The Passing of "Extreme"

[bridgeburner]

I've never understood that "falling asleep after" thing. I mean, what else are you supposed to do? Bake a cake? Clean house? Run a marathon? Hold a philosophical debate?

Maybe I've got a warped sense of "after" however. If it's less than three minutes then I might be miffed.


-B (who thinks that if you did it right everyone should need a nap)

 

[SlickTony]

I've never understood that "falling asleep after" thing. I mean, what else are you supposed to do?

If you're female, get up and lurch into the bathroom and pee. Damn if I'm going to put up with another damn UTI.

 

[damppanties]

DP,

Always correct me if I've mis-stated your position. It's hardly productive if I'm debating a position that you don't hold. I'll try to read more carefully.

Sure will.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Yes. I was talking about fictional violence. Fictional violence increases aggressive behaviour. I'll quote some scientfic research here. Definitely not exhaustive."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I hate to say this, but of the 23 links provided on that one website almost half of them (12 of 23) are either reprints of the same studies or re-writes by the same individuals OR they're about studies that use the other studies as proof to support their theories. They're very self-referential.

Additionally they are all of them about the study of the effects of media on children, not adults.

Well, okay but aren't the other half (11 of 23) enough to make you see my point?

All of them aren't about children, I remember at least one was about adolescents and one which did not mention age at all.

I asked how it is that you yourself could watch violence and yet not become a violent person and you responded:

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Because I abhor violence. I cannot watch it on screen. If I go to a movie which does depict extremely violent acts, I will focus on things like the camera angle or something totally unrelated to the stupid thing they are intent on showing me to get my mind off it. It's a defence mechanism."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I also said that that was ME, personally. All people who watch violence may not dislike it. Some are turned on by it, some are fasctinated with it, some would use it as an excuse to commit violent acts themselves. Every person is different BB.

But if watching violence makes people violent shouldn't you have overcome this abhorance a little bit every time you're exposed? Shouldn't you be getting to the point where even if you don't like it, maybe you don't mind it so much? That's what your argument leads to: That watching violence innures us to such things and eventually encourages us to act out violently.

It is not as simple as saying -watching violence makes a person violent. It's not as straightforward as that. It is one of the factors, a combination of which leads to a person turning violent.

I'm a bit concerned that the reason you're not violent is simply because you don't like violence. I would hope (and truly believe from what I know of you) that regardless of your personal likes and dislikes or desires that you would not violate the rights of others. Do you see what I'm getting at?

No, I'm afraid I don't see what you're getting at. I do not like violence. What has it got to do with someone else's rights and/or violating them?

It is possible to like something and have no intention of ever attemtping to engage in it. Possible to understand and believe that something is wrong and still get satisfaction from imagining it or seeing it portrayed in fiction.

I agree. When it stops there, it's fine. Sometimes it doesn't stop at appreciating the fiction youre seeing.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"I already said censorship or ban can not be the answer. Yes, I would like to see a ban on violence in the media personally, but it can not be done so there's no use talking about it.

I have stated a problem of mine. It does not mean I know (or am recommending) a solution for it."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

But the problem for me is that I'm very aware that it CAN be done. It isn't particularly likely in the near future, but the steady creep of censorship needs to be fought at every step as far as I'm concerned so that we don't look up 50 years from now unable to speak our minds or express our thoughts for fear of breaking the law and being hauled away to the Gulag.

Well, okay. It CAN be done in the obvious sense of the word. I meant it WILL not be done when you look at the obvious repercussions that it will have. I think we said the same thing.

I'm in favour of freedom of speech. I am also in favour of the responsibility that goes with the freedom.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Do you really want an answer to the earlier paragraph I quoted in this excerpt? Well, no, I do not think people who write about incest are into an incestuous relationship themselves."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Yes, I really did and that is the answer I expected. I'd also like an answer to why you think people who write about incest don't actually engage in or promote incest but people who write about violence do.

People who write about violence do not engage in violence. I don't think they do. About promotion - that is an entirely different thing. If you write about incest and say how much you loved your mother fisting you and it gave you a new high continuously for two pages, yes, you're promoting incest. Similarly, if you glorify violence, you're promoting it.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"What I tried to say in my words you quoted above was that I have a problem with only those fantasies which are harmful towards others, either psychologically or physically, which are translated to action."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

How do you know which stories those are? Could be a different story for each violent person. Could be none of them. What if 3000 people read the same story and none of them does anything mean or hurtful to another person but it turns out that the 3001 reader goes home and beats his wife. Is that the fault of the story? If the story REALLY had that kind of power there wouldn't be 3000 people sitting around not acting on it. The fault lies with the man who beat his wife NOT the story. That guy was going to beat his wife at some point whether or not he ever read the story.

