The Passing of "Extreme"

[NemoAlia]

Yeah, I miss "Extreme" too. At lit it's a toss-up whether the things labelled in categories I normally like will actually appeal to me: Non-consent might mean it's downright cream-my-panties material, or it might mean that somebody's trying to hint (in second person) to their boyfriend that maybe they might want to be surprised in the middle of a sensual bath by the sudden appearance of their masked lover. At least with "Extreme," I had a clearer idea of what I would be getting when I opened a story.

I mean, I definitely read erotic stories as an indulgence of my prurient interest in sex. And so I miss "Extreme."

 

[snooper]

Ironically, some of the violent 'extreme' stuff may not be a problem: we _know_ violence doesn't harm, don't we? Just keep the sex out, and let the ole chainsaws rip!

As an aside, a reputable university did a study of violence on UK TV. They rated only programmes in series; stand-alone programmes were omitted. Violent acts were defined as any act by one character which caused clear and obvious distress or harm to another character. Ratings were violent acts per transmission hour.

Top of the list, over twice as violent as any other program broadcast was:
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.

.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
.
Tom and Gerry!

 

[Etoile]

I didn't notice that Extreme was gone?

But I think it's a good sign that there is such a lack of interest in extreme stories that the category has withered away.

I'm curious, why do you think it's a good sign? That sounds like moralizing to me, and I'm hoping I'm wrong.

 

[Pure]

On Violence,

Good point, Snooper! There's also violence in fairy and folk tales like Hansel and Gretel.

At the same time, the 'new violence' as in Reservoir Dogs seems different, to me, in its impact. The inclusion of torture also makes me queasy. Something to do with 'realism.'

However, I do not necessarily want government censorship of violence or sex, I merely wonder why the 'right' spends so much time drafting lists for the one (prohibited scenes) and not the other.

J.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I'm curious, why do you think it's a good sign? That sounds like moralizing to me, and I'm hoping I'm wrong.

Well, Extreme is about brutal rape, violence, bestiality, that sort of things, right? I think that if people are not interested in reading about these sorts of things, then hopefully that means that they're not interested in them in real life either..?

 

[Pookie]

Hi Pookie,

I appreciate your thoughtful contributions, here and elsewhere. With all due respect, since we're on the same side, here,


your view of First Amendment coverage is a little bit wider than the Supreme Ct, when you say,

Fortunately, there are already US Supreme Court rulings to protect fictitious literature, including erotica/pornography.

COPA attempted to base itself on the Miller standards of obscenity, as noted in the SC decision in Ashcroft v. ACLU, 2002. The fact that it was clumsy should not lull us, since Miller remains. See the Ashcroft decision:


http://www.facsnet.org/issues/supreme/a_thru_h/a/ashcroft_v_ACLU.php3

====

The Miller standards--never overturned-- given below clearly do not exempt written "fictitious" [fictional]material (see also the earlier Roth decision):


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=413&invol=15

Clearly, "patentedly obscene" material is not protected. But The Miller standards do exempt written fictitious material, as long as it's not patentedly obscene.

Quotes are from the ACLU's website.

"The Supreme Court has interpreted the First Amendment's protection of artistic expression very broadly. It extends not only to books, theatrical works and paintings, but also to posters, television, music videos and comic books -- whatever the human creative impulse produces.

"Two fundamental principles come into play whenever a court must decide a case involving freedom of expression. The first is "content neutrality"-- the government cannot limit expression just because any listener, or even the majority of a community, is offended by its content. In the context of art and entertainment, this means tolerating some works that we might find offensive, insulting, outrageous -- or just plain bad.

"The second principle is that expression may be restricted only if it will clearly cause direct and imminent harm to an important societal interest. The classic example is falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater and causing a stampede. Even then, the speech may be silenced or punished only if there is no other way to avert the harm.

