what's the stupidest comment you've ever received on a story?

8letters said:

The definitions of positive consent I had read before the article was positive approval for every step every time. I couldn't find anything that described how that would work in real-life (i.e. on a date with someone you've been dating and have been sexually active for a while).


Again, that's not positive consent as I've seen it defined and something like "if you kiss me, I'm going to drag you off to bed" can easily turn disastrous.

I ended up making up how positive consent could work. Here's how Todd (the brother) described positive consent to Ashlynne (the sister):

Click to expand...

The problem I have with this is that I can understand the role of positive consent in theory, sort of, but I don't see how it's applied in practice. The reality of sex is that it often doesn't happen this way. Two people meet at a party, they have some drinks, they hook up back at someone's place, and sex happens. Later, memories are fuzzy about who gave what consent to whom. I think the reality is that sex happens this way all the time and that in the great majorities of cases the participants believe at the time that it is consensual sex. So does the rule put the male at jeopardy of a rape charge? It would be a travesty if it did.

It's fine to advise young men that they need to take the role of consent more seriously and understand the risks of not doing so. But to impose a rule that potentially subjects one to a rape charge for behavior that was in fact at the time understood to be consensual and not a crime, if that's what this rule does, seems wrong to me. The defendant should never bear the burden of proof against any crime of having to disprove an element of the crime -- we should never presume that sex was nonconsensual because it happened and then put the burden on the man to prove there was consent. The presumption must be that one is innocent until the charging party proves all the elements of the crime -- including that the sex was nonconsensual.

The other problematic thing about it is that "positive consent" assumes that the man is always the aggressor and that the woman acts as a kind of gatekeeper, and for the man to get through each successive gate lawfully he's got to give the right password. But in fact sex often is something that just happens between two people -- what does it mean to require consent in such cases? Who is to give consent to whom? A rule that treats the man and woman as necessarily standing in very different positions every time sex happens is a regressive rule, in some ways, in its assumptions about men and women and their roles. That doesn't strike me as a good thing.

As long as positive consent doesn't mean that express verbal consent is required (because consent can, and is in the real world, given in many ways), as long as it isn't inflexible in its assumptions about men and women, and as long as it doesn't put the burden of proof on the man, then it seems reasonable to me, but I'm just not sure that's how it works in practice.

SimonDoom said:

The problem I have with this is that I can understand the role of positive consent in theory, sort of, but I don't see how it's applied in practice. The reality of sex is that it often doesn't happen this way. Two people meet at a party, they have some drinks, they hook up back at someone's place, and sex happens. Later, memories are fuzzy about who gave what consent to whom. I think the reality is that sex happens this way all the time and that in the great majorities of cases the participants believe at the time that it is consensual sex. So does the rule put the male at jeopardy of a rape charge? It would be a travesty if it did.

It's fine to advise young men that they need to take the role of consent more seriously and understand the risks of not doing so. But to impose a rule that potentially subjects one to a rape charge for behavior that was in fact at the time understood to be consensual and not a crime, if that's what this rule does, seems wrong to me. The defendant should never bear the burden of proof against any crime of having to disprove an element of the crime -- we should never presume that sex was nonconsensual because it happened and then put the burden on the man to prove there was consent. The presumption must be that one is innocent until the charging party proves all the elements of the crime -- including that the sex was nonconsensual.

The other problematic thing about it is that "positive consent" assumes that the man is always the aggressor and that the woman acts as a kind of gatekeeper, and for the man to get through each successive gate lawfully he's got to give the right password. But in fact sex often is something that just happens between two people -- what does it mean to require consent in such cases? Who is to give consent to whom? A rule that treats the man and woman as necessarily standing in very different positions every time sex happens is a regressive rule, in some ways, in its assumptions about men and women and their roles. That doesn't strike me as a good thing.

As long as positive consent doesn't mean that express verbal consent is required (because consent can, and is in the real world, given in many ways), as long as it isn't inflexible in its assumptions about men and women, and as long as it doesn't put the burden of proof on the man, then it seems reasonable to me, but I'm just not sure that's how it works in practice.

Click to expand...

Hey Simon, weighing in here - there are a few troubling statements here.

The first is that 'positive consent' is something only men should ask for. It's being taught to men, as they have a tendency to overpower and coerce women, more often than women do in reverse, but everyone should be gaining enthusiastic consent. This is not solely the man's responsibility.

