What do do about content regulation at Literotica

[Bramblethorn]

This rule I believe actually does a great disservice. If you want to depict a rape scene, then you have to nudge-wink that it's not actually rape. It's total bullshit and actually glorifies rape. Now I have no problem if someone wants to write a glorifying rape scene, but to actually enforce this as a rule paints a horribly inaccurate picture of reality. Certainly there are those out there who fantasize being taken against their will (as there is a certain coveting in that), but this whole pseudo-rape crap is nothing but a huge fucking lie. How many rape victims in the real world actually enjoyed the experience - 1% of 1% of one-millionth? Yet ALL non-con stories on this site MUST reflect that microscopic shred of reality? Pfft.

I also find this policy problematic, but it's a little easier to understand how it came about if one considers what online erotica tended to be like back when Literotica was getting started.

Back in the 1990s, when I started reading online smut in places like Usenet, there was a lot of outright torture porn out there. Trust me, you don't want to know. Just reading the content flags on some of that stuff was pretty gross.

Literotica showed up soon after, around the time Usenet was beginning to die by spam. Given what so much of the content was like, I would interpret the Literotica policy less as "we want to glorify rape by encouraging the idea that the victim enjoys it" and more "we don't want stories about people getting tortured to death with power tools".

Here in 2022, I don't think the way Literotica chose to draw that line was the best approach, but I can see how it could have happened.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I guess that's the great dividing line. When you begin with the premise that fiction is fiction (conclusion: get the fuck over both it and yourself,) a lot of these rules seem doubly or triply silly and futile.

It really boils down to this: "there are people out there whose sexual quirks are so fucking gross that I just don't want to provide them with any material, even fictional material, that caters to them."

Most of this debate is just trying to slap a veneer of high-minded intellectualism and moralizing onto that unarguable stance: "it's gross, dun wanna."

I agree with all of that, but only as the reasoning behind said rules (which if I'm reading you right is the point that you are trying to establish), not as any reasoning for the blurry lines in said rules. This is another matter, and the main focus of this thread (or at least the opening post).

While I do agree that generally speaking, rules of this sort are made to force judgemental views upon others, I do not personally believe that this is the case on literotica. It is my opinion that any rules here are simply to keep the feds away and leave us in peace. However I have been on other sites where draconian rules are clearly the admin forcing their judgemental views upon the members. Where it gets doubly heavy-handed is when there are judgemental rules deliberately left ambiguous and blurry simply so that the admin can enforce them as inconsistently and selectively as they feel like without any fear of accountability. Again, I don't believe that this is the case specifically here on lit, but clearly stated and easily referenced rules would indeed go a long way towards easing the frustrations of many of the writers here.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I also find this policy problematic, but it's a little easier to understand how it came about if one considers what online erotica tended to be like back when Literotica was getting started.

Back in the 1990s, when I started reading online smut in places like Usenet, there was a lot of outright torture porn out there. Trust me, you don't want to know. Just reading the content flags on some of that stuff was pretty gross.

Literotica showed up soon after, around the time Usenet was beginning to die by spam. Given what so much of the content was like, I would interpret the Literotica policy less as "we want to glorify rape by encouraging the idea that the victim enjoys it" and more "we don't want stories about people getting tortured to death with power tools".

Here in 2022, I don't think the way Literotica chose to draw that line was the best approach, but I can see how it could have happened.

I hear that argument, but if gory torture really were what was meant to be eliminated, would not a simple rule against gory torture suffice regardless of the level of consent between fictional characters? As you say, you don't believe that the rule which they came up with was the best approach, and I can't disagree there.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

At the risk of taking the thread off topic, really the 'consensual non-consent' rule (even the name of it is silly) dictates that on this site one cannot depict a scene or otherwise make a literary statement that shows rape as a negative experience. Now I'm sure that if the act of rape really were a positive experience all around, then there would be no rule limiting it's depictions in fiction (here or anywhere else), yet literotica's rule dictates that any non-con scene must ... MUST! ... make a literary statement that rape is a positive experience for both the perp AND the victim. So in attempting to curtail non-consent it actually glorifies it! It's completely self-defeating and nothing short of asinine.

So now the writer is faced with the conundrum, to just remove a non-con scene completely or otherwise be forced to write a rape glorifying scene. It's beyond preposterous.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Precisely my point though! Like... Plato's the good guy in that situation? He should be thanking Diogenes for giving him such a hard time, because that kind of robust challenge to shitty rules is what makes the rules better, and heads off another one hundred technically-legal submissions that Plato actually wants to reject at the pass!

IIRC, the end result was that the definition of "man" was changed from "a featherless biped" to "a featherless biped with flat nails".

I'm not convinced that's actually much of an improvement. Yes, it means that chickens are now correctly classified as not-man. But it's still badly flawed - I'm sure anybody here could spot some problems with the updated definition - and it's now longer and more complex. Diogenes could come back every day for a year to poke a new hole in that definition, and Plato could come up with a modification to cover that specific case... and at the end of that year we'd have something unworkably complex that STILL didn't cover every case.

YMMV, but the moral I took from that story was not so much "Plato's definition of 'man' would've been better if he'd considered how to exclude chickens" as "attempting a perfect intensional definition of something as complex as 'man' is folly".

Diogenes was a smart man but he was also a professional dickhead who liked to piss on people for fun. If he was alive today he'd have his own YouTube channel with "contrarian" in the bio. He could afford to play contrarian with definitions until the cows came home, because he didn't actually need a working definition of "man"; he was just there to give Plato grief.

Somebody who's running a website, OTOH, does need a working definition for relevant concepts, even if it's imperfect.