"The Supreme Court's current definition of constitutionally unprotected Obscenity, first announced in a 1973 case called Miller v. California, has three requirements. The work must 1) appeal to the average person's prurient (shameful, morbid) interest in sex; 2) depict sexual conduct in a "patently offensive way" as defined by community standards; and 3) taken as a whole, lack serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

"The Supreme Court has held that Indecent expression -- in contrast with "obscenity" -- is entitled to some constitutional protection, but that indecency in some media (broadcasting, cable, and telephone) may be regulated."

"(T)he United States Supreme Court held last year that imaginary depictions of child erotica cannot be criminalized because their creation “records no crime and creates no victim.” That case, Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition, declared the federal Child Pornography Prevention Act unconstitutional, in large part because it criminalized the creation of “virtual pornography”."


Obviously, there will be groups/prosecutors that may/will attempt to censor fictional erotic literature. But they carry a VERY difficult burden in proving that a specific piece of fictional erotica is unprotected obscenity. They must prove it meets ALL three of the criteria as stated in the Miller case.

Just my thoughts.

 

[Pookie]

Well, Extreme is about brutal rape, violence, bestiality, that sort of things, right? I think that if people are not interested in reading about these sorts of things, then hopefully that means that they're not interested in them in real life either..?

I recall seeing a number of comments about the slowness of Laurel to add new stories to the Extreme site in the past. I remember statements that it took months to get them posted. I would surmise from those types of statements that authors just went to other sites that would post their stories in a more timely manner.

 

[Etoile]

Well, Extreme is about brutal rape, violence, bestiality, that sort of things, right? I think that if people are not interested in reading about these sorts of things, then hopefully that means that they're not interested in them in real life either..?

So if people DO want to read those stories, then they ARE interested in those things in real life? I completely disagree. Just because someone likes reading about bestiality doesn't mean they're going to fuck a dog.

 

[Pure]

One point in discussing 'extreme' and its passing is to see the 'shoe on the other foot.'

For instance, one poster here writes about brother fucking sister, and apparently doesn't consider that 'extreme' though a majority might.

What the poster considers 'extreme' though, is treated differently.

For instance, the problem "If they read about it, maybe they'll do it" (or, "if they don't read about it, they won't do it") is brought up for the 'extreme' stories, but not in connection with stories of brother fucking sister.

J.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this matter. I can't understand why anyone would enjoy reading a bestiality-story, just like I can't understand why anyone would enjoy reading stories about small children getting raped, and therefor, I have a problem defending their rights to read it on a public website.

You think it's a difference between animals and children? To me, there aren't. Living creatures, both of them. You think it's harmless to read about fantasies, as long as the readers are just enjoying the thought of it, and are not actually doing it? I don't agree. Neither do those who write laws.

Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree. You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine.

 

[Etoile]

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this matter. I can't understand why anyone would enjoy reading a bestiality-story, just like I can't understand why anyone would enjoy reading stories about small children getting raped, and therefor, I have a problem defending their rights to read it on a public website.

You think it's a difference between animals and children? To me, there aren't. Living creatures, both of them. You think it's harmless to read about fantasies, as long as the readers are just enjoying the thought of it, and are not actually doing it? I don't agree. Neither do those who write laws.

Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree. You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine.

I have no problem with agreeing to disagree. I do wonder, though, if you think listening to music with violent lyrics prompts kids to go out and be violent, or playing violent video games does the same thing, or violent TV/movies.

 

[Pure]

Svenskamus, herself an excellent and prolific writer of fine and often perverse erotica, said,

I can't understand why anyone would enjoy reading a bestiality-story,

I can't understand why anyone would enjoy reading Tom fucks Mom on his 18th birthday.

just like I can't understand why anyone would enjoy reading stories about small children getting raped,

IIRC, there were no stories of children, and in particular, of their getting raped, in 'extreme.' Which is the present topic.

Can you understand anyone wanting to read of a rape of an adult?

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I have no problem with agreeing to disagree. I do wonder, though, if you think listening to music with violent lyrics prompts kids to go out and be violent, or playing violent video games does the same thing, or violent TV/movies.

Will you lose all respect in me if I say "yes"?


(Whow, I haven't said that line in a long time!)