I do not know which stories those are but I can take a guess. Those are stories which would glorify violence. Talk about a person who commits extremely violent acts as the 'hero' of the story. Portray that violence is the best course of action in life situations.

I am not saying that a story is a weapon. I am saying a story is one of the many causes which goes into the guy beating his wife.

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Interracial sex isn't harmful. Incest isn't."
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Incest isn't harmful? Are you kidding? Do you know any victims of incest? Have you read any studies? Incest can be incredibly harmful and the abuse tends to get passed down from generation to generation.

I was not talking about RL incest. I was talking about people reading about incest, fantasising, and going and doing it. I haven't read about any studies which point towards that whereas I have read about studies of people watching violence, getting effected by it and getting influenced by it.

Good luck on your exams!

-B

Thank you.
I have not read the Japan article yet. I will, soon.
I will not have much time for the next three weeks.

 

[Pure]

Hi Damp,

Perhaps the violence thing has been 'done', for now. Given that that was only part of 'extreme', what say you on these questions:
Should bestiality have been treated as different from incest, i.e., as somehow more 'extreme'? Are you worried about the effects of reading bestiality stories? do they corrupt? do they corrupt, more than incest stories? do they induce similar actions? in that respect are they different or similar to incest stories?

OH, and. Is the distinction (at lit) between dog fucking and space alien fucking plausible, or merely a convenient hypocrisy?

Here's what I think, on the first question. I don't think mommas of teen boys very often agree--on simple request-- to fuck them, because they're so well hung. OTOH, I have my suspicions about the farm boys(teens) and the sheep. So I'd say mom/grown-son incest is more 'extreme'--i.e, rare and shocking to those not so jaded as we at literotica.

Note: Because of your exams, you will not be required--for three weeks!-- to document claims or supply proof or urls, for your statements, so let us have it, off the top of your head!

J.

 

[damppanties]

Note: Because of your exams, you will not be required--for three weeks!-- to document claims or supply proof or urls, for your statements, so let us have it, off the top of your head!

J.

Oh man! How kind. Don't I love you for this?

Perhaps the violence thing has been 'done', for now. Given that that was only part of 'extreme', what say you on these questions:
Should bestiality have been treated as different from incest, i.e., as somehow more 'extreme'? Are you worried about the effects of reading bestiality stories? do they corrupt? do they corrupt, more than incest stories? do they induce similar actions? in that respect are they different or similar to incest stories?

OH, and. Is the distinction (at lit) between dog fucking and space alien fucking plausible, or merely a convenient hypocrisy?

Here's what I think, on the first question. I don't think mommas of teen boys very often agree--on simple request-- to fuck them, because they're so well hung. OTOH, I have my suspicions about the farm boys(teens) and the sheep. So I'd say mom/grown-son incest is more 'extreme'--i.e, rare and shocking to those not so jaded as we at literotica.

Well, incest n beastiality... I do not feel enough about the subjects really. I have no idea why. I cannot even find an interest either for or against the things.

I didn't exactly get you Pure. Are you trying to say what is rare is extreme?

Are you saying beastiality is more commone in RL?

I'm a lil confused. Is this whole post supposed to be a joke?

 

[Pure]

No, no joke. This thread deals with the stories that formerly went to 'extreme'--presumably because they were thought to BE extreme, and, as was said officially, 'not for the faint of heart.'

rape/torture(murder, too, iirc) and bestiality were the biggest categories, as I recollect. OTOH, incest has been in the 'main' (non extrme) part of lit, for some time, though I seem to recall that this was not always the case.

Yes I think frequency is part of the def of 'extreme': necrophilia is not common and gay sex is; so the latter is 'non extreme' and for the last few years, 'normal' in the eyes of US psychiatrists. The widespread-ness of gay sex is commonly used as a main argument for its 'normality'or 'natural-ness.'