Even the people who don't agree with Plato's preferences should grant the free-standing idea that clearer rules are better than unclear rules. The opposite of that is authoritarianism.

Plato's rule for "what is a man?" was about as clear as any definition could be. It was also a terrible definition, because it counted "chicken" as a man.

And there's the rub: clarity often comes at the expense of other things that are important in a definition. By the time you've finished Diogenes-proofing a definition so that it gives the correct answer to "man or not man?" 99.9% of the time, you have something so long-winded and complex that it's no longer remotely "clear".

So for anybody who's not a professional barrel-dweller and actually needs to use definitions, there is a trade-off between length/clarity, precision, and subjectivity.

It really boils down to this: "there are people out there whose sexual quirks are so fucking gross that I just don't want to provide them with any material, even fictional material, that caters to them."

Don't forget "there are people out there who've gone to jail for publishing fictional material that courts deemed to be 'obscene'."

There's a million sites out there whose line for "it's gross, dun wanna" is so far to the right that all of you would harumph about it. You wouldn't necessarily say that those sites shouldn't be allowed to draw that line, but you certainly wouldn't let them bury you in a mountain of bullshit, trying to convince you it was anything else besides that. You'd certainly needle them in theory, at least, for being unable to construct a clear, coherent, internally-consistent rubric for why the line is where it is.

When people who don't know me attempt to tell me what my response would be to a hypothetical set of circumstances that I haven't discussed with them, that is not a line of conversation that's going to lead to a fruitful discussion.

 

[TheRedChamber]

Precisely my point though! Like... Plato's the good guy in that situation? He should be thanking Diogenes for giving him such a hard time, because that kind of robust challenge to shitty rules is what makes the rules better, and heads off another one hundred technically-legal submissions that Plato actually wants to reject at the pass! Even the people who don't agree with Plato's preferences should grant the free-standing idea that clearer rules are better than unclear rules. The opposite of that is authoritarianism.

The minimal amount of research I just did on the subject doesn't really shed much light on the subject of how Plato responded, except that he seems to admired Diogene's intellect while wishing he wasn't so much of a dick. (Interestingly another poster has also used the word dick about him while I've been writing...must be true). Generally Plato was up for rewriting a definiton once it was shown to be inadequate.

Clear rules aren't always better. The definition of when a fetus becomes a baby is the subject of much debate but 'at the moment of conception' isn't necessary a better definition than any of the more nuanced answers a doctor might give, just because it's clearer. Similarly there's a alt-right documentary going around at the moment called 'What is a Woman?' where the film-maker mocks the answers given by various members of the left/transgender community (when they don't just walk out on him) and compares it the much more simple (and reductive) answer that's traditionally given. Sometimes, things are just complicated. On a less serious note, the Internet loves arguing over definitions - is a hamburger a sandwich? If an open face sandwich is a sandwich, is beans on toast also a sandwich? If you stack two pieces of lasagne on top of each other, do they magically become one or not?

I guess that's the great dividing line. When you begin with the premise that fiction is fiction (conclusion: get the fuck over both it and yourself,) a lot of these rules seem doubly or triply silly and futile.

It really boils down to this: "there are people out there whose sexual quirks are so fucking gross that I just don't want to provide them with any material, even fictional material, that caters to them."

I don't think the rules are silly (well the Consent one is...), they're pretty easy to understand. It's not unreasonable for a website to try to set a tone for itself (even ignoring the legal aspects).

No stories involving children, no stories involving bestiality, no stories with excessive sexual violence.

Different people find different things gross. You either say everything is permitted, but then lose visitors who get sick of clicking on stuff only to find it's really, really off-putting, or you attempt to define a common ground about what people can expect to find here.

Most of this debate is just trying to slap a veneer of high-minded intellectualism and moralizing onto that unarguable stance: "it's gross, dun wanna."

Says the guy who introduced Greek Philophy into the thread....

There's a million sites out there whose line for "it's gross, dun wanna" is so far to the right that all of you would harumph about it. You wouldn't necessarily say that those sites shouldn't be allowed to draw that line, but you certainly wouldn't let them bury you in a mountain of bullshit, trying to convince you it was anything else besides that. You'd certainly needle them in theory, at least, for being unable to construct a clear, coherent, internally-consistent rubric for why the line is where it is.

I don't think so. It's generally not that hard to appreciate that someone has different cultural values from you and understand why things are the way they are. For example, if a Christian (non-erotic) Story website had a 'No sex before marriage' in stories rule, an ordinary person wouldn't be there going 'What about in China, where the marriage is legally registered months before the official ceremony? Can they do it on the bus on the way home from getting the piece of paper','What about if the man has a prosthetic penis, does that count as sex?','What about if they think they've gotten married, but it turns out the priest was actually an escaped convict?' - you'd just go 'Hmm, seems my story isn't a good fit here'

The thing is, Literotica does always line-up completely with my own personal values. As someone who lives in a country where the age of consent is 16, I wouldn't be shocked by a story in which two 17-year-olds got off together. For me, the Incest stuff is more shocking (even thought I've written some light stuff in that catagory myself) but as long as it's adult and consenual I can see why it's been okayed.

 

[Bramblethorn]

At the risk of taking the thread off topic, really the 'consensual non-consent' rule (even the name of it is silly) dictates that on this site one cannot depict a scene or otherwise make a literary statement that shows rape as a negative experience.

This is not an accurate description of the rule, which can be found here: https://www.literotica.com/faq/publishing/publishing-guidelines

To that end, at this time, we do not publish stories featuring the following content:

• ...
• 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.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that this was called "the 'consensual non-consent' rule", but the guidelines don't give it any kind of name; it's just a bullet point. If somebody else called it that, then the silliness is on their part, not the site's.

