Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
Yes!
The element of sin in erotica
- Thread starter damppanties
- Start date
damppanties
Tinkle, twinkle
- Joined
- May 7, 2002
- Posts
- 16,276
Wow. Aren't you having an extreme reaction to him? I mean, the whole Catholic schoolgirl forbidden sex thing is an accepted trope.
Dyslexicea
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2012
- Posts
- 924
What an odd thought, sex for procreation. I don't think Jessie and I have figured that out yet. We'll just keep practicing, if we figure it out I'll let ya know if we think it's sinful to not do so.
Seriously I don't think of sex as sinful but at times it is fun to be naughty.
As to reading/watching erotica or porn I don't feel sinful at all. As a matter of fact I don't think it's sinful to watch or be watched real life.
Dyslexicea
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2012
- Posts
- 924
Very good point, it's to bad so many writers here haven't figured that out and write stories that are mostly play-by-play.
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
Well, my reaction is based on my lifetime of living in a society that claims the right to call me sinful-- when the word has no meaning to me in the context of sex.
Other people's notions of sin have never made sex "more fun"-- they've made sex more difficult, less happy, less fulfilling.
And the catholic schoolgirl is an accepted fetish trope. Because of a society that is steeped in the belief that sex is sinful. It's common, but so is E.Coli.
damppanties
Tinkle, twinkle
- Joined
- May 7, 2002
- Posts
- 16,276
Well, me too, so I see where you're coming from.
---------
ETA:
Actually, I come from a society where any premarital sex itself, with anyone, anywhere is forbidden. The social mores in India are much more strict than they are here. Here I see people casually referring to their sexual lives with girl/boyfriends whereas back home there was a ruckus about girls going to pubs at night a couple of years ago. In this society, then, sex itself is not a problem unless it's a certain kind of sex. Yes, the moral police has been present in each society throughout the ages, but my point is that the view of general sex in today's Western society is still more open than elsewhere for one, and more open than the past few eras for the other.
Not so with erotica. Just found it an interesting thing to be happening.
Last edited:
Dyslexicea
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Sep 18, 2012
- Posts
- 924
You have a knack for making the complicated seem so simple, at least as it applies to many of us.
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
Thank you for the compliment!You have a knack for making the complicated seem so simple, at least as it applies to many of us.
Only problem is that this skill that I've developed has totally fucked with my ability to write complicated, like fiction needs.
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
There's a guy posting in the fetish forum, Prasa and he reminded me that Western ways are not universal to this world. That my angst over my identity and sexuality is something unthinkable in India, for instance...
I think Ironiclaconic put his finger on that one... And of course, the people who fetishise sin. Which, don't get me wrong, is a perfectly good fetish! It's just that, this guy thinks everyone should share it. Imagine if he felt that way about pantyhose.
damppanties
Tinkle, twinkle
- Joined
- May 7, 2002
- Posts
- 16,276
Okay, Stella. If you insist on bringing pantyhose into this discussion, then let me tell you that I've never worn pantyhose in my life and probably never will. I'm just not the type. Make what you will of that....pantyhose.
Desiremakesmeweak
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2012
- Posts
- 2,060
Okay. Ya got me in here...!
You have angst, Stella O? I don't believe it.
But by god I will fight for your right to have it if you want it!
...The element of sin in erotica. Hmn.
You know guys, there are a lot of things that people commonly believe which are simply not able to be supported by any source facts. The word 'sin' is another one of these things that has far too many presumed 'meanings' to launch casual arguments over its technical definitions. I take it, the OP was likely trying to communicate that a feeling of transgression, or breaking of a taboo, heightened the sexual experience. Although there is also the possibility that a sense of, or the feeling of, going against an assumed-to-be-existing, god, also heightens sexual energies.
Even an avowed atheist materialist can, I presume, understand the idea of overstepping a boundary into the sovereign rights of another human individual - and I would certainly be prepared to narrowly define 'sin' as this overstepping of boundaries. Sex itself contains a blurring of the outwardly normal individual boundaries to the extent that it involves the intimate.
The condition of Man is that Man is not god or not a god, really, but at the same time it alwasy was the high philosophy of the Greeks that Man was at the very least, some kind of demi-god...