It also troubles me that you're more concerned about a man being held up on a rape charge, than a woman being coerced or forced into sex while essentially stupified. We know this happens on a regular basis, far more often and with more far-reaching consequences than 'false rape charges'.

As a male, it's easy enough to say to yourself, is this person capable of giving consent? I've not been so drunk I couldn't do that. If I was that drunk, I wouldn't be able to fuck in the first place. There's nothing wrong with impressing on everyone that they need to take responsibility for their actions, and curb their own alcohol consumption, rather than putting that responsibility onto their partner. And again, I'm talking about both parties. And it shouldn't be out of fear of a rape charge - it should be out of concern that the other person can't consent.

We need to shift the focus away from fear of penalties, to fear of doing damage. Be sober more often. Only fuck sober. It's really not that difficult to do.

You're right, that nine times out of ten, two people have sex, it's all consensual, it's not an issue. But it can never hurt to impress on yourself the idea that you should gain positive consent before touching or having sex with someone else. We can change this culture, but we do need to take responsibility for our own actions first.

What's the worst that could happen? You try for consent, she or he can't give it, and you don't fuck. I'd far rather that were the consequence of a hard night out, than waking up in the morning wondering if I forced someone, or feeling coerced into something I didn't want to do.

JasonClearwater said:

Hey Simon, weighing in here - there are a few troubling statements here.

The first is that 'positive consent' is something only men should ask for. It's being taught to men, as they have a tendency to overpower and coerce women, more often than women do in reverse, but everyone should be gaining enthusiastic consent. This is not solely the man's responsibility.

It also troubles me that you're more concerned about a man being held up on a rape charge, than a woman being coerced or forced into sex while essentially stupified. We know this happens on a regular basis, far more often and with more far-reaching consequences than 'false rape charges'.

As a male, it's easy enough to say to yourself, is this person capable of giving consent? I've not been so drunk I couldn't do that. If I was that drunk, I wouldn't be able to fuck in the first place. There's nothing wrong with impressing on everyone that they need to take responsibility for their actions, and curb their own alcohol consumption, rather than putting that responsibility onto their partner. And again, I'm talking about both parties. And it shouldn't be out of fear of a rape charge - it should be out of concern that the other person can't consent.

We need to shift the focus away from fear of penalties, to fear of doing damage. Be sober more often. Only fuck sober. It's really not that difficult to do.

You're right, that nine times out of ten, two people have sex, it's all consensual, it's not an issue. But it can never hurt to impress on yourself the idea that you should gain positive consent before touching or having sex with someone else. We can change this culture, but we do need to take responsibility for our own actions first.

What's the worst that could happen? You try for consent, she or he can't give it, and you don't fuck. I'd far rather that were the consequence of a hard night out, than waking up in the morning wondering if I forced someone, or feeling coerced into something I didn't want to do.

Click to expand...

Jason, a few points. It's an important subject and I want to make sure I'm not misunderstood.

1. It may be true that in most cases the man can overpower the woman, but sometimes that's not true. What if the woman is more powerful? What if all the facts show that she had the power over the man and not vice versa? Is the man still under exactly the same burden to obtain consent? Shouldn't the woman have the burden, if, in the facts of that particular case, she had much more power than he did? In this case, a male-only rule would not be right, not only because it's discriminatory, but because in this case the legal rules do not reflect the actual circumstances of the situation.

That's my basic point: laws and rules must reflect reality, not be based upon a model of behavior that does not in fact conform to how people actually behave. If in fact, under all the circumstances, a substantial number of sex acts occur that do not meet these criteria but which, as the parties actually experienced them, were deemed by them to be consensual, then these rules pose the risk that a substantial number of innocent people will be found guilty. That's not right.

2. It is not at all true that I care more about the man charged than about the woman harmed. That's exactly like saying that if I believe in a rigorous presumption of innocence in murder cases I must care more about the murderer than the victim. Obviously, that's illogical and not true, but somehow we have lost sight of the necessity of the presumption of innocence in rape cases. It's a bedrock principle of our system of justice that it's better for 9 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to go to jail (one can quibble about the right ratio), and that principle applies every bit as much in a rape case as in any other case.

3. I have no objection to a policy of teaching people to be more sensitive and aware on the issue of consent. That's a good policy. My issue is with the ramifications of this rule as applied in cases where a person is charged and faces punishment, and how it's going to work, and whether we're going to be criminalizing behavior that the participants do not, at the time, actually regard as criminal. That makes no sense, if that's the result.