There is one mention of CNC in those guidelines, but it's part of a separate rule clarifying that noncon, dubcon, and CNC content aren't permitted in celeb/fanfic stories.

Also, it's a huge stretch to interpret "do not publish stories in which the victim receives no thrill or enjoyment" as "cannot show rape as a negative experience". Some people do orgasm while being raped, that doesn't stop it from being an awful experience, and there are plenty of stories here which reflect that. (And also plenty of Stockholm Syndrome fantasies where it ends up being a positive, but the site isn't forcing authors to write that way.)

Now I'm sure that if the act of rape really were a positive experience all around, then there would be no rule limiting it's depictions in fiction (here or anywhere else), yet literotica's rule dictates that any non-con scene must ... MUST! ... make a literary statement that rape is a positive experience for both the perp AND the victim.

This is not at all what it says. If you want to complain about the rule, complain about what it actually is, not this straw man.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

This is not an accurate description of the rule, which can be found here: https://www.literotica.com/faq/publishing/publishing-guidelines

I'm not speaking of the letter of the law, I'm speaking of its actual effect on the writing here.

I'm not sure where you got the idea that this was called "the 'consensual non-consent' rule", but the guidelines don't give it any kind of name; it's just a bullet point. If somebody else called it that, then the silliness is on their part, not the site's.

The entire non-con category is disclaimed as 'consensual non-consent' and there is an entire room in the chat named 'consensual non-consent' to contain the 'kink'. It is not my term, it is the term that literotica itself has chosen to deal with this subject.

Also, it's a huge stretch to interpret "do not publish stories in which the victim receives no thrill or enjoyment" as "cannot show rape as a negative experience". Some people do orgasm while being raped, that doesn't stop it from being an awful experience, and there are plenty of stories here which reflect that. (And also plenty of Stockholm Syndrome fantasies where it ends up being a positive, but the site isn't forcing authors to write that way.)

Not a huge stretch at all. In fact there is scant else that one could interpret it as. Just what is the purpose of such a rule if not to prohibit the portrayal of a negative experience? Again, you can mince words about the letter of the rule, but it's plain to see how it plays out in the end. The rule (or its maker) may not have intended to have this effect, but it is indeed precisely the effect that is created, as it basically interprets as 'rape is not okay, but it is still totally permissible so long as it is candy-coated as some pornographic fairy tale'. It's pure doublespeak.

And your argument that you can write a victim having an 'awful experience' but if she orgasms that makes it all kosher in regards the rule, leads me to believe that you watch too much porn. Furthermore, the only stories on lit that depict non-con in a negative light are the ones that slip past the seemingly terribly inconsistent filter, and nothing to do with the rule itself neither in letter nor spirit, so your argument that the rule itself does not force authors to glorify rape simply doesn't wash. The inconsistent application of the rule may not force this, but the rule itself certainly would 100% if it were applied consistently.

Hey, I get it. The rule is really only there just like any other rule that the site has, to protect its legal ass, and in that sense I do not blame the site owners one bit, but artistically and socially, the rule has the opposite effect of its impetus. The rule is there because non-con is judged to be a very bad thing, so in order to deal with it, we are going to force everyone to pretend that it's actually a good thing, and that strategy itself is both tragically ironic and hopelessly stupid.

 

[TheRedChamber]

This is not an accurate description of the rule, which can be found here: https://www.literotica.com/faq/publishing/publishing-guidelines

This page seems to be the most complete and sensible enumeration of the rules and yet, for some reason, hasn't been listed on this thread till now - possibly making the point that things are laid out for new writers in a confusing fashion. While you can certainly quibble with individual items and individual words, isn't this basically what we're asking for?

 

[neuroparenthetical]

For example, if a Christian (non-erotic) Story website had a 'No sex before marriage' in stories rule, an ordinary person wouldn't be there going 'What about in China, where the marriage is legally registered months before the official ceremony? Can they do it on the bus on the way home from getting the piece of paper','What about if the man has a prosthetic penis, does that count as sex?','What about if they think they've gotten married, but it turns out the priest was actually an escaped convict?' - you'd just go 'Hmm, seems my story isn't a good fit here'

Well, yeah. You're right. The ordinary person is dumb, unimaginative, and inclined towards passively accepting vague and overbroad "common sense" rules right up until those rules actually inconvenience or harm them in some way. Then they act all shocked. Granted readily. Moreover, religion is like the fuckin' Batsignal for "this is tribal, authoritarian bullshit, so move the fuck along if you have even the slightest problem with it." It also over-censors without much hesitation at all, because it almost never values free expression. Religion hates rules lawyers in general, and only tolerates them to the extent that certain prevailing socioeconomic conditions force them to cultivate their own pseudointellectuals to combat the actual intellectuals who ask hard questions.

What if two Catholics get a civil divorce that isn't recognized by their original church, but then one of them jumps over to a Protestant denomination to get married again? What if they get married by a splinter sect of Christianity, but that marriage isn't recognized by the local civil authority? Christians fuckin' love their persecution complexes. Maybe sex after a splinter-sect Christian marriage - but, well, maybe not all of the splinter sects, because some of them are creepy - in a country that refuses to grant the civil marriage would be A-OK! But maybe if it were a Jewish marriage in that same country.... eh. What about just a civil marriage?

And, just like that, you've discovered questions that would spark genuine debate, could absolutely be a part of good-faith attempts to bring value to the community on its own terms (whatever the fuck they actually are,) and should, from a certain moral/ethical/philosophical standpoint, get discussed, decided upon, and clarified.

Funny how I was magically able to come up with some of those. Maybe I'm just not ordinary enough.