In the battle with the psychiatric establishment, a couple psychiatrists 'came out', meaning, 'we are among you, too.' As they say now, among your extended family or in your classroom of say 30, there are likely a couple gay persons (whose leanings should not be said to be evil). There are likely too, some sex abuse cases, including possibly some boys, but rarely in the form of intercourse with mom.

 

[bridgeburner]

Hiya DP,

I just looked and this post is so long you may have to put it off until after exams as well. ;-> I will soldier on!

Well, okay but aren't the other half (11 of 23) enough to make you see my point?

No, because the studies listed on that site are about the effects of media violence on children.

Also, no, because part of my point is that you provided one source for these studies and that source has a very clear agenda. They're not going to list anything that doesn't appear to support their claim so right off the bat that's a problem. Secondly, they're so eager to show how right they are that they don't mind being sloppy and using duplicate sources. What it shows is that they're so convinced they're right they have to lie and mislead in order to prove how right they are.

That's not very convincing. It's not unlike when Jerry Falwell starts giving sources to show that homosexuality can be cured.

Additionally, as Pure pointed out, not all those studies show what you think they show --- or what the website claims they show.

"All of them aren't about children, I remember at least one was about adolescents and one which did not mention age at all."

Yes, they are all about children. The study that mentions adolescents and young adults did not study the effects of violent media on teenagers and young adults but rather exposed children and then checked in with them years later when they were teenagers or young adults to see what they were like.

"I also said that that was ME, personally. All people who watch violence may not dislike it. Some are turned on by it, some are fasctinated with it, some would use it as an excuse to commit violent acts themselves. Every person is different"

Yes, every person is different, but the vast majority of people are alike in that they do not commit violent acts and crimes against others -- regardless of the films they watch or the books they read. One doesn't have to loathe the fictitious depiction of violence in order to refrain from real violence.

"It is not as simple as saying -watching violence makes a person violent. It's not as straightforward as that. It is one of the factors, a combination of which leads to a person turning violent."

It is as straightforward as that if we're talking about limiting the output of or people's access to violence in fiction. When examining the straw that breaks the camel's back the problem is not really the final straw but the fact that the camel is overladen to begin with.

Excerpted from one of the Huesman studies:

"Most researchers of aggression agree that severe aggressive and violent behavior seldom occurs unless there is a convergence of multiple predisposing and precipitating factors such as neurophysiological abnormalities, poor child rearing, socioeconomic deprivation, poor peer relations, attitude and beliefs supporting aggression, drug and alcohol abuse, frustration and provocation and other factors."

Before we focus on curbing the least influential factor - media violence - we'd do well to address those issues that produce violence even in individuals who have comparatively little exposure to media violence. It's flashy to say "curb media violence" but not nearly as effective as the much more difficult task of easing poverty and re-enfranchising those who've been neglected or abused by society.

"No, I'm afraid I don't see what you're getting at. I do not like violence. What has it got to do with someone else's rights and/or violating them?"

What I'm getting at is that people follow the law and social norms even if they are not personally disgusted by specific acts outside the law. Personal disgust is not what keeps our society lawful. Even if you were not personally disgusted by fictional violence I seriously doubt you would suddenly go on a rampage of bloody carnage or even if you'd begin slapping around your family and friends.

"Sometimes it doesn't stop at appreciating the fiction youre seeing."

True, but even more often it doesn't take any fictional representation of violence at all to set people off. It's like blaming the neighbor who left his garden hose on when the town gets flooded because the dam broke. Yes, that neighbor's hose did contribute to the surfeit of water, but the addition of 60 or 80 gallons is a mere drop in the bucket when compared to 300,000 gallons flooding out of the dam. Is it wiser and more useful to restrict the use of garden hoses or to construct better dams?

"Well, okay. It CAN be done in the obvious sense of the word. I meant it WILL not be done when you look at the obvious repercussions that it will have. I think we said the same thing."

Looking at the state of the U.S. today I'm not nearly so confident as you. With the appointment of John Ashcroft and the passing of the Patriot Act civil liberties in this country have come under serious threat. Proponents of the Bill all say "Oh, no one is going to abuse it and go after the common man. This is just for terrorists." Tell it to Michael Galardi:

Patriot Act invoked in Strip Club case

Currently in LA the only thing holding up a law requiring that strippers remain at least 6 Feet from strip club patrons at all times is the fact that the city doesn't have the money to enforce it yet. Here in the the Land of the Free there are more than 13 states in which you cannot even legally have porn delivered to your private residence through the mail. The time to be concerned about censorship is now.