And I do believe myself, that it is both the right, and the role, of Man(kind), to challenge any false perception or false dictat of 'god' - that is to say, of any kind of divinity, even just the one that means 'the whole entire universe of matter and of being.'
And I believe therefore this challenging, or defying, or even transgression, is a good thing, even though it can create fears about some sort of kick-back happening. I deliberately missuse the word 'sin' myself, and employ a certain kind of personally attractive, less-negative definition of the word when it comes to sex and erotica. For instance, I like the saying from somewhere about elitist people such as myself, that we will let most others eat with us, and drink with us, but not sin with us.
My own conception of god is a purely Byzantine one - I have gods that are indistinguishable from Eastern divinities, Western ideas of divinity/divinities, and other weird sci-fi ones that no one else apparently has ever heard of...! And they all live in the same mindspace and some of them manifest in life. Would I 'sin' - that is, go against the recommendations of my own gods? No. But I would most certainly do things to other people that would affront some of them, most of them, in many meaningfully challenging ways.
I know that as a human being, I cannot overcome anything and everything simply any time I want - but I nearly can and maybe one day under certain circumstances I will. And that makes me a demi-god - to myself at least. And so I choose to have the right to challenge even god, if I simply must, and have my liver pecked at by an eagle all day long if that is unavoidable. And even god marvels at this defiance. I will fuck a god if I am attracted to do it, and accept the consequences.
But there's the point: 'if I'm attracted to do it.' The necessity of Venus, who is the oldest god, insists her way upon me. The more and more closely I come to the mindset of this Venus ideology, the finer and finer adn more precise my own idea of what is attractive becomes.
And sin, real sin, is the distance away from the highest point of connection with the Venusian ideal.
As one great Roman Catholic once said, the murderer who invited his unsuspecting neighbours in for pie made from the cut up humans he had killed, is the part that the newspapers insist on NOT telling you about, when it comes to real evil people that are glamorised as having been in the 'Satanic' ritual world.
I don't find that kind of thing remotely attractive, not even from the horror fiction/story perspective, and it is the type of thing I would describe as true distancing from the divine. The word 'sin' itself is used incorrectly to depict ecclesiastical ideas ONLY, about morality and evil. Ecclesiastical ideas are regularly no better or worse than anyone else's.
There is evil. True evil in a sexual incident or encounter is not attractive to me.
'Sinning' against common or popular ideas of morality, is something I support 100%, however. And I find that it can be, a highly erotically-charged idea.
There is nothing I would like more than to affront the moral and outward sexual sensitivities of, particularly European-tradition christians, for instance - and this appears to come in the guise of 'sin.' But the last thing I would do it for would be to actually hurt or harm someone.
And within that limitation there are vast opportunities for extreme erotica. And in my view, the best erotica too.
You have angst, Stella O? I don't believe it.
But by god I will fight for your right to have it if you want it!
...The element of sin in erotica. Hmn.
You know guys, there are a lot of things that people commonly believe which are simply not able to be supported by any source facts. The word 'sin' is another one of these things that has far too many presumed 'meanings' to launch casual arguments over its technical definitions. I take it, the OP was likely trying to communicate that a feeling of transgression, or breaking of a taboo, heightened the sexual experience. Although there is also the possibility that a sense of, or the feeling of, going against an assumed-to-be-existing, god, also heightens sexual energies.
Even an avowed atheist materialist can, I presume, understand the idea of overstepping a boundary into the sovereign rights of another human individual - and I would certainly be prepared to narrowly define 'sin' as this overstepping of boundaries. Sex itself contains a blurring of the outwardly normal individual boundaries to the extent that it involves the intimate.
The condition of Man is that Man is not god or not a god, really, but at the same time it alwasy was the high philosophy of the Greeks that Man was at the very least, some kind of demi-god...
And I do believe myself, that it is both the right, and the role, of Man(kind), to challenge any false perception or false dictat of 'god' - that is to say, of any kind of divinity, even just the one that means 'the whole entire universe of matter and of being.'
And I believe therefore this challenging, or defying, or even transgression, is a good thing, even though it can create fears about some sort of kick-back happening. I deliberately missuse the word 'sin' myself, and employ a certain kind of personally attractive, less-negative definition of the word when it comes to sex and erotica. For instance, I like the saying from somewhere about elitist people such as myself, that we will let most others eat with us, and drink with us, but not sin with us.
