invasion rape story to consensual sex. Ultimately it comes down to the intent of the author. One can sometimes guess based upon style, any inner monologue and style but not always.

Even with those questions I would rate those stories (in general) as less objectionable when compared with the rest.

 

[SimonDoom]

My assumptions weren't trying to force anything. They are at the heart of the question of why we allow ourselves to enjoy fantasies that would traumatise us if made real.

I'm certainly not trying to say X makes story Y erotic for everyone.

I think this may be a mystery to which there is no clear or obvious solution, and there doesn't have to be a solution. People like what they like. Why isn't that enough? Why do we have to justify anything if it's just fantasy?

Some women fantasize about being raped, even though in real life they would never want to be raped. I imagine some men fantasize about raping, even though in real life they would never want to rape. Is there a difference? Why? I think the only reason there would be a difference is the fear that by allowing fantasy stories about rape the incidence of actual rape in the real world will increase. Is that fear justified? I don't know, but I'm doubtful. I think the burden of proof always lies with the person who wants to restrict what others do, and I'm not sure that burden can be met in this case. I think those who fear a harmful real-world impact are just speculating, and speculation isn't a sound basis for preventing others from writing or reading stories about their fantasies.

 

[AlinaX]

Yes, but the question that keeps coming up is the supposedly artificial requirement for the victim to enjoy it. And actually i think that's important and necessary for it to be classified as erotic.

It's not that stories where the victim does not enjoy it can't also be erotic, but they are problematic. It should be safe to identify with all participants in a sexual fantasy.

 

[KeithD]

It should be safe to identify with all participants in a sexual fantasy.

Isn't that a personalized value judgment?

 

[starsong1977]

Isn't that a personalized value judgment?

Should men who have fantasies about abducting, raping, breaking and abusing women be allowed to explore their fantasies? That's a hard no for me.

 

[KeithD]

Should men who have fantasies about abducting, raping, breaking and abusing women be allowed to explore their fantasies? That's a hard no for me.

Fine for you. Again that's a personal judgment, not some universal rule you have the right and authority to apply to everyone else. Right?

 

[AlinaX]

Weren't you just going on about it being one person's judgement that decides things around here?

I don't really get what part of "Laurel will delete a story that's screwed around with someone else's story without permission" some folks here refuse to get.

 

[SimonDoom]

Should men who have fantasies about abducting, raping, breaking and abusing women be allowed to explore their fantasies? That's a hard no for me.

Yes. Yes they should. People should be free to explore whatever their fantasies are. No matter how strange or perverse, or unacceptable to you.

Literotica's owners have a right to decide whether they want people to explore those fantasies here. I respect that. But people who want to explore their fantasies, whatever they are, should have a right under the law to explore them.

 

[KeithD]

Weren't you just going on about it being one person's judgement that decides things around here?

Well, yes. That one person here is named Laurel. You're one of the ones who seems to think you are Laurel. I'm simply saying you're not.

 

[starsong1977]

Yes. Yes they should. People should be free to explore whatever their fantasies are. No matter how strange or perverse, or unacceptable to you.

Literotica's owners have a right to decide whether they want people to explore those fantasies here. I respect that. But people who want to explore their fantasies, whatever they are, should have a right under the law to explore them.

Everything I expected and more. Lol. My gods lol. I swear they can't help themselves.

 

[AlinaX]

Yes. Yes they should. People should be free to explore whatever their fantasies are. No matter how strange or perverse, or unacceptable to you.

Literotica's owners have a right to decide whether they want people to explore those fantasies here. I respect that. But people who want to explore their fantasies, whatever they are, should have a right under the law to explore them.

That's disingenuous. Unless you're arguing that we should allow paedophilia on Literotica and it's only Laurel's sensitivities getting in the way - which I'm pretty sure you're not arguing.

People are free to explore whatever fantasies they like - in the privacy of their own thoughts and spaces. But there are - and should be - limitations on what can be published.

Non-consensual fantasies are a huge part of erotica. I both read and I write them. I have written scenes where there has been a victim who got no enjoyment from the sex. They are erotic - but also they are rape, and I would prefer readers to find them as uncomfortable as I do.

 

[jaF0]

But there are - and should be - limitations on what can be published.

That's where the problems come in as to who defines what those limitations should or should not be.

Left up to certain people, sites like this would not exist.

In my view, most of Stephen King's stuff would have been banned, let alone Wes Craven's, the entire 'Saw' series and most anything else depicting graphic violence. I personally have Absolute Zero tolerance for graphic violence.