4. It's possible that the positive consent rule will be applied in a way that doesn't create the problems I'm raising. I think it's a work in progress. I don't want to sound like I'm overly alarmed, or that I think the problem of sending innocent men to jail is a bigger problem today than sexual assault, because I don't believe that. We'll see how it plays out.

SimonDoom said:

Jason, a few points. It's an important subject and I want to make sure I'm not misunderstood.

1. It may be true that in most cases the man can overpower the woman, but sometimes that's not true. What if the woman is more powerful? What if all the facts show that she had the power over the man and not vice versa? Is the man still under exactly the same burden to obtain consent? Shouldn't the woman have the burden, if, in the facts of that particular case, she had much more power than he did? In this case, a male-only rule would not be right, not only because it's discriminatory, but because in this case the legal rules do not reflect the actual circumstances of the situation.

Click to expand...

Yes. I always make that clear. Both parties should obtain consent, regardless of physical power. That's why I like the idea of teaching enthusiastic consent to everyone, regardless of gender or sexuality. I've been just as uncomfortable being touched by women as men, when I've not been interested. 'Consent' is not a male-only rule, but it's one men need to understand. We have, in general, done most of the raping. It's women wandering around wondering if we're going to murder them. Take a quick poll - how many of your male friends are concerned about being mauled while drunk? Hence, more weight placed on teaching consent to men. It's not women taking videos on their phone of themselves raping men, and putting them on the internet.

SimonDoom said:

That's my basic point: laws and rules must reflect reality, not be based upon a model of behavior that does not in fact conform to how people actually behave. If in fact, under all the circumstances, a substantial number of sex acts occur that do not meet these criteria but which, as the parties actually experienced them, were deemed by them to be consensual, then these rules pose the risk that a substantial number of innocent people will be found guilty. That's not right.

Click to expand...

The point is, behaviour needs to change. That's the whole point of teaching everyone to actively consider consent before engaging. At one point in history, you could say the law of 'don't kill people who piss you off' didn't reflect how people behaved. Thankfully, we pulled through, and we've got a better system now. And, I'd point out, during #metoo, every single man and woman I spoke with who'd been sexually assaulted, had been assaulted or forced by a man. Do some women force themselves on men? I can tell you that yes, they absolutely do. Hence, we teach it to everyone. How many of those people's assaulters had been punished in any way at all? Zero. Not a single one. So, the risk of someone being taken to court for something they didn't do, seems highly unlikely to the point of, yes, I'm sure it'll happen from time to time, but not as often as women and men are assaulted and raped.

SimonDoom said:

2. It is not at all true that I care more about the man charged than about the woman harmed. That's exactly like saying that if I believe in a rigorous presumption of innocence in murder cases I must care more about the murderer than the victim. Obviously, that's illogical and not true, but somehow we have lost sight of the necessity of the presumption of innocence in rape cases. It's a bedrock principle of our system of justice that it's better for 9 guilty men to go free than for one innocent man to go to jail (one can quibble about the right ratio), and that principle applies every bit as much in a rape case as in any other case.

Click to expand...

And in every case, proof is still required. Which is why almost zero people are ever punished for actual rape, never mind made-up rape. Which is why I consider this a non-issue. I'm far more concerned I'm making someone uncomfortable, and I would like it if everyone else was just as concerned.

SimonDoom said:

3. I have no objection to a policy of teaching people to be more sensitive and aware on the issue of consent. That's a good policy. My issue is with the ramifications of this rule as applied in cases where a person is charged and faces punishment, and how it's going to work, and whether we're going to be criminalizing behavior that the participants do not, at the time, actually regard as criminal. That makes no sense, if that's the result.

Click to expand...

There is no 'rule'. There will only be a societally accepted way of treating others, which will make our culture a touch less rapey. I don't honestly believe, given the sentences given to actual rapists so far, that those who've not done anything wrong will ever see the inside of a jail cell.

SimonDoom said:

4. It's possible that the positive consent rule will be applied in a way that doesn't create the problems I'm raising. I think it's a work in progress. I don't want to sound like I'm overly alarmed, or that I think the problem of sending innocent men to jail is a bigger problem today than sexual assault, because I don't believe that. We'll see how it plays out.

Click to expand...

I understand. The last thing anyone wants is to be accused of something they haven't done. It's the worst possible accusation that could be levelled against you. But as I see it, it can do far more good than harm.

