What happens if you put a monogamous vanilla cis het romance into LW?

[lc69hunter]

I get the impression that the dominant vibe on LW is conservatism. So as long as the loving wife in question isn't too much in control of her own sexuality, I suspect it would be fine.

That said, LW has so many comments from people wanting diametrically opposed things it's inevitably in contradiction with itself the whole time, that you'll get negative ones whatever you write.

Quote of the day

 

[djrip]

I get what he means; as opposed to natural progression of a word from Indo-European to modern English. It's a neologism.

It's as old as cisalpine gaul, the part of gaul on this side of the alps. As opposed to transalpine gaul, also known as France. It's just latin, nothing crazy. Edit: reading further I see bramble already explained this far more thoroughly!

I just don't really get the angst. No one has to describe themselves as cis. You can just say you are male or female, if you don't care about specifying whether you are trans or not. It usually shouldn't matter. But we have this handy word for situations where someone *does* want to specify that they or someone else are not trans.

 

[djrip]

Apparently they don't like kink over in LW, and they don't like cheaters or swingers, and they don't like LGBT... So what happens if you don't do any of that? Just act like you're writing an EC story or something. Had anyone ever tried this?

One of my favorites in LW is silkstockinglover's 12 Days of Sexmas which is just a husband and wife. I guess she pretends to be with her female friend over the phone with him for a brief part but that's about the only nod to extramarital stuff. I think it's fine to do this. Personally I think such a story belongs in LW.

 

[MindYaBitness]

Not from chemistry, from Latin. I feel like I end up explaining this here every few months, but here I go again:

"Cis" and "trans" are Latin prefixes meaning "same side" and "opposite side". For instance, the Romans referred to "Gallia Cisalpina" and "Gallia Transalpina" - i.e. the parts of Gaul that were on the near side of the Alps (relative to Rome), and those that were on the far side of the Alps. Those get Anglicised as "Cisalpine Gaul" and "Transalpine Gaul".

Many modern languages including English use Latin as a kind of auxiliary language for scientific terminology, including "cis" and "trans". Chemistry is a well-known example but you'll also find English using "cis" and "trans" here and there in geography, biology, and astronomy.

A lot of the early 20th-century work on sexology was done in Germany (pre-Nazi era), and in 1914 Dr. Ernst Burchard's Lexikon des gesamten Sexuallebens defined "cisvestitism" as an antonym to "transvestitism" - though no scholar of the era would've needed Burchard to explain that "cis-" meant the opposite of "trans-".

View attachment 2249082

For a large chunk of the 20th century, many folk didn't make much distinction between homosexuality, transvestitism (cross-dressing), and transsexuality/transgenderism - and of course what was published on the topic was more likely to be cis people writing about trans people than vice versa, because universities weren't exactly falling over themselves to grant professorships or psych degrees to trans people.

By the 1990s, things had progressed to the point where that distinction was better understood, and where trans people might occasionally get a say in the discourse without necessarily having their lives wrecked for it, and in 1994 we get our first English-language citation for "cisgender" - which already makes it older than many words that are accepted without drama. But that formation is following two millennia of established linguistic patterns.

People who are willing to describe others as "trans" but go into snowflake meltdown mode when called "cis" are the same brand of ridiculous as somebody who calls others "left-handers" but insists that being called a "right-hander" is HATE SPEECH.



It's more than two thousand years old. How old does a word need to be before it stops being a neologism? How many of the words you just used have been around as long, with so little change in form or meaning?

Is it too much to wish that the self-appointed defenders of the purity of English would take the time to learn the history of their own language?

(It's never actually about a dislike of new words, of course; it's about a dislike of social change, and the idea that only My People, not Your People, get to decide what people are called.)



No, because "cis" is not a synonym for "straight". One means not transgender, the other means not gay/bi.

Yes, cis is a prefix in our language that is now being used in a way that is new to most. I was trying to explain that I understood his objection to it. Seeking mutual understanding is not oppression. If you'll look at my comments, I don't have a problem with the word.