I feel like you're doing a lot of my work for me by bringing all of this up.

 

[ElectricBlue]

This page seems to be the most complete and sensible enumeration of the rules and yet, for some reason, hasn't been listed on this thread till now - possibly making the point that things are laid out for new writers in a confusing fashion. While you can certainly quibble with individual items and individual words, isn't this basically what we're asking for?

Noting that the first part of the link given is "faq", I've got to wonder why so many people find it so hard to find these guidelines.

Don't they know what faq means, on a website? What can be less confusing than that? This page isn't hard to find.

 

[KeithD]

I note again that it's not the internet way to actually look for FAQs. The standard is just to wade in--and to complain when what's there doesn't cater to your specific wants and to go immediately to suggest redecoration to your preferences.

 

[TheRedChamber]

Noting that the first part of the link given is "faq", I've got to wonder why so many people find it so hard to find these guidelines.

Don't they know what faq means, on a website? What can be less confusing than that? This page isn't hard to find.

I accepted blindly the premise of this thread, because I do remember some things being confusingly laid out when I first tried to publish a story and I assumed that people wouldn't be arguing about it so much if it was easy. Having seen the link above, I assumed that it would be hidden away somewhere but no.

1. Go to Literatotica.com
2. Click on Stories and Pics
3. Click on F.A.Q's
4. Click on Publishing.
5. It's the first FAQ in the list.

As far as I can see, everything is where it should be.

 

[TheRedChamber]

Well, yeah. You're right. The ordinary person is dumb, unimaginative, and inclined towards passively accepting vague and overbroad "common sense" rules right up until those rules actually inconvenience or harm them in some way. Then they act all shocked. Granted readily. Moreover, religion is like the fuckin' Batsignal for "this is tribal, authoritarian bullshit, so move the fuck along if you have even the slightest problem with it." It also over-censors without much hesitation at all, because it almost never values free expression. Religion hates rules lawyers in general, and only tolerates them to the extent that certain prevailing socioeconomic conditions force them to cultivate their own pseudointellectuals to combat the actual intellectuals who ask hard questions.

What if two Catholics get a civil divorce that isn't recognized by their original church, but then one of them jumps over to a Protestant denomination to get married again? What if they get married by a splinter sect of Christianity, but that marriage isn't recognized by the local civil authority? Christians fuckin' love their persecution complexes. Maybe sex after a splinter-sect Christian marriage - but, well, maybe not all of the splinter sects, because some of them are creepy - in a country that refuses to grant the civil marriage would be A-OK! But maybe if it were a Jewish marriage in that same country.... eh. What about just a civil marriage?

And, just like that, you've discovered questions that would spark genuine debate, could absolutely be a part of good-faith attempts to bring value to the community on its own terms (whatever the fuck they actually are,) and should, from a certain moral/ethical/philosophical standpoint, get discussed, decided upon, and clarified.

Funny how I was magically able to come up with some of those. Maybe I'm just not ordinary enough.

I feel like you're doing a lot of my work for me by bringing all of this up.

I'm not really sure what you're arguing in relation to this site anymore. There are other erotic story websites where the content rules are a lot more relaxed. People are welcome to read and post stories there. A website that was set-up for Christians would probably want to have rules to ensure that the stories posted that reflected Christian values in some way. Inevitably, their forum would be crowded with people arguing over what the rules were and what they should be - one poster would no doubt state that having stories with sex before marriage would be fine as long as the story made it clear that it was wrong, another poster wouldn't want any mention of sex at all, married or otherwise.

You could go onto a Catholic website and claim that your story about how great condoms are was an attempt to spark genuine debate and bring value to the community, but you'd probably be told 'no thanks, we've had that debate and are sick of talking about it. Please see the sticky on the top of the forum'.

The 'ordinary' person would probably agree with a no underage and no bestiality porn on an erotic website and probably wouldn't be overly inconvenienced by it. The issue is people who can see there's a grey area, but still want to live in that grey area rather than the white area. If you're constantly butting your head against the rules, it's probably a sign that the site isn't culturally a good fit for your work.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I accepted blindly the premise of this thread, because I do remember some things being confusingly laid out when I first tried to publish a story and I assumed that people wouldn't be arguing about it so much if it was easy. Having seen the link above, I assumed that it would be hidden away somewhere but no.

1. Go to Literatotica.com
2. Click on Stories and Pics
3. Click on F.A.Q's
4. Click on Publishing.
5. It's the first FAQ in the list.

As far as I can see, everything is where it should be.

Exactly. It makes me wonder how some people get by in real life, to be honest. They must get awfully lost.

It's not like this stuff is hidden in the basement of Lit. I remember finding it in my first days on the site, including the further links to the information compiled by various writers, which remain the foundation for nearly every piece of guidance that turns up on this forum. It's all FAQ 101, so far as I can see. I suspect it's because people are allowed out without their mothers.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I'm not speaking of the letter of the law, I'm speaking of its actual effect on the writing here.

Okay then, if we're not talking about what the rule actually says, by all means let's talk about what actually gets published in NC.

At the time of writing, this is the very latest story on NC: https://www.literotica.com/s/hearts-of-malice-ch-01

On a quick skim, it's a fantasy story where two women are raped by a demon. For a while, the demon mind-controls them, making them enjoy and participate in it, and then one of them manages to kill the demon, after which they're described as "crying tears of relief" and "happy to have made it through this ordeal". The story definitely complies with the "must experience some pleasure" rule, but it would be a gigantic stretch to claim that it portrays rape as a positive experience.