 

[Etoile]

Will you lose all respect in me if I say "yes"?

Not at all. I was just curious.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Perverse erotica? MOI?

Svenskamus, herself an excellent and prolific writer of fine and often perverse erotica, said,

I can't understand why anyone would enjoy reading a bestiality-story,

I can't understand why anyone would enjoy reading Tom fucks Mom on his 18th birthday.

just like I can't understand why anyone would enjoy reading stories about small children getting raped,

IIRC, there were no stories of children, and in particular, of their getting raped, in 'extreme.' Which is the present topic.

Can you understand anyone wanting to read of a rape of an adult?

Ehm... no. Not really. So why have I written two such stories myself? To win the Survivor Contest. For the same reason, I've written for Transsexuals & Crossdressers, Mind Control, Mature, and Anal, and I'm not very interested in them either. I'm just prostituting my talent to make money.

I'll write it - but I'll be damned if I understand why people like what I write.

 

[Pookie]

We're just gonna have to agree to disagree on this matter. I can't understand why anyone would enjoy reading a bestiality-story, just like I can't understand why anyone would enjoy reading stories about small children getting raped, and therefor, I have a problem defending their rights to read it on a public website.

You think it's a difference between animals and children? To me, there aren't. Living creatures, both of them. You think it's harmless to read about fantasies, as long as the readers are just enjoying the thought of it, and are not actually doing it? I don't agree. Neither do those who write laws.

Like I said, we'll have to agree to disagree. You're entitled to your opinion, I'm entitled to mine.

Fortunately, their are protections against people who would pass laws that would tell someone what they can and can't think and fantasize about.

 

[Pure]

[rape, incest, anal, etc.] Svenskamus: "I'll write it - but I'll be damned if I understand why people like what I write."

'Cuz we enjoy witnessing the prostitution of a talent of your calibre?

'Cuz we're sick puppies?



PS: But are we dangerous?

 

[Svenskaflicka]

HELL yes!!!

 

[Pure]

yes, sick? or yes, dangerous? or both?

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Well, I was implying "yes, you're dangerous". Considering that fact, I'd never say "yes, you're sick".

Atleast not loud enough for you to hear me.

 

[Pure]

SF, Like you say, I guess it's our thoughts that make us so (sick).

Out, out, damn thought!

(Bangs head on wall, trying to get rid of them.)

 

[a_bit_kinky]

Oh, how I miss the extreme

I had been wondering what had happened to the extreme section. It was my favorite and the first place I would check after New Stories. Many nights my husband and I would spend reading those stories together, especially the bestiality and rape. I'm secure enough to say that yes, the thought of those things turn me on. Would I ever participate in bestiality? No. Do I want to be raped? Only play-raped by hubby or our close friend. Though what another person does, wants to do, or fantasizes about is their business. Does that make us sick? Absolutely not. Most people have fantasized about a taboo subject, sexual or otherwise. How many of us have been in the past, so mad at someone that we have said to ourselves, even for the briefest moment, "I wish you were dead?" That doesn't make us a murderer, nor does it mean that we will become one.

I really do miss the extreme section.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

SF, Like you say, I guess it's our thoughts that make us so (sick).

Out, out, damn thought!

(Bangs head on wall, trying to get rid of them.)

Want the banging just nail it deeper into your head?

Atleast that's how it is with sex..?

 

[Pure]

SF:

//Won't the banging just nail it deeper into your head?//

Damn, I knew I was doing something wrong.

abk,

You are a real pervert and obviously dangerous. Pleased to meet you!

"Extreme" was apparently canned in perhaps an overabundance of caution over some proposed internet laws.

Perhaps not, given that a US citizen has been held without bail or access to any lawyer, and in the absence of any charge for several months (the fellow in the Navy brig IN the territorial US}.

J.

PS: If you'll forgive me for asking SF, has your writing, and presumably reading, incest stories made you look at your family members in--how shall I say it delicately--a new light?

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Eeeeewwww!!!

Thanks a lot! Now I'll NEVER be able to meet my family again! *shudders with disgust*