"People who write about violence do not engage in violence. I don't think they do. About promotion - that is an entirely different thing. If you write about incest and say how much you loved your mother fisting you and it gave you a new high continuously for two pages, yes, you're promoting incest. Similarly, if you glorify violence, you're promoting it."

By your reasoning every fictional story that does not specifically state a moral imperative to refrain from some act is not only condoning it but promoting it. In which case, the stories here about incest ARE promoting incest every bit as much as any story about violence is promoting violence. In essence any fictional tale inherently promotes any action it details but does not specifically condemn. And yet, with all of this overwhelming promotion of evil acts still the vast majority of people somehow remain non-criminal and non-violent.

"I do not know which stories those are but I can take a guess. Those are stories which would glorify violence. Talk about a person who commits extremely violent acts as the 'hero' of the story. Portray that violence is the best course of action in life situations."

This is essentially the same as the Senator who claimed that he couldn't define specifically what is obscene but he knows it when he sees it. This is entirely too subjective to enforce upon the public at large. More importantly it completely disregards the concept of free will implying that people have no more intelligence or judgement about their actions than to run off willy-nilly commiting acts of aggression and violence without regard for any value of law, order or personal responsiblity simply because they saw it on TV.

"I am not saying that a story is a weapon. I am saying a story is one of the many causes which goes into the guy beating his wife."

And I'm saying that the causality is negligible to the point of being moot. Most domestic abusers -- male and female -- were themselves the victims of abuse. They tend also to be found more often in economically disadvantaged households. Both of these factors are better determiners for who will become an abuser than the type of entertainment enjoyed. Eradicating all forms of violent entertainment would not eradicate domestic abuse. People with violent tendencies are often drawn to violent entertainment, but they are aggressive and angry people already. Their entertainment choices are a reflection of their natures not the cause of their aggression.

"I was not talking about RL incest."

But then we're back to my initial question which is why is a story about incest less real and dangerous than a story about violence?

"I was talking about people reading about incest, fantasising, and going and doing it."

How is that not real life incest? If they read it, then fantasize then do it, that's real life, isn't it?

"I haven't read about any studies which point towards that..."

I would argue that this is because nobody in his right mind believes that reading a story about incest will actually make you want to schtupp your dad. Because nobody would ever believe this anyway, there's no money in doing research on it.

"...I have read about studies of people watching violence, getting effected by it and getting influenced by it."

You have read about studies involving children. Adults are not children. Furthermore, the studies don't show that all children are made more aggressive by television violence. They show that some children are "at risk" children due to other significant factors such as I mentioned above - neurological imbalances, abuse, poverty, absent parents.

excerpted from Paging Mr. Zappa

"Well, they may not be as stylish as Zappa, but free speech still has its friends. Among them is Reason magazine's Jacob Sullum, who turned a curious eye to Sen. Brownback's assertion that medical science has found proof that kids who play Quake are bound to run amuck in the school lunchroom.

According to Sullum, a claim that over 1,000 studies have found a causal connection between media violence and aggressive behavior seems a bit peculiar, since "Jonathan Freedman, a University of Toronto psychologist who recently completed a review of the scientific literature, counts about 200 published studies that have tried to measure the impact of TV or film violence on aggression."

Aside from the senator's odd act of multiplication, there's yet another problem with his claim. Most of the studies that actually occurred failed to show any strong tendency on the part of shoot-'em-ups to turn kids into Ted Bundy.

That should be no surprise. Free-market.net's own Wendy McElroy points out that the crusade against violent games and movies can be traced back "at least three decades to 1972, to the United States Surgeon General's proclamation that children become violent due to images on television." That earlier cultural jihad was drawn up short when the Federal Commission on Pornography and Obscenity failed to find any real connection between risque entertainment and violent kids."

The link between violent entertainment and child aggression looks to be yet another cargo-cult science. It sounds like it should be true so it MUST be true regardless of the lack of factual support -- and every person who repeats this unproven truth will for ever after be added to the list of "reputable sources" further proving this unproven claim.

Not unlike the whole coil of subliminal advertising.

The Cargo-Cult Science of Subliminal Persuasion

Sorry, another long article but it shows exactly the kind of thing I'm talking about with regard to the unquestioned assertion that violent entertainment makes children violent.