Or for something a bit more sophisticated, and not a long read, here's @RubenR's "I'm Your Valentine" as mentioned earlier in this thread. It's a story about a man who pressures a woman into sex without realising that she doesn't feel free to say no due to the power gap between them: https://www.literotica.com/s/im-your-valentine

I'd argue that this story makes it very clear, not just explicitly but implicitly, that the rape is a negative experience for them both - not just implicitly, but explicitly discussed between them at the end.

As previously acknowledged, you can find plenty of stories that make different choices, where the victim ends up falling in love with their rapist. But the site doesn't force that on writers, as demonstrated by the writers who do choose to portray rape as a bad thing.

The entire non-con category is disclaimed as 'consensual non-consent'

Where are you seeing this?

When I look at the main Stories page, the NC category is subtitled "Fantasies of control". Nowhere on that page does the word "consensual" appear. I genuinely don't know where you're getting this from - is there some other version of the website I'm not seeing?

and there is an entire room in the chat named 'consensual non-consent' to contain the 'kink'. It is not my term, it is the term that literotica itself has chosen to deal with this subject.

Not sure what the name of a chat room has to do with the story content rule that we're discussing here. CNC is a fairly well-known kink, it's no surprise that a bunch of horny people on an erotica site would have a CNC-themed chat room. It doesn't follow that all non-consensual consent on the story side of the site is considered CNC, and indeed many of the stories in NC aren't remotely CNC.

(Also, are you certain that "literotica itself" chose that name? I don't use the chat, but according to the documentation any user can create and name a chat room without needing the site owners to enable it.)

Not a huge stretch at all. In fact there is scant else that one could interpret it as. Just what is the purpose of such a rule if not to prohibit the portrayal of a negative experience? Again, you can mince words about the letter of the rule, but it's plain to see how it plays out in the end. The rule (or its maker) may not have intended to have this effect, but it is indeed precisely the effect that is created, as it basically interprets as 'rape is not okay, but it is still totally permissible so long as it is candy-coated as some pornographic fairy tale'. It's pure doublespeak.

I refer you once again to the examples above. I rarely read in NC, but it's not terribly hard to find stories which represent rape as a negative experience.

And your argument that you can write a victim having an 'awful experience' but if she orgasms that makes it all kosher in regards the rule, leads me to believe that you watch too much porn.

Not sure quite what prompted the gratuitous ad hominem here, and equally unsure how anybody frequenting this site gets to use "you watch too much porn" as an insult, but if you're going to persist in personal sniping I'll be putting you on ignore.

I stated that "some people do orgasm while being raped". This is not a controversial claim; if you google relevant terms you'll find many counselling-type organisations discussing it. For instance, Mount Sinai's Adolescent Health Center says: "Estimates of survivors who orgasmed during their assault range from 4% to over 50%." It goes on to emphasise that this kind of physical response doesn't constitute consent.

I went on to state that something of that kind, in a story, is enough to satisfy the Literotica rule we were discussing. This, again, isn't controversial, and it's not a statement of personal opinion about how things should work - just about how they clearly do.

Furthermore, the only stories on lit that depict non-con in a negative light are the ones that slip past the seemingly terribly inconsistent filter, and nothing to do with the rule itself neither in letter nor spirit, so your argument that the rule itself does not force authors to glorify rape simply doesn't wash. The inconsistent application of the rule may not force this, but the rule itself certainly would 100% if it were applied consistently.

How do you know that these particular stories "slipped past"? Sometimes stuff does get through by accident but unless you've heard from Laurel on those particular stories, I'm not sure how you could possibly be sure that she didn't let these through in full awareness of what they contained.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I accepted blindly the premise of this thread, because I do remember some things being confusingly laid out when I first tried to publish a story and I assumed that people wouldn't be arguing about it so much if it was easy. Having seen the link above, I assumed that it would be hidden away somewhere but no.

1. Go to Literatotica.com
2. Click on Stories and Pics
3. Click on F.A.Q's
4. Click on Publishing.
5. It's the first FAQ in the list.

As far as I can see, everything is where it should be.

The FAQ is fine, as far as it goes, and I think it's quite reasonable to expect new authors to have read that page.

The problem is that over the last twenty years, some of the story rules have changed in ways that aren't reflected in that document. For instance, the site now bans fanfic of Simpsons, Harry Potter, and Disney characters - apparently a blanket ban regardless of whether the specific characters are over 18 in the source material - but that's not documented anywhere that a new author would be likely to find. They get to find out by submitting a story and having it rejected, which isn't an ideal process.

 

[TheRedChamber]

The FAQ is fine, as far as it goes, and I think it's quite reasonable to expect new authors to have read that page.

The problem is that over the last twenty years, some of the story rules have changed in ways that aren't reflected in that document. For instance, the site now bans fanfic of Simpsons, Harry Potter, and Disney characters - apparently a blanket ban regardless of whether the specific characters are over 18 in the source material - but that's not documented anywhere that a new author would be likely to find. They get to find out by submitting a story and having it rejected, which isn't an ideal process.

Fair enough. I'm not particularly interested in fan-fiction and have explored that area of the site less.

I guess the issue is that, if they write the words Disney, HP and the Simpsons directly into the guidelines, you'd have twenty other properties suddenly wanting to be added to that list, and it might make fan fiction almost impossible. But authors should certainly be made aware of it somehow.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

I'm going to basically repeat the rant I recently made in the Enid Blyton thread, which NotWise, whose name suggests he's far too modest, wisely said probably would be wasted because the OP of that thread had dropped his cause.

Before I say this, I'll just say I thoroughly enjoy this Site, and I appreciate how difficult it must be for two people to run it.

Also, my rant has nothing to with what kind of content is regulated. That discussion can be had elsewhere.