My own conception of god is a purely Byzantine one - I have gods that are indistinguishable from Eastern divinities, Western ideas of divinity/divinities, and other weird sci-fi ones that no one else apparently has ever heard of...! And they all live in the same mindspace and some of them manifest in life. Would I 'sin' - that is, go against the recommendations of my own gods? No. But I would most certainly do things to other people that would affront some of them, most of them, in many meaningfully challenging ways.
I know that as a human being, I cannot overcome anything and everything simply any time I want - but I nearly can and maybe one day under certain circumstances I will. And that makes me a demi-god - to myself at least. And so I choose to have the right to challenge even god, if I simply must, and have my liver pecked at by an eagle all day long if that is unavoidable. And even god marvels at this defiance. I will fuck a god if I am attracted to do it, and accept the consequences.
But there's the point: 'if I'm attracted to do it.' The necessity of Venus, who is the oldest god, insists her way upon me. The more and more closely I come to the mindset of this Venus ideology, the finer and finer adn more precise my own idea of what is attractive becomes.
And sin, real sin, is the distance away from the highest point of connection with the Venusian ideal.
As one great Roman Catholic once said, the murderer who invited his unsuspecting neighbours in for pie made from the cut up humans he had killed, is the part that the newspapers insist on NOT telling you about, when it comes to real evil people that are glamorised as having been in the 'Satanic' ritual world.
I don't find that kind of thing remotely attractive, not even from the horror fiction/story perspective, and it is the type of thing I would describe as true distancing from the divine. The word 'sin' itself is used incorrectly to depict ecclesiastical ideas ONLY, about morality and evil. Ecclesiastical ideas are regularly no better or worse than anyone else's.
There is evil. True evil in a sexual incident or encounter is not attractive to me.
'Sinning' against common or popular ideas of morality, is something I support 100%, however. And I find that it can be, a highly erotically-charged idea.
There is nothing I would like more than to affront the moral and outward sexual sensitivities of, particularly European-tradition christians, for instance - and this appears to come in the guise of 'sin.' But the last thing I would do it for would be to actually hurt or harm someone.
And within that limitation there are vast opportunities for extreme erotica. And in my view, the best erotica too.
damppanties
Tinkle, twinkle
- Joined
- May 7, 2002
- Posts
- 16,276
If by OP you mean me, then no, I wasn't. I hadn't moved to that point yet until Stella dragged me to it. I was stuck more on the aspect of sex is bad mentality that exists in society and how it has and is changing (also wondering about its relationship to erotica is bad and how that's not changing), than thinking about whether the sex as sin issue is good or bad or the effect it has. But if you mean the original poster from The Guardian, then feel free to understand what you will as he isn't here to tell us what he meant.
The rest of your comment is interesting reading, to say the least. Particularly, "The word 'sin' is another one of these things that has far too many presumed 'meanings' to launch casual arguments over its technical definitions." I was about to launch into a post about Ironiclaconic's understanding of conflict, arguing that in most cases it's simply another word for sin. Or that forbidden might be a better word, but then... well, it's all semantics.
Ironiclaconic
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2011
- Posts
- 346
If by OP you mean me, then no, I wasn't. I hadn't moved to that point yet until Stella dragged me to it. I was stuck more on the aspect of sex is bad mentality that exists in society and how it has and is changing (also wondering about its relationship to erotica is bad and how that's not changing), than thinking about whether the sex as sin issue is good or bad or the effect it has. But if you mean the original poster from The Guardian, then feel free to understand what you will as he isn't here to tell us what he meant.
The rest of your comment is interesting reading, to say the least. Particularly, "The word 'sin' is another one of these things that has far too many presumed 'meanings' to launch casual arguments over its technical definitions." I was about to launch into a post about Ironiclaconic's understanding of conflict, arguing that in most cases it's simply another word for sin. Or that forbidden might be a better word, but then... well, it's all semantics.
I don't think so. We can certainly quibble over whether being a submissive is a sin in a post-feminist world, but many conflicts in erotica have nothing to do with sin, unless you believe sex itself is sinful.
Example: One of the top stories in First Time is "Nothing Between Us", where the conflict is internal, over whether they can overcome the friend zone. I did something similar with a recent story: "Words With Friends With Benefits". Sin simply isn't part of the conflict.