I try to be kind in my speech, I would not use this word to describe someone who objects to it, just as I use they/them for my nonbinary acquaintances.

What I have found interesting is that any discussion of this word devolves quickly. Those who don't like it, don't use it. However, for those who like this description , They defend it with the same patronizing tone that my great grandmother defended using racist language. "It's not racist, it's just a description". This is a forum of words in black and white, So I cannot truly judge your tone, but that is how it came across.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Why use heterosexual for straight people? It's the default, right? Why even call them straight? They shouldn't need a label. It's because it gets confusing when one group is labeled and another isn't when referencing them.

We label and classify characteristics and the default characteristic get labeled too.



It simply refers to your gender identity. If you identify with the gender you were assigned at birth (99% of the population), you are cismale or cisfemale.

If you identify as the opposite gender that you were assigned at birth (based on the genitals when born, because you can't exactly ask a newborn how they identify), you are transmale or transfemale.

It is my impression that the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual" were coined at about the same time more or less, once homosexuality had started to be recognized (whenever that was). I think the same goes for gay and straight. As you yourself said, it was a way to differentiate. There is one important difference though - we weren't previously known or referred to as "sexuals" - there was no sudden change in terms there. On the other hand, we WERE previously known as male and female, man and woman, for people who identify with their birth gender. Some people simply don't want to use different terms now, and I think that is their right. I understand and absolutely think you are free to use the terms "cismale" "ciswoman", "transmale" and "transwoman" and so on, without anyone correcting you. I am just saying that I am also free to use "male" and "transmale" "female" and "transfemale" "man" and "transman" etc. without that being an issue or a sign of transphobia or anything like that.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

No, because "cis" is not a synonym for "straight". One means not transgender, the other means not gay/bi.

Let me tell you a little story. On another site I was engaged in a group roleplay. In that play each player was tasked with filling out a character sheet. Now I once had a gay friend tell me that amongst themselves 'breeder' was a derogatory term for straight people much how the term 'fag' was once heavily used as a common insult. So on this character sheet I filled in my character's orientation as 'breeder' and in the context of my character being rather flippant it fit her personality. Well it did not take long for someone to message me to make sure that I was in my proper place regarding making fun of trans people. Apparently breeder, a derogatory term for straight was somehow potentially insulting to the transgender community (wtf??). So it is totally okay for the gay community to take back 'fag' for themselves but the cisgenders must stick to their proper scientific terms and stay in their place. This shows that although it may not have been intended to marginalize straight people, it actually is being used in certain instances to do just that.

And on top of that, you conveniently ignored my .

 

[Bramblethorn]

It is my impression that the terms "heterosexual" and "homosexual" were coined at about the same time more or less, once homosexuality had started to be recognized (whenever that was).

Seems to have been at exactly the same time. Both first attested in a private letter in 1868 (https://medium.com/@gvgktang/150-ye...oined-in-a-secret-correspondence-1803ff9a79bc) and then in Kraft-Ebbing's Psychopathia Sexualis (1886 German, 1892 English translation).

Much like cis- and trans-, homo- and hetero- are an antonymic pair, so that defining a homo-anything implicitly defines the hetero- version and vice versa.

I think the same goes for gay and straight.

Not so much. Those two words evolved more or less independently, with "gay" = "homosexual" first documented around the 1890s-1920s, and "straight" = "heterosexual" a few decades later in 1941. Those are hard to date exactly, because they're both gradual evolutions from earlier, more general uses - "gay" has been used for sexual immorality since at least the 17th century (originally referring mostly to heterosexual prostitution etc.) and "straight" meaning honest, righteous etc. has also been around for a long time.

As you yourself said, it was a way to differentiate. There is one important difference though - we weren't previously known or referred to as "sexuals" - there was no sudden change in terms there. On the other hand, we WERE previously known as male and female, man and woman, for people who identify with their birth gender.

I'm not sure what era you consider to be "previously", but there's plenty of historical precedent for acknowledging people according to the gender they associate with, whether or not that matches what was assigned to them at birth.