My concern is with how opaque the rules are and how difficult it is to find Literotica's content regulations. I don't get it.

Given all the extraordinary amount of discussion and uncertainty and angst this issue causes, seemingly more than any other (except, possibly, anonymous voting and commenting), it seems odd that the Site refuses to address it. Unlike many other possible changes, this one would be extremely easy to do. They're so familiar with the issue after all these years that presumably it would take them less than a few hours to draft a full and complete statement of the content regulation guidelines, put it on the Site, and then clearly link to that location from multiple different places. How hard could that be? It doesn't require significant site redesign or change in the site's functionality. Even a techno-dork like me knows that.

For instance, here are some of the still mind-boggling problems with how this Site deals with this issue:

1. Here's the link to the Frequently Asked Questions: https://www.literotica.com/faq/05235347.shtml.
Nowhere in this list does the question appear: What story content does Literotica prohibit? A new author could read this list and have no clue that there are ANY regulations.

2. Here's a link to the Written Guidelines page. https://www.literotica.com/subguide.shtml. This page also does not contain a complete statement of the content regulations. It refers to the no-bestiality rule, but that's it. It does not contain a clear statement of the no-underage rule, or other rules.

3. Here's the link to the fullest statement to date: https://forum.literotica.com/showthr...hreadid=175666. It's a post in a thread posted in the Editor's Forum, of all places, in 2003, not by Laurel, but by "KillerMuffin." You can navigate to it from the FAQ page IF you click on "My Story Has Been Rejected. What Now?" near the bottom of the page. But that's obviously unhelpful to someone who hasn't submitted a story yet, and, further, it's not linked to on the Guidelines page.

As far as I can tell, you can't find the content regulations directly on the main page, the author's control page, the story submission page, or the stories page. It's not clearly marked in the Author's Hangout forum.

It baffles me that Literotica handles this issue in such an opaque and unhelpful way. It's my biggest complaint with the Site.

So, Simon's recommendations:

1. There should be a standalone page, that is identified as an official statement by the Site, that clearly and fully sets forth all content regulations.

2. That content regulation page should be prominently featured and linked to at multiple pages on the Site, including the Home Page, the FAQ page, the Writer's Guideline Page, the Literotica.com page, and the Stories page, at a minimum. There's no excuse for so much confusion on this issue. Laurel should post a new and clearly marked "sticky" thread to the Author's Hangout entitled something like "Statement of Site Content Regulations" which in turn links back to the complete statement.

3. To the extent Literotica modifies or updates its content regulations, the content statement page should be updated, right away. This can't possibly take much time.

Any other thoughts?

I understand that the ambiguity of the rules here can be frustrating, but as someone who has been the beneficiary of the Lauren's discretion, I value the "generally" applied aspect to the rules. If there was only a "black and white" application of the rules, several of my stories wouldn't have made the cut.

I appreciate that someone takes the time to judge the context, intent, and value of what is written rather than applying hard and fast rule judgements.

 

[SimonDoom]

I understand that the ambiguity of the rules here can be frustrating, but as someone who has been the beneficiary of the Lauren's discretion, I value the "generally" applied aspect to the rules. If there was only a "black and white" application of the rules, several of my stories wouldn't have made the cut.

I appreciate that someone takes the time to judge the context, intent, and value of what is written rather than applying hard and fast rule judgements.

The guidelines should be flexible enough to give them discretion, but that can be taken care of by wording them appropriately. It's not a good reason to keep people guessing all the time. Enormous quantities of author time and writing are wasted because people don't know what the guidelines are because the Site won't put a comprehensive statement of them in one place. I think they said at one point that they are working on doing this, but it's puzzling that it's taken so long.

 

[windar]

(I'm not arguing that the websites rules couldn't be clearer or more easily accessible - just that a perfect set of rules is a tall ask)

I'm not asking for a perfect set of rules; just to gather up the rules and place them all in one place, clearly labelled. I find it really odd that anyone finds that objectionable.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Okay then, if we're not talking about what the rule actually says, by all means let's talk about what actually gets published in NC.

Yes. let's totally ignore my previous statement on the inconsistency of application. Let's just throw that right out the window.

How do you know that these particular stories "slipped past"? Sometimes stuff does get through by accident but unless you've heard from Laurel on those particular stories, I'm not sure how you could possibly be sure that she didn't let these through in full awareness of what they contained.

Just read all the comments ion this forum, even this very thread! Hello?? All kinds of authors concur here a wild inconsistency in application of the rules. Comments like 'this technical mention got rejected but tons of submissions are posted with far worse instances of breaking said rule. And I've read stuff here that clearly violates the letter of the rule yet we see people having to rewrite stuff simply because a character had a backstory of being a teen Mom.

At the time of writing, this is the very latest story on NC: https://www.literotica.com/s/hearts-of-malice-ch-01

On a quick skim, it's a fantasy story where two women are raped by a demon. For a while, the demon mind-controls them, making them enjoy and participate in it, and then one of them manages to kill the demon, after which they're described as "crying tears of relief" and "happy to have made it through this ordeal". The story definitely complies with the "must experience some pleasure" rule, but it would be a gigantic stretch to claim that it portrays rape as a positive experience.

It's the old 'yeah, but she enjoyed it anyway' argument. That may work all right for your porn fairy tale, but when all such stories are mandated to play that angle then the site treats the whole issue as a cheap charicature.

As previously acknowledged, you can find plenty of stories that make different choices, where the victim ends up falling in love with their rapist. But the site doesn't force that on writers, as demonstrated by the writers who do choose to portray rape as a bad thing.

Again, the rule itself does force this, only the inconsistent enforcement permits such scenes.