My most popular story, in terms of reads and votes, is "Compromised", wherein a woman is hyponitized into getting aroused when her husband does housework. No sin, just a twist on commonplace marital conflict.
A lot of erotica has conflict involving identity, sexual orientation, or personality conflicts ("taming the bitch" stories don't always involve blackmail or rape).
damppanties
Tinkle, twinkle
- Joined
- May 7, 2002
- Posts
- 16,276
Yes, I understand that. Yes, conflict can be so much more. I'm not saying sin is equal to conflict, but that a lot of conflict in erotica is related to issues of sin. Your examples of top categories here (in your earlier post: incest, nonconsent, and loving wives) are all 'sinful.' Well, in the case of noncon, more illegal than sinful I suppose.
3113
Hello Summer!
- Joined
- Nov 1, 2005
- Posts
- 13,823
You can judge the sexual sin of a culture from brothel pictures
The judgement about Roman erotica lacking sin comes from erotica found in pictures in Pompeii and Herculaneum, the brothels to be precise. Exactly HOW is a brothel suppose to show the sexual modesty and morals of Roman society at large, and what most Romans might or might not have felt was sinful? The job of brothel pictures is to (1) advertise what they're selling (these girls, these positions at this price), and (2) to get men all horny and wanting to have that sex.
So, once again, I say, these people are drawing a false conclusion from the wrong sort of evidence. I present to you the following image from Victorian England--which you point out was full of sexual shame and sin--which might have been seen in a brothel. If we knew absolutely nothing about the Victorians, would you see sexual sin in this? If so, where and how?
But once again, this is a problem. Consider that people look at those Kama Sutra images in temples--AND YET most Hindus are ultra-super modest and have been for a long time. Parents arrange marriages and the two youngsters don't touch till the wedding and the girl, at least, is going to be a virgin. Kissing i public is considered vulgar, even scandalous. Would you think that from the images you saw on those temples? Hardly.
The judgement about Roman erotica lacking sin comes from erotica found in pictures in Pompeii and Herculaneum, the brothels to be precise. Exactly HOW is a brothel suppose to show the sexual modesty and morals of Roman society at large, and what most Romans might or might not have felt was sinful? The job of brothel pictures is to (1) advertise what they're selling (these girls, these positions at this price), and (2) to get men all horny and wanting to have that sex.
So, once again, I say, these people are drawing a false conclusion from the wrong sort of evidence. I present to you the following image from Victorian England--which you point out was full of sexual shame and sin--which might have been seen in a brothel. If we knew absolutely nothing about the Victorians, would you see sexual sin in this? If so, where and how?
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
Is immorality the same as sin, I wonder?Yes, I understand that. Yes, conflict can be so much more. I'm not saying sin is equal to conflict, but that a lot of conflict in erotica is related to issues of sin. Your examples of top categories here (in your earlier post: incest, nonconsent, and loving wives) are all 'sinful.' Well, in the case of noncon, more illegal than sinful I suppose.
slyc_willie
Captain Crash
- Joined
- Sep 4, 2006
- Posts
- 17,732
Wouldn't immorality just be a lack of belief in sin? Or, I suppose, that would be amorality. Immorality might be thought of as taking delight in sin. Maybe.
damppanties
Tinkle, twinkle
- Joined
- May 7, 2002
- Posts
- 16,276
I feel sin comes more out of a religious mindset and immorality is more secular.
damppanties
Tinkle, twinkle
- Joined
- May 7, 2002
- Posts
- 16,276
In the Indian example we're talking about - the images don't come from brothels and the fact that society's mindset about sexuality has changed is proving the author's argument. At one point, sexuality was commonplace and perhaps even venerated to a place on temples as carvings but now it isn't.But once again, this is a problem. Consider that people look at those Kama Sutra images in temples--AND YET most Hindus are ultra-super modest and have been for a long time. Parents arrange marriages and the two youngsters don't touch till the wedding and the girl, at least, is going to be a virgin. Kissing i public is considered vulgar, even scandalous. Would you think that from the images you saw on those temples? Hardly.
The judgement about Roman erotica lacking sin comes from erotica found in pictures in Pompeii and Herculaneum, the brothels to be precise. Exactly HOW is a brothel suppose to show the sexual modesty and morals of Roman society at large, and what most Romans might or might not have felt was sinful? The job of brothel pictures is to (1) advertise what they're selling (these girls, these positions at this price), and (2) to get men all horny and wanting to have that sex.