Do read the Japan article when you get a chance. The reality of Japan completely and totally contradicts the claims made by the proponents of censorship around the world.


--B

 

[Pure]

Hi Damp,
I don't want you to feel beset on all sides, but I can't help adding a comment:

I do not know which stories those are but I can take a guess. Those are stories which would glorify violence. Talk about a person who commits extremely violent acts as the 'hero' of the story. Portray that violence is the best course of action in life situations.

The issue of some movie or book 'glorifying' an illegal act, is an old one. Some use the word 'condoning.' Such criteria have proven impossible to use, since for some, if you show the illegal act going unpunished, you're condoning it. In your terms, saying it's a course of action without untoward consequences.

The battles of gay sex depictions have been over that one; if the guys are shown enjoying it and not getting AIDS, that's glorification or condoning.

In practice, to avoid the condoning charge, the author adds a note at the beginning saying 'these are really evil people who shouldn't be imitated' or concocts an ending where a traffic accident finishes them off at the end. This is how the movie "Butterfield 8" with Liz Taylor got past the censors.

Movies like "Butch Cassidy" or "Wild Bunch" could easily be said to glorify violence, killing etc. Going down in a blaze of glory instead of living on with brain damage and a bullet in the spine, can look mighty attractive to some. The same could be said about Macbeth.

More to the point at literotica; two categories at least could be said contain stories that generally 'glorify' illegal acts, the incest category being the most obvious. The nonconsent category too, frequently has a 'making up' between the victim and perpetrator: she's grateful for coming so good. Talk about 'glorification.'

So, in practice, censors have tended just to define an act, say coming on the woman's face, and putting it on a list. That avoids the issue of 'condoning'. Similarly, were there to be anti violence legislation it most like would say (depiction of)'maiming' seriously wounding, torturing, killing, massive amts of blood flowing. This has not been done yet-- those are old American traditions!-- but I have heard of anti SM laws.

In sum, in view of the massive 'glorifications' going on in literotica stories, that criterion would never be of any use in determining either what's acceptable now; or what formerly should be put in 'extreme.'

J.

 

[Quint]

Incest, NC and its illicit lovechild Mind Control, but also Loving Wives. How many men are really going to get wildly turned on (as well as remaining emotioally stable) by catching their wives fucking another guy? Happy endings abound, and quite unrealistically in my opinion. There isn't any physical violence, normally, but the potential for emotional damage in "condoning/promoting/selling" adultery, by this argument, is certainly worth mentioning.

Here's what I think. I read some bestiality stories on Extreme, back in the day. My reaction to the first that I read was far stronger than my reaction to the tenth. The taboo was greater, the thrill directly proportional. Familiarity bred...familiarity. Not as much of a big deal to think about or talk about. But does that make it any more plausible of an act? Not really. The most it did was break down my mental taboo, and I do consider that a good thing. I believe that if I had the desire to fuck a horse, I'd have found the means to do it, regardless of my exposure to the literature. I might know a better technique thanks to the story, but it wouldn't have made me do it, or even necessarily be more prone to doing it. I daresay that I'm the norm (in this matter, at least). But I don't see a survey about "the effect bestiality literature has had on one's sex life" coming out anytime soon.

I'm highly enjoying this thread and its participants.

 

[Pure]

Hi Quint,

re animals, you said,

//I might know a better technique thanks to the story, //

That may be even less likely than your learning 'better technique' by reading 'loving couples'!!

But... nice posting. In truth, most odd acts--or their depictions-- that provoke, strong reactions, particularly negative ones, can become routine. The first time I read of a woman handing a man a glass of pee to drink, I freaked. And fantasized for decades.
Thanks to the wonders of the 'net, I've lately, besides reading, seen actual (staged?) pictures, so it's 'Oh, that again'.

In general, the physical description of any act, particularly fucking, is utterly without arousal value now, even if reasonably well done.
There must be something more, that affects the mind. Same for all the routine whippings and floggings of bdsm stories.

I guess I'm a jade.

 

[bridgeburner]

I wonder how much believability has to do with what used to end up in extreme.

Most people are creeped out by the idea of actually engaging in sexual play with their close family members so they don't see that there's any danger in reading incest stories because nobody really wants to fuck his sister unless he's mentally unbalanced.

It's so extreme as to be easily recognized as pure fantasy.