Not sure quite what prompted the gratuitous ad hominem here, and equally unsure how anybody frequenting this site gets to use "you watch too much porn" as an insult, but if you're going to persist in personal sniping I'll be putting you on ignore.

Fine, then I'll clarify. Anyone who would believe that if a rape victim orgasms that makes the act permissible at least in regards to the rule draws their reality from watching too much porn.

So go ahead and put me on ignore. The collective IQ of the thread will raise.

"Estimates of survivors who orgasmed during their assault range from 4% to over 50%."

50% of women don't orgasm during regular consensual sex! Get real.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Yes. let's totally ignore my previous statement on the inconsistency of application. Let's just throw that right out the window.

I don't think anybody here is arguing against the suggestion that the rules are inconsistently applied. But maybe worth unpacking it a bit. There are at least three things going on there.

One is that Literotica has been around for a long time in internet years, and its rules have changed during that time. For instance, celeb NC content used to be accepted and now it's not, but you might still find some stories from the early days that would no longer be accepted; obviously it's hard to retroactively apply a change like that on a database of hundreds of thousands of stories.

Another is that, for reasons I was discussing above with neuroparenthetical, the rules as published are never going to be a perfect expression of the site owners' preferences. Something that complies with the letter but not the intent of the rules might be rejected even though a literal reading of the rules says it's okay, and it can go the other way around too. That's occasionally confusing to authors, but it seems inevitable if one's to avoid people rules-lawyering things into oblivion.

And the last is that moderation is done by one human (and possibly some automated scripts) skimming stories, and that's a fallible process, especially as the volume of story submissions increases.

That's unfortunate, and maybe there are better ways it could be done, but it's not sinister. It's also far less of a problem than some folk like to make out, because most of the process failures can be addressed either by using the Notes field in submissions to clarify stuff that might lead to a mistaken rejection, or by using the Report Story option to flag stuff that got through and shouldn't have. Many of the people who complain about story rejections haven't even read through their rejection notice to understand what the issue is.

Just read all the comments ion this forum, even this very thread! Hello?? All kinds of authors concur here a wild inconsistency in application of the rules. Comments like 'this technical mention got rejected but tons of submissions are posted with far worse instances of breaking said rule. And I've read stuff here that clearly violates the letter of the rule

If you read stuff that was in violation of the rules, you had the option to report that. I've done so, when I encountered stuff that was clearly in the "slipped past Laurel" category.

yet we see people having to rewrite stuff simply because a character had a backstory of being a teen Mom.

No, people don't "have to" rewrite content of that kind. What actually happens is that some folk dive in without reading the documentation, and then inflict unnecessary rewrites on themselves because they don't know the options for resolving that issue and won't listen to advice from authors here who do.

If one reads the site FAQs - which one ought - one finds this item: "My story was sent back. What now?"

That page advises authors to read the rejection notice and to check this forum post for more details. It also says "If you have further questions, you might try the Literotica Author’s Hangout Forum to get advice. Most longtime Lit Authors have had at least one story sent back."

In the linked forum thread, Laurel says: "Also - if you believe your story was rejected in error, please open the submission, respond to the rejection in the NOTES field of the submission, and hit SUBMIT." (Which is the same advice people keep on giving in AH.)

When authors complain about unfair rejections here, 99.9% of the time they have not gone through that process.

My very first story here includes a teen mother and a 14-year-old side character coming out as lesbian. No rejections, because I read the documentation and learned that I had the option of using the Notes field to clarify any content that might cause issues. Same with subsequent stories where I figured I was inside the lines but wasn't sure.

It's the old 'yeah, but she enjoyed it anyway' argument. That may work all right for your porn fairy tale, but when all such stories are mandated to play that angle then the site treats the whole issue as a cheap charicature.

You're shifting the goalposts here. I'm not arguing that that particular story is a sensitive nuanced literary exploration of the realities of rape. I'm merely contesting your implication that it presents rape as a positive experience. English doesn't usually describe positive experiences as an "ordeal" and one doesn't normally respond to a positive experience by killing the instigator.

Also noting that you haven't acknowledged the other example I offered, "I'm Your Valentine". I'd quibble a little with the ending - I felt the reversal was a bit too pat - but the basic scenario is unfortunately a very realistic one, and the story not only acknowledges it as a negative experience but explicitly discusses why.

Noting further that you've passed on providing support for your claim that "The entire non-con category is disclaimed as 'consensual non-consent'". If you've come around to thinking that this claim was inaccurate, it'd be polite to acknowledge the error; otherwise, it should be easy to provide evidence.

Again, the rule itself does force this, only the inconsistent enforcement permits such scenes.

...and now we're back to talking about the letter of the rule.

I'm happy to discuss either the published rules, or the reality of what gets let through here. But it feels like you're switching between the two as it suits your argument.

"The rule requires stories to treat rape in X way."
"No it doesn't, this is what the rule actually says."
"I'm not speaking of the letter of the law, I'm speaking of its actual effect on the writing here."
"Okay, well if we look at the writing that actually gets posted here, stories still get through that don't treat rape like you say they have to."
"But the rule requires that they do."

Fine, then I'll clarify. Anyone who would believe that if a rape victim orgasms that makes the act permissible at least in regards to the rule draws their reality from watching too much porn.

Still not following. That's a statement about how the rules are interpreted on this site; it's not dependent on my perceptions of off-Literotica reality, and as I've already made clear, it's not even an endorsement of that particular rule. Just saying how things are here.

Between this and the claim that some user creating a chat room titled "Consensual Non-Consent" means that the site views all NC content as CNC, you're trying to join dots that don't bear joining.

So go ahead and put me on ignore. The collective IQ of the thread will raise.