So, once again, I say, these people are drawing a false conclusion from the wrong sort of evidence. I present to you the following image from Victorian England--which you point out was full of sexual shame and sin--which might have been seen in a brothel. If we knew absolutely nothing about the Victorians, would you see sexual sin in this? If so, where and how?
Not all the images and sculptures come from brothels in Pompeii according to that article. Para 1 references villas and brothels. A paragraph later on says "The statue of Pan making love to a goat in the British Museum show comes from a respectable garden." Greek plays are interestingly open about sex (I about blushed my head off while discussing an Aristophanes play in class a couple of years ago). These are things from writers that are popular during the time, not something that was written or made for certain sections of society or brothels.
Desiremakesmeweak
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2012
- Posts
- 2,060
This remains such an interesting thread... I don't see myself as substantially in disagreement with anyone particularly, who commented thus far - a lot of the views extend rather than truncate aspects of the discussion.
I re-read the opening posts and indeed I'm sure now I went too far in assuming the OP originally intended the line that I pushed. Apart from the additional very valid ideas about conflict moving stories forward in typical fiction, there seems to me to be somewhat of a consensus about sin as a regular dynamic within erotica. And that leads us back to the OP's direct question, basically, about whether modern society still sees sex as 'bad,' in some way.
There is a difference between the linguistic meaning of 'sin' and the way it is sometimes used. 'Sin' is not a Roman/Latin or Greek word but a sort of a Germanic/Norse, even Scandinavian sourced word. It simply means 'the one who did the thing of which they were accused.' The word 'guilt' now, takes us closer to this whole bourgeois or conventional religiousity perspective.
Oh yes. Definitely no one anywhere in the developed and developing world has shifted their position about sex and guilt. Anywhere there is a middle class there is this stupid sex/guilt/sin thing.
So let me, as the American lawyers say, parse it from the absolutist (also, my) point of view: I have extremely explosive sensationally and sensually-satisfying sex with a very good-looking stranger - does this mean I did something against the word of god? No. Against the desire of that person? Initially, maybe, who knows! Against the religious codes of a genuine god-acquainted body? No. Against the code of a conventional religious body? Yes. Against the code of the middle class mindset? Yes.
I am the one, who, being accused of having had sensational sex et cetera, actually did it. so thus I am also guilty as in, 'guilty as charged.'
Is my act absolutely bad?
No. What is going on is that the middle classes, being extremely covetous and self-important, hate that I did what I did because they covet it themselves, but are usually quite unable to achieve it themselves. They are hypocrites. And this is the meaning of The (Jesus) Christian teaching about 'whomsoever is without sin, may cast the first stone.' Meaning - don't be a fuckin' hypocrite (I just thought I might extemporise there on behalf of Jesus Christ and put a few words in his mouth... Others seem to be able to do it with remarkable sanguinity.)
Is my act bad? It is bad dependent on who is my judge...
Does the Christian god judge me? No: 'since there is no one here to judge you, neither shall I judge you.' (After he told off the hypocrites; 'sinning woman at the well about to be stoned' scene.)
Does a middle class organised ecclesiastical body judge me? It might do if I let it.
Does a middle class mindset judge me? Oh absolutely it would do!
Sex is a thing subject to the envy and covetousness of others. And in that, there is a charge of sin and guilt always on offer from them. But it is a spurious sort of charge.
There isn't really any text about any god anywhere saying anything about 'sex is absolutely bad,' or 'sex before marriage is a bad thing.' Au contraire, in fact - 1. it appears to have been the case that Jesus' parents had some question as to their own married status, and 2. 'they marry not nor are they given in marriage,' (his own words, they say). However covetousness is potentially very bad. And that, there IS text regarding. And it is to do with using power to subvert the will of someone weaker, and to suppress their partner, in order to have your way with the one you seek to have sex with. And it is very specifically put in those complete terms. Some Torah scholar may be able to tell us precisely.
And so to me, the element of sin in erotica, is something that I throw in the faces of the bourgeois.
Oh I am guilty of sin everyday, in the mindset of the bourgeois hypocritical facade religious peoples of the world. No doubt about it.