Rape, torture and murder, however are thought to be pretty commonplace in the real world so it's harder for people to recognize that such stories are also as purely fantasy as incest stories. Because they are more plausible seeming than incest they strike people as more dangerous and therefore get relegated to extreme.

--B

 

[bridgeburner]

Somewhat off topic, but there were several chapters of one particular story that ended up in extreme and I was never sure why. Certainly there were more extreme stories that were allowed into the regular lists.

At any rate, I thought it was a well-written story and was quite disappointed to hear that the author became a Born Again Christian and left Literotica. Does anyone else remember this author or her story? It was religious themed in that the heroine was sent to a sort of convent of depravity but her Uncle comes to take her out and treats her horribly and she's rescued by the Priest and Nuns who initiated her into the pleasures of the flesh.'

It was certainly tamer physically than many of the other non-consent or even BDSM stories I've read here.


-B

 

[Quint]

Does anyone else remember this author or her story? It was religious themed in that the heroine was sent to a sort of convent of depravity but her Uncle comes to take her out and treats her horribly and she's rescued by the Priest and Nuns who initiated her into the pleasures of the flesh.'

It was certainly tamer physically than many of the other non-consent or even BDSM stories I've read here.


-B

Broken Vows, by SteamyChik

I agree, it had some extremely hot sex in it; I did read the Extreme chapter and I do think it pushed the bar of Lit. The female, Mary, did come to enjoy the "rape" after awhile, but was then pierced against her will. It was fairly edgy and I think the author erred on the side of safety. Unfortunately, that means we no longer have access to that particular chapter. Le sigh.

Pure, you would be right about the "technique" question, except that I came to the topic completely innocent and left somewhat less so. Maybe I was stretching the truth a little bit, but not much. Sad, huh?

I too am an utter jade when it comes to smut. That's definitely a disadvantage to experience, in my opinion.

 

[Pure]

Bridge said, to explain the categories at Lit.,

Rape, torture and murder, however are thought to be pretty commonplace in the real world so it's harder for people to recognize that such stories are also as purely fantasy as incest stories. Because they are more plausible seeming than incest they strike people as more dangerous and therefore get relegated to extreme.


Sounds good to me. I see a constant confusion, e.g., in the nonconsent stories, that some kind of realism is attempted. As you say, people/readers seem to take violence in stories as a kind of injunction (do this!)as well as approval.

J.

 

[bridgeburner]

Quint,

Yes! That's the one exactly. How sad that chapter is gone because it was very hot! I suppose the piercing against her will was "extreme" but the piece lacked the kind of hatred that I tend to think of when I think of extreme stories. Or maybe I'm just warped.

Alright, so there's no maybe about it. I admit it: I'm warped.



-B

 

[bridgeburner]

Pure,

I see a constant confusion, e.g., in the nonconsent stories, that some kind of realism is attempted. As you say, people/readers seem to take violence in stories as a kind of injunction (do this!)as well as approval.

For me this is what makes so many of the non-consent stories disappointing. Either there is no true issue of non-consent or the story is made outrgeous so that no one will be threatened by it.

but that's a topic for another thread.


-B

 

[Pure]

Bridge said,

//there's no maybe about it. I admit it: I'm warped.//

OK, then back to the question. In 'mainstream' terms, a liking for reading literotica porn, --except for maybe loving couples, NOT loving wives-- is warped: a taste for fetish and incest material.

Yet, many folks at Literotica--taking Svenskaflicka as an example--have no problem with a taste for porn and the alleged healthiness of such a taste, BUT believe that the taste for reading about violence and/or violent sex is warped. Why? because--it's said--the violence is exciting and maybe even sexually arousing. That's supposed to be bad.

Being aroused by a tale of banging momma or poppa with their 'fictional' consent is not bad, according to the same argument.

I suppose, it might be said that if you *go out and do what's described* in the violent case, it will likely be a crime. Whereas if you go out and *do as described* with momma (ask, then fuck), it may be a crime, but it won't get reported.

OTOH, could it not be suspected that someone might forget the 'asking' part? Especially with, say, a 'daughter' case. Iow Joe Blow reads: "Daddy tells big boobed daughter, 'I'm so attracted to you and would like to fuck,' and she says, 'fine.'"

Maybe Joe Blow will 'forget' to ask his daughter and just, say, ply her with booze, then do it to her.