My rules here would be much tighter on consent also. There would need to be explicit prior consent in any story of restraint or 'rape play'. It's been said that some people have that fantasy of being taken against their will, but that would need to be openly stated by the character. The entire 'non-consent' aspect would be gone, replaced by informed consent. Reluctance is fine if it's presented properly.

I've seen a number of other topics discussed on this board that would be outright prohibited and the authors involved removed.

Lit's current rules are extremely open-minded in my view, even if not exactly in keeping with laws in any given author's locality.

.

 

[jaF0]

But people who want to explore their fantasies, whatever they are, should have a right under the law to explore them.

That's a tough one. Are you talking in writing? Or real life practice?

Consider Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacey, Jeffery Dahmer, Wayne Williams and Ted Bundy to name just a few.

Not all fantasies should be allowed to be explored, even before they physically harm another.

 

[starsong1977]

That's a tough one. Are you talking in writing? Or real life practice?

Consider Charles Manson, John Wayne Gacey, Jeffery Dahmer, Wayne Williams and Ted Bundy to name just a few.

Not all fantasies should be allowed to be explored, even before they physically harm another.

That is EXACTLY my argument. There are rapists who post online. Reddit had them in Iams posts and they were publicly squashed. According to some they should be allowed to fantasize publicly because of "free speech" (even though that argument is always misrepresented due to misunderstanding of the actual case law). It's preposterous. I could argue against other ideas proposed as well, such as people should be made to be uncomfortable.

Why are people allowed to game the system by creating obvious self fulfilling rape fantasy or why are people allowed to write stories which dehumanize anyone regardless of gender or race? If you think that adding a paragraph or two that shows they "liked it " means anything then that just proves laziness.

I don't really care if that is unwelcome as a comment. I can cite numerous examples as evidence. The site is full of misogyny and racism. Let's stop pretending this is a bastion of freedom.

It's not.

 

[KeithD]

Certain site-established limitations on what can be in a Literotica story are quite evident here and are discussed on the discussion board almost daily. Who are you thinking pretends that Literotica is a "bastion of freedom" in what can be published here? No one who I know of.

Your last paragraph is contradictory. Wouldn't the site being a "bastion of freedom" be evidenced by it being full of misogyny and racism? Isn't that exactly what a bastion of freedom would permit?

Beyond that, isn't this just so much spitting in the wind? Laurel and Manu are the ones who control what gets published here, not the site users. And they rarely seem to be reading in on the discussion boards. Much of this thread is just folks bouncing stuff off a blank wall.

 

[SimonDoom]

That's disingenuous. Unless you're arguing that we should allow paedophilia on Literotica and it's only Laurel's sensitivities getting in the way - which I'm pretty sure you're not arguing.

.

It's not disingenuous at all. I mean what I say. All fantasy stories should be legal. All of them. And, generally speaking, they are. In the US, there have been a few isolated cases where people have been prosecuted for publishing stories, such as a man who was convicted in the Southern US for writing violent pedophilia, but those cases are rare, and it's not clear that all jurisdictions would go the same way. I suspect that if it came to a test case most jurisdictions would not, and as a matter of practice legal authorities do not go after authors for writing anything. Generally speaking, you can write anything you want -- pedophilia, bestiality, snuff, rape, whatever. I've read stories at other sites that allow these kinds of stories. They're extremely common and generally not regulated. And that's just fine with me.

I see no difference between these stories and stories about murder. Nobody argues we shouldn't allow stories about murder. If we expunged murder from allowable fiction half the Western literary canon would be eliminated. It would be ridiculous.

The argument against this position is "If we allow people to read and write stories about rape, there will be more rape" to which my response is twofold: One, prove it. The burden of proof is on those who want to limit speech. I don't buy it. And if this position cannot be proved, then there's no case for regulating what people think or write about or for sharing stories with others with similar interests.

The fact that there are people who do bad things who have been found to have read stories about those bad things does not prove cause and effect, which is what has to be proved. They read the stories BECAUSE of their bad tendencies, not the other way around. But not all people who read stories about rape want to rape or be raped. In fact, the great majority almost certainly do not.

And, two: This is the cost of freedom. Yes, people are influenced by what they read, and some people are influenced badly. I wouldn't be surprised if somebody, somewhere was inspired to do something bad because of reading Lolita. But I cannot imagine banning Lolita, and I think it would be terrible to do so. And if one accepts the general principle that we should permit fiction that concerns people doing bad things -- and make no mistake about it, in the US and in other free countries we generally do accept that principle -- then I see no principled reason to treat erotica about uncomfortable subjects differently from any other subject.