For instance, here's how the AP wrote about Christine Jorgensen in the famously woke year of 1952:



If you're able to consider 1952 a novelty, well, congratulations on your longevity!

Some people simply don't want to use different terms now, and I think that is their right. I understand and absolutely think you are free to use the terms "cismale" "ciswoman", "transmale" and "transwoman" and so on, without anyone correcting you. I am just saying that I am also free to use "male" and "transmale" "female" and "transfemale" "man" and "transman" etc. without that being an issue or a sign of transphobia or anything like that.

You certainly are free to use those words (just as others are free to think what they like about those choices) but it'd be great if you learned a little more about history before making claims about how things used to be.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Yes, cis is a prefix in our language that is now being used in a way that is new to most.

Every single word in our vocabularies was new to us when we first learned it, and we go on learning new words throughout our life: "internet", "web browser", "vaxxed", "cryptocurrency", etc. etc. Somehow, people usually manage to deal with this without making a fuss about it.

When people get huffy about a "new" [to them] word, it's not because they're allergic to neologisms and only very rarely is it because they genuinely don't know how to find out what it means. Almost always it's a way of expressing antipathy to the concept that the word describes, or to the people who use that word.

This is a site dedicated to the written word; anybody who genuinely does experience discomfort on encountering new words once in a while probably ought to go elsewhere.

I was trying to explain that I understood his objection to it. Seeking mutual understanding is not oppression.

If he were genuinely looking for "understanding", he'd have checked a dictionary or asked politely, rather than getting belligerent about it.

I appreciate that your intentions were good here. But by misinforming people about the history of the word, and playing along with the fiction that this is about its novelty, you're giving cover to folk who use feigned disdain for "neologisms" as a way to express their unfeigned disdain for certain groups of people.

I try to be kind in my speech, I would not use this word to describe someone who objects to it, just as I use they/them for my nonbinary acquaintances.

Again, I understand the good intentions behind this, and respecting somebody's preferences on how they want to be described is a good default. (There are exceptions, which I won't get into just now for risk of derailing.)

But in this case, let's remember that the OP was using "cis" to refer to fictional characters, not to any of the real-life AH members who got butthurt about it. So the butthurt here isn't even about the term being applied to them, but rather about its very existence.

Sometimes "I don't want to be called cis" is just a coded way of saying "nobody should have language that puts cis and trans people on an equal footing" and that's not something I'm inclined to coddle.

What I have found interesting is that any discussion of this word devolves quickly. Those who don't like it, don't use it. However, for those who like this description , They defend it with the same patronizing tone that my great grandmother defended using racist language. "It's not racist, it's just a description". This is a forum of words in black and white, So I cannot truly judge your tone, but that is how it came across.

If I came across as being patronising to you, I apologise. That wasn't my intention.

I was grouchy, because this is something that seems to come up every few months here, and it gets tedious responding to misinformation over and over. I appreciate that your intentions were good; I don't think your comments were as helpful as you intended them to be, but most of my grouchiness is directed elsewhere.

If I came across as being patronising to people who pretend they don't know how to look up words, or who make grand claims about the entirety of human history without fact-checking first, that might be intentional.

 

[AWhoopsieDaisy]

What the fuck is "cis"???

It's short for cisgender.

A cis person is anyone who isn't transgender.

Cisgender is to Transgender what Heterosexual is to Homosexual. It's no big deal.

 

[AWhoopsieDaisy]

It's short for cisgender.

A cis person is anyone who isn't transgender.

Cisgender is to Transgender what Heterosexual is to Homosexual. It's no big deal.

In any binary (yes or no) function it's pretty standard for both the presence and absence of whatever is being described to have a word to describe them. It's just really useful to have single words to refer to specific things.

For example people with genetic abnormalities in their primary or secondary sex characteristics are called intersex. But if that's intersex, what do you call someone who isn't intersex? Most people aren't intersex so you could call them normal, but that doesn’t specifically mean "Not intersex". If you went up to a doctor that primarily deals with intersex conditions and had to specify that his next patient isn't intersex "Normal" wouldn't tell him what he needed to know.