And again with the petty insults. Okey doke then.

(Though the insult doesn't even make sense, since I'm not leaving the thread. Just your bits of it.)

50% of women don't orgasm during regular consensual sex! Get real.

Not sure what a figure about regular consensual sex is meant to prove about non-consensual sex, but if you have an issue with the sources provided in that article, you're welcome to take it up with them. The point I was making there doesn't depend on that high-end estimate.

 

[neuroparenthetical]

Not a single one of my stories has been rejected... yet. Happy coincidence, mostly. One cynical dodge, because I'm actually quite good at sussing out real patterns when they conflict with stated rules. Law school, doncha know. Every regime has its own version of "first, you should try really really hard not to be Black or Hispanic." I could clue you in to some of Lit's analogous quirks - about characters and situations, not writers, so loosen that sphincter - but that'd just be risking spoiling it for even more people whose stories are currently sliding through.

Most of my outrage comes from my work as a VE these past few months. I'm working with real people suffering real stress and frustration from this bullshit. I'm simply appalled by the fact that people in this thread are assembling the pro-censorship-regime version of The Narcissist's Prayer. Bonus points because "you deserved it" gets trotted out much sooner.

The only reason I bothered to come back to this thread is because I received another email literally this morning from a writer who's decided to just give up. I've read his stories. Hell, versions of them - versions he was ashamed of, due to typos and poor grammar - had already been accepted by the site! The newer, better, proofread versions are now being rejected under the Big Gray Area rule, and I'm fucking baffled. I have no idea how to help him. He's hit a brick wall with resubmission.

Adding insult to injury is the fact that the copypasta brick wall explicitly suggests finding a VE to help out. Awesome. Thanks for that, Powers That Be. Now I feel even worse. The system isn't designed in any way, shape, or form to allow a VE to intervene on a writer's behalf! I'd love to write a flowery note to somebody to aver that I reviewed the stories and found no rules violations (of course, what the fuck does that even mean?) There's no way to do that, though.

His stories are "gross" in the very pedestrian way that the Big Gray Area rule doesn't even cover. Like I said, I'm baffled. Set aside his good-faith struggles with a non-native language, and his stories are grim, sobering examinations of poverty, prejudice, pride (yeah yeah sue me, Jane,) and extreme fetishes. They're a glimpse into the life and mind of a deeply conflicted man who's sexually aroused by things that repulse him, and whose bigotry-infused superiority complex is steadily crumbling as he avails himself of a 'poor, dirty foreigner.' Before you ask: no, this character is not the faux-abuser in the central transactional relationship. He's the voluntary faux-victim. These stories have real value beyond their smutty content. Oh well. Go down the Narcissist's Prayer and find a line that makes you feel better about his plight.

It's heartbreaking. It's shocking how little empathy several of you possess for these people - these fellow artists. He's not the only one. Nobody should be surprised. This is how these things always go. Add some Just World Fallacy and Survivorship Bias to your Narcissist's Prayer stew and be warm and happy.

If you want to talk about making Lit's guidelines clearer, trust me, I've got some suggestions. They're based on my real-world experience actually trying to help others.

"So Your Story's Been Rejected

"Step 1: just resubmit it with a note that politely says 'HEY JACKASSES, ACTUALLY READ IT.' This will ensure you only waste more of your time and our time, and not a third party's time. It might work. Seriously!
"Step 2: you should probably ignore the copypasta rule in the rejection notice and wrack your brain for literally anything that might be causing the rejection. Honestly, try adding a note that politely says 'NO, REALLY, NO CHARACTERS ARE UNDER 18." That might do it, even if it wasn't mentioned as a problem, and doesn't seem like a problem to you;
"Step 2b: if you story includes characters under 18, even if literally no sex happens at all, you might be randomly fucked. Sorry. It's not a big deal. Get over it;
"Step 3: similarly to Steps 1 and 2, try adding a note that politely says 'JESUS CHRIST, I MADE SURE THE CHARACTER GETTING RAPED AND/OR ABUSED ACTUALLY ENJOYED IT. HERE'S A QUOTE, WHICH IS IN THE STORY, WHICH YOU COULD HAVE READ;'
"Step 4: when in doubt, tweak your story so that it involves Mind Control, because that whole thing is basically one giant, hilariously-idiotic exception to the Big Gray Area Rule already. Just make sure it's mind control and not brain control, because wtf even is hard materialism;
"Step 5: please be aware that the Volunteer Editors we recommend you contact have absolutely no way to communicate to us that they reviewed your piece and also couldn't find any rule violations. But go ahead and do that. It's probably time to start wasting a third party's time now;
"Step 6: [redacted, because, as I said at the beginning of this post, I don't want to clue anybody in to the fact that I've partially cracked the real code. That almost always results in more censorship as a CYA and ego-protection maneuver.]"

No need to worry about "rules-lawyering" with those. It's just some real talk about how things work - regarding both substance and process.

"First thing we do, let's kill all the lawyers." - a brutish fool, to the demagogue who's enthralled him.

 

[TheRedChamber]

Most of my outrage comes from my work as a VE these past few months. I'm working with real people suffering real stress and frustration from this bullshit. I'm simply appalled by the fact that people in this thread are assembling the pro-censorship-regime version of The Narcissist's Prayer. Bonus points because "you deserved it" gets trotted out much sooner...

The easiest way to answer this is to say I'd be happy and interested to read your friend's story if you are both willing as it might help advance the discussion.

I'm not in favour of Literotica publishing everything that is submitted because there are certainly stories that don't belong on the site. On ther other hand, clearly not everything that is rejected necessarily breaks the rules as currently written. I don't think anyone's denying that.