Wherever you have these types of middle class mentalities, you will have sex ethics hypocrisy. And I certainly do think, that in today's world, it's as bad as it ever was, and quite possible WORSE THAN!
I re-read the opening posts and indeed I'm sure now I went too far in assuming the OP originally intended the line that I pushed. Apart from the additional very valid ideas about conflict moving stories forward in typical fiction, there seems to me to be somewhat of a consensus about sin as a regular dynamic within erotica. And that leads us back to the OP's direct question, basically, about whether modern society still sees sex as 'bad,' in some way.
There is a difference between the linguistic meaning of 'sin' and the way it is sometimes used. 'Sin' is not a Roman/Latin or Greek word but a sort of a Germanic/Norse, even Scandinavian sourced word. It simply means 'the one who did the thing of which they were accused.' The word 'guilt' now, takes us closer to this whole bourgeois or conventional religiousity perspective.
Oh yes. Definitely no one anywhere in the developed and developing world has shifted their position about sex and guilt. Anywhere there is a middle class there is this stupid sex/guilt/sin thing.
So let me, as the American lawyers say, parse it from the absolutist (also, my) point of view: I have extremely explosive sensationally and sensually-satisfying sex with a very good-looking stranger - does this mean I did something against the word of god? No. Against the desire of that person? Initially, maybe, who knows! Against the religious codes of a genuine god-acquainted body? No. Against the code of a conventional religious body? Yes. Against the code of the middle class mindset? Yes.
I am the one, who, being accused of having had sensational sex et cetera, actually did it. so thus I am also guilty as in, 'guilty as charged.'
Is my act absolutely bad?
No. What is going on is that the middle classes, being extremely covetous and self-important, hate that I did what I did because they covet it themselves, but are usually quite unable to achieve it themselves. They are hypocrites. And this is the meaning of The (Jesus) Christian teaching about 'whomsoever is without sin, may cast the first stone.' Meaning - don't be a fuckin' hypocrite (I just thought I might extemporise there on behalf of Jesus Christ and put a few words in his mouth... Others seem to be able to do it with remarkable sanguinity.)
Is my act bad? It is bad dependent on who is my judge...
Does the Christian god judge me? No: 'since there is no one here to judge you, neither shall I judge you.' (After he told off the hypocrites; 'sinning woman at the well about to be stoned' scene.)
Does a middle class organised ecclesiastical body judge me? It might do if I let it.
Does a middle class mindset judge me? Oh absolutely it would do!
Sex is a thing subject to the envy and covetousness of others. And in that, there is a charge of sin and guilt always on offer from them. But it is a spurious sort of charge.
There isn't really any text about any god anywhere saying anything about 'sex is absolutely bad,' or 'sex before marriage is a bad thing.' Au contraire, in fact - 1. it appears to have been the case that Jesus' parents had some question as to their own married status, and 2. 'they marry not nor are they given in marriage,' (his own words, they say). However covetousness is potentially very bad. And that, there IS text regarding. And it is to do with using power to subvert the will of someone weaker, and to suppress their partner, in order to have your way with the one you seek to have sex with. And it is very specifically put in those complete terms. Some Torah scholar may be able to tell us precisely.
And so to me, the element of sin in erotica, is something that I throw in the faces of the bourgeois.
Oh I am guilty of sin everyday, in the mindset of the bourgeois hypocritical facade religious peoples of the world. No doubt about it.
Wherever you have these types of middle class mentalities, you will have sex ethics hypocrisy. And I certainly do think, that in today's world, it's as bad as it ever was, and quite possible WORSE THAN!
Stella_Omega
No Gentleman
- Joined
- Jul 14, 2005
- Posts
- 39,700
OMG. The combination of "explosive" as part of "fantastic sex with a strange woman" and "initially against her will maybe who knows" Is painting a picture in my mind-- not of sex, but of rape.
Please say it ain't so.
Please say it ain't so.
Ironiclaconic
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- Oct 9, 2011
- Posts
- 346
Yeah, a common sin-based conflict in erotica is a woman embracing her "inner slut", and engaging in some form of anonymous sex. Even if the reader doesn't think she is doing anything wrong, it's often a source of internal conflict when the story is told from her point of view.