Note: if the 'go out and do it' is a problem, then surely the existing nonconsent stories are dangerous, since there is initial force and lack of consent, then the woman warms up, consents and loves it.

If you go out and *start that sequence* hoping for the warmup, the mind change, the glorious climax and heartfelt thanks, you may get into trouble.

J.

 

[sweetnpetite]

The thing about falling asleep *right* after is this-

If you leave right after, you give her the impression (right or wrong) that that's all you wanted from her, your done now and your going (wham, bam, thank you ma'am) When you fall asleep right after, its like leaving.

After sex many women feel vulnerable. They need to be 'reasured.' All you have to do is spend a few minutes with her, see if she wants to talk or cuddle or needs a sandwitch or a glass of water- ie. show that you still care about her now that you've gotten what *you* want. That being said, falling asleep in each others arms after a few murmered, I love you-s is lovely.

PS- When a woman asks you what your thiniking *always* say that you were just thinking about "how lucky I am to be with you" or "how beautiful you look tonight." Please don't say "nothing" or 'how I wish you'd go and wash the dishes- they are really piling up you know!"

I've never understood that "falling asleep after" thing. I mean, what else are you supposed to do? Bake a cake? Clean house? Run a marathon? Hold a philosophical debate?

Maybe I've got a warped sense of "after" however. If it's less than three minutes then I might be miffed.


-B (who thinks that if you did it right everyone should need a nap)

 

[Etoile]

Wrong thread, I guess?

 

[Pure]

Question for those with depraved tastes:

What are titles of some of the nastiest, evilest, unconscionable stories that have passed through literotica, into the standard categories, stories that would formerly have merited the 'extreme' label'?

IOW, where are the 'extreme' stories ending up, and how are they labeled?

If this is a deep secret, PM me. Let's have an email referral network.

 

[raphy]

ie. show that you still care about her now that you've gotten what *you* want.

*grins* .. I really don't mean to butt heads with you on *every* thread, SnP, it just seems to work out that way

The implication in your statement is that the sex is for the man's benefit and the cuddling afterwards is for the woman's benefit.

How often is this true? I know that I never want to have a sex with a woman if she's doing it for my benefit. She's got to want it too, otherwise I won'd do it. I've turned down offers of sex from women (some of whom I was in a relationship with at the time) because I wasn't fully convinced they were doing it for the right reasons.

I don't know. Maybe that scenario is all too commonplace, but it smacks of physical and emotional bartering to me. "I'll fuck you because I want to cuddle and I want you to tell me you love me."

For my money, any woman who's involved in a relationship where she feels it necessary to barter her body in that way to recieve the affection she needs should kick the asshole to the curb and find a real relationship - One where her sexual desire can exist of its own accord - And a real man - One who doesn't require sex before he demonstrates his (obviously false) affection for her.

 

[Etoile]

Okay, I'm utterly confused. This was a rather old bump and I admit that I haven't read through the old posts, but what on earth are snp and Raphy talking about?!

 

[raphy]

I've never understood that "falling asleep after" thing. I mean, what else are you supposed to do? Bake a cake? Clean house? Run a marathon? Hold a philosophical debate?

Maybe I've got a warped sense of "after" however. If it's less than three minutes then I might be miffed.


-B (who thinks that if you did it right everyone should need a nap)

This was Bridgeburner's original post, at the top of this page. SnP replied to it. I replied to her

(Not sure where BB got that from, Etoile - I didn't read back far enough to see if he was responding to an earlier post.)

 

[Pure]

besides post coital behavior, is anyone still interested in the thread topic, 'extreme' stories-- that can't presently be posted in new categories. are there any that fit the old 'extreme' category that NOW cant be posted?

 

[bridgeburner]

The falling asleep after was a joking tangent offered up by Wills to which both Pure and I responded. It's two posts before mine regarding falling asleep afterward.

I'm not sure why SnP took it so seriously, but I feel as if I've been somewhat chastized.....or I would except that I'm a straight female so I don't have much practical use for instructions on how to keep women sleeping with me. ;->

BTW, if any man in my bed was stupid enough to lie to me and tell me he was thinking about me when what he was really thinking about was a long winter's nap or a pastrami on rye he'd only do it the one time. That kind of manipulation is one of the fastest ways to lose my trust.

And now I will endeavor to contribute no more off-topicality.


-B