As far as this Site is concerned, I think Laurel is free to set whatever boundaries she wants, but to me it's matter of her personal taste and possibly a matter of her legal/economic interest. She may want to keep a certain element out, and that's fine with me. But it's not a moral matter, to me, and her position is not one that everyone has to adopt as their own personal aesthetic, either.

 

[SimonDoom]

According to some they should be allowed to fantasize publicly because of "free speech" (even though that argument is always misrepresented due to misunderstanding of the actual case law). It's preposterous. I could argue against other ideas proposed as well, such as people should be made to be uncomfortable.

Why are people allowed to game the system by creating obvious self fulfilling rape fantasy or why are people allowed to write stories which dehumanize anyone regardless of gender or race? If you think that adding a paragraph or two that shows they "liked it " means anything then that just proves laziness.

I don't really care if that is unwelcome as a comment. I can cite numerous examples as evidence. The site is full of misogyny and racism. Let's stop pretending this is a bastion of freedom.

It's not.

I'm not sure if you understand what the law is. The law, in the US anyway, is that you get to write what you want. You are free, under the First Amendment doctrine of Free Speech, to write stories filled with hate, pedophilia, rape, violence, murder, misogyny, racism, animal sex, you name it. There are exceptional cases here and there where people have been prosecuted on the basis of story content, but they are the exception, not the rule. The rule is you get to write whatever you want.

And I'm glad of that. I support that principle, strongly.

Privately owned Sites like Literotica are free to impose additional content restrictions, and I respect that. But as I've written before, it's not a moral matter to me. Laurel's restrictions do not in any way define my own personal moral or aesthetic values about what should or shouldn't be allowable.

 

[AlinaX]

It's less about inspiration than it is about normalisation.

You see it in media and politics very clearly. The fascists argue that everyone should be allowed to say what they like, and any attempt to deplatform them is decried as Cancel Culture. Meanwhile they are filling mainstream media with toxic discourse when editors should have the balls to tell them to fuck off.

Sex and fiction are arguably different, being obviously entertainment, but impacts are real. The porn world has its trends, for example, making shaven pussies, anal sex and messy facials so common that new generations of youngsters think this is how sex is supposed to be. I mean, nothing wrong with shaven pussies, anal sex and messy facials, but there's a danger in people thinking these are 'normal' and therefore anyone who doesn't like them is abnormal.

Erotic fiction is niche and varied enough that the impact is less than porn, but how much damage is being done by authors like me writing endless variations of futa sex? How sensible is it to allow so much father-daughter incest when this overlaps with real-world abuse? How dangerous is it to have endless stories in which unfaithful 'bitches' are 'burned' and countless other women are humiliated and degraded and end up actually liking it?

Actually I don't have a problem with these themes, as such. I am complicit. But I am grateful for the limits that Laurel imposes. I would like to think Literotica is focussed on erotic pleasure and not, e.g., the revenge equivalent. (Neuroscience and behavioral studies are beginning to reveal that the desire for revenge in response to grievances activates the same neural reward-processing circuitry as that of substance addiction, suggesting that grievances trigger powerful cravings for revenge in anticipation of experiencing pleasure. - from here.)

So maybe it shouldn't be illegal to write and publish fantasy fiction of any kind, but also I don't like to see stories that glorify abuse and hate getting any oxygen.

 

[SexyShel]

I have been working on my latest story and one part of it, with out planning it beforehand, strayed into the territory of "rape".

But here is the thing, the woman being raped is actually enjoying it and could call out and it would be stopped in a second by others intervening.

But if the man having sex with her does not know she is secretly enjoying it, indeed he is being told to stop by the woman (which is part of her fantasy), then is it still rape?

In the tags for the story should I write "rape" or "rape fantasy" ?

 

[SimonDoom]

I have been working on my latest story and one part of it, with out planning it beforehand, strayed into the territory of "rape".

But here is the thing, the woman being raped is actually enjoying it and could call out and it would be stopped in a second by others intervening.

But if the man having sex with her does not know she is secretly enjoying it, indeed he is being told to stop by the woman (which is part of her fantasy), then is it still rape?

In the tags for the story should I write "rape" or "rape fantasy" ?

It's hard to say for sure without having all the details of the encounter, but it sounds like rape. Ask this: if the events of the encounter -- all of them --were accurately described to a jury, would the jury convict him of rape? Sounds like it. You wrote that she could stop it by calling out because "others" would intervene, but the rapist himself wouldn't stop, unless presumably the others came to her rescue. It sounds like he's overpowered her. If there's been no external manifestation of consent and the man has no reason to believe that she actually enjoys it and in some way wants it to happen, then it's nonconsensual sex. That's rape.