I do think perceptions of sin drive a lot of erotic stories. I expect interracial to die as a theme as people get over their race hang-ups (imagine 19th century erotica about the scandalous emotions of a Brit sleeping with an Irishman). Maybe the same with themes of slut-shame. Maybe new sins will take their place - the fetishization of slavery in erotica is pretty recent, mostly in tune with the change in societal attitudes toward slavery in the 19th century (Venus in Furs was 1870), and I have always suspected the popularity of BDSM in the late 20th century was partially a reaction to the increased socio-economic power of women, but that's harder to prove.
I do think perceptions of sin drive a lot of erotic stories. I expect interracial to die as a theme as people get over their race hang-ups (imagine 19th century erotica about the scandalous emotions of a Brit sleeping with an Irishman). Maybe the same with themes of slut-shame. Maybe new sins will take their place - the fetishization of slavery in erotica is pretty recent, mostly in tune with the change in societal attitudes toward slavery in the 19th century (Venus in Furs was 1870), and I have always suspected the popularity of BDSM in the late 20th century was partially a reaction to the increased socio-economic power of women, but that's harder to prove.
Desiremakesmeweak
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 7, 2012
- Posts
- 2,060
I use too many words I know, and I should shut up more, but... did I say rape was okay...? Well that is a challenge I simply must have an answer for!
Looks like I said it, didn't I?
Rape overturns any idea of total fairness and equivalency of rights and powers and I don't think I can find any ways to defend such things.
Sex against another person's will - I suppose that DOES constitute rape. And there may be consequences for such actions.
A person will be guilty of acting against that person's will and against the general rules of a particular society - they will have transgressed against the will of an individual and against the desires of a group of people. And in that sense they will have 'sinned.'
However my final word (as in my own belief) on it is that it IS in the nature of things that not all things are always and in every situation 'naturally equivalent' or fair, and that sex against the will of another is not necessarily a 'sin' against any divine code that can be seen or that is spelled out in Nature...
But that is my own view which I do not expect others to approve of or agree with.
The reason I hold the view is that personally, were I to suddenly stumble upon er, um, let's see - Gemma Arterton in a dark alleyway on a lonely night in Essex - and by some element of chance found her wearing a remarkably erotic costume and I had on a domino mask and a condom in my pocket, I MIGHT, conduct a serious and aggravated assault leading to full and complete penetrative sex that was fairly one-sided (although I'm not sure I would be interested in inflicting much more than pushing and shoving levels of pain and irritation). And I would very seriously doubt that afterward I would feel in the slightest guilty of a sin under the purvue of any kind of god that I know.
I might regret being caught by the law of course. If... ...I were caught.
And if I really knew of a genuine encryption software I would leave her with an address through which she could complain long and hard to me or hurl verbal abuse too, if so desired. Though little good it would do to change my outlook, I suspect, although I am open to pursuation.
Looks like I said it, didn't I?
Rape overturns any idea of total fairness and equivalency of rights and powers and I don't think I can find any ways to defend such things.
Sex against another person's will - I suppose that DOES constitute rape. And there may be consequences for such actions.
A person will be guilty of acting against that person's will and against the general rules of a particular society - they will have transgressed against the will of an individual and against the desires of a group of people. And in that sense they will have 'sinned.'
However my final word (as in my own belief) on it is that it IS in the nature of things that not all things are always and in every situation 'naturally equivalent' or fair, and that sex against the will of another is not necessarily a 'sin' against any divine code that can be seen or that is spelled out in Nature...
But that is my own view which I do not expect others to approve of or agree with.
The reason I hold the view is that personally, were I to suddenly stumble upon er, um, let's see - Gemma Arterton in a dark alleyway on a lonely night in Essex - and by some element of chance found her wearing a remarkably erotic costume and I had on a domino mask and a condom in my pocket, I MIGHT, conduct a serious and aggravated assault leading to full and complete penetrative sex that was fairly one-sided (although I'm not sure I would be interested in inflicting much more than pushing and shoving levels of pain and irritation). And I would very seriously doubt that afterward I would feel in the slightest guilty of a sin under the purvue of any kind of god that I know.
I might regret being caught by the law of course. If... ...I were caught.
And if I really knew of a genuine encryption software I would leave her with an address through which she could complain long and hard to me or hurl verbal abuse too, if so desired. Though little good it would do to change my outlook, I suspect, although I am open to pursuation.