So the word perisex is uses to describe anyone who isn't intersex in contexts where defining "normal" is necessary.

The same applies to cisgender. Whether you believe transgender is a valid thing that should exist or not doesn't change the existence and utility of cisgender as a word, on a website where whats in a characters pants is important. Cisgender on Literotica is a very useful shorthand for "this character has exactly the anatomy you'd expect for someone of their gender"

 

[harmonicks]

I don't understand why Loving Wives hasn't been split into at least two different categories. It seems to cause so many issues with both writers and readers and this forum is full of people acknowledging how it's a constant issue. Consensual wife-sharing and swinging is such a diametrically opposed theme to cheating/NTR stories, I feel it would make a huge amount of sense to create a specific genre on Literotica for the latter.

I feel incest is as equally detestable a concept for a lot of people as cheating is (especially if the story doesn't conclude with negative consequences for the cheating party) and yet you don't routinely see people commenting on incest stories with how they gave it one star because they find the entire premise of the story morally unacceptable.

 

[RejectReality]

I don't understand why Loving Wives hasn't been split into at least two different categories. It seems to cause so many issues with both writers and readers and this forum is full of people acknowledging how it's a constant issue. Consensual wife-sharing and swinging is such a diametrically opposed theme to cheating/NTR stories, I feel it would make a huge amount of sense to create a specific genre on Literotica for the latter.

I feel incest is as equally detestable a concept for a lot of people as cheating is (especially if the story doesn't conclude with negative consequences for the cheating party) and yet you don't routinely see people commenting on incest stories with how they gave it one star because they find the entire premise of the story morally unacceptable.

Because even "showing your face" in that category presents a moral quandary for those type of people. No matter how much they protest, those who think like they do are going to look askew at them and wonder.

There's cover in LW because there are stories that are both acceptable and objectionable to them. They can be there and express their moral outrage because there are acceptable stories within the section that they are there to read, so it's natural that they will stumble across the ( often plainly marked and obviously titled, but... ) abominations in pursuit of acceptable literature. They're attempting to "clean up their own neighborhood".

You will see similar things within incest. Some people get outraged by anal, bdsm, rough sex, etc. because it's disrespectful to mom/sis/auntie or whatever. People will get pissed because someone has sex with a person outside the family, because that's a betrayal x2 of a family member who is also a romantic/sexual partner. Again, there's cover because what they don't find objectionable is there, so they can "stumble across" the abominations. Someone can rage about anal in the incest category, but if they do the same thing in the anal category, they can almost hear their fellows going "what were they doing there in the first place?"

So far as splitting it goes, it would be a logistical nightmare for the enormous existing catalog. A large portion of the authors are no longer active, and so could not take care of moving their own stories to new split categories. There is no AI that's going to be able to examine the text and split them either — at least to the satisfaction of the warring camps. Crowd sourcing would face the same issues. Management doesn't have time to handle it, because their dance card is already full.

The only viable option is to make LW as it exists now a legacy category that will no longer accept submissions, but is still fully accessible/searchable, and create the new split categories from scratch. That creates its own issues. Some of those could be solved by the point-n-click editing that is supposed to be implemented eventually, which would allow active authors to quickly and easily move their work to the appropriate new category, but it leaves a lot of issues on the table.

 

[Tomh1966]

I get the impression that the dominant vibe on LW is conservatism. So as long as the loving wife in question isn't too much in control of her own sexuality, I suspect it would be fine.

That said, LW has so many comments from people wanting diametrically opposed things it's inevitably in contradiction with itself the whole time, that you'll get negative ones whatever you write.

You are going to bet beat on in LW. My worst rated story has been favorited more than some of my much higher rated.

Some commenters copy paste the same comment on many stories.

Some will beat the crap out of your story then spend 4 hours telling you why. I READ THOSE (especially those who have the guts to not be anonymous) and I HAVE used some of the comments.