Oh come on, we're all supposed to stay sober and straight (no drugs) for sex and we need to repeatedly seek express consent for every iota of sexual activity?

Not only is the idea that a drunk m/f couple happily agreeing to have a shag tantamount to rape of a woman utterly preposterous, but it's a complete fucking insult to every person who has ever experienced sexual assault. Next morning regret does not equal rape.

Furthermore, by applying a strict code of conduct to the progression of sexual activity we reduce the spectrum of human sexuality to an incredibly constricted, vanilla affair with no regard to an individual's choices, desires and limits. The BDSM community engages safe words to counter situations where the submissive is being pushed to feel uncomfortable. Surely teaching people that it is OK to say 'no' and when someone says 'no', that no is a complete sentence and you need to stop what you are doing, is a more logical, simple and user friendly solution?

ausfet said:

Oh come on, we're all supposed to stay sober and straight (no drugs) for sex and we need to repeatedly seek express consent for every iota of sexual activity?

Not only is the idea that a drunk m/f couple happily agreeing to have a shag tantamount to rape of a woman utterly preposterous, but it's a complete fucking insult to every person who has ever experienced sexual assault. Next morning regret does not equal rape.

Furthermore, by applying a strict code of conduct to the progression of sexual activity we reduce the spectrum of human sexuality to an incredibly constricted, vanilla affair with no regard to an individual's choices, desires and limits. The BDSM community engages safe words to counter situations where the submissive is being pushed to feel uncomfortable. Surely teaching people that it is OK to say 'no' and when someone says 'no', that no is a complete sentence and you need to stop what you are doing, is a more logical, simple and user friendly solution?

Click to expand...

There's 'happily agreeing' and being too off your tits to speak. What we're saying is, if your partner can't say yes, maybe don't shag them. Just a thought.

No-means-no is great. But do you really have to be stupified and raped to get that 'no' is not always possible to say? Is it not possible to understand how there are people men, women and children, who will at some point be faced with someone wanting to fuck them, and be too afraid, drunk or intimidated to be able to say 'get off me'? If you've made it this far without facing that situation, I envy you.

IF we teach kids from a young age that they need to actually gain positive consent, then the chances of them listening to a 'no' are higher. That's where I see this going.

We all know no teenager is going to keep asking 'do you want me to hold your hand now?'. But if they know that's what's expected, when they come across some unconscious girl lying on a couch, or a boy who's just finished puking in the toilets and is now half-asleep, maybe they'll think twice before attempting to fuck them.

If it's a case of two drunk people 'happily' fucking, then it shouldn't be hard to get a 'yes' from them. But I do think there's a bit of confusion on some people's part about what enthusiastic participation looks like, and it can't hurt to clear that up.

There's being against it being the law (and I agree, as a law, it'd be very difficult to manage and enforce, but as I say, the burden of proof right now is on the person who's claiming they've been raped, so nothing would be any different), and there's being against it as a concept. And as a concept, if I had kids, it's what I'd be teaching them. Keep checking in.

Your mention of BDSM is actually a great example of consent done well. In a healthy BDSM scene, everyone's already agree to their limits, has a safe word, and knows where they stand. Drunk at a party, a girl or a boy moaning no, and pushing your hand away, should have the same effect. But does it now? Not for a lot of people. And that's the problem. Unelsss the 'no' is accompanied by a punch to the face, it's often ignored in the heat of the moment. Change it to needing a yes, and you have more chance of that encounter being fully consensual, and less chance of that 'morning after' regret you mentioned.

I have kids, one who is above the Australian age of consent, and I can hand on my heart tell you that they are taught that 'no means no' in every circumstance that someone says it. It is a simple concept that stretches into every aspect of their lives, not just sex.

With regard to drunken sex, anyone with an iota of common decency knows screwing someone who's legless is wrong, but a) that is not what you were implying above and b) the concept of positive consent is lost on the people who take advantage of those who consent. Truly, if someone doesn't understand that having sex with someone who can't speak is wrong, then they are not going to grasp - or care - about positive consent.

I am genuinely sorry that you have been taken sexually assaulted. I have been there myself, and gone through the joys of the Australian legal system, so I appreciate how personally devastating these incidents are. My issue with positive consent is not what it's attempting to do, but what it does by default.

Where are y'all getting this notion that positive consent means people being charged with rape for drunken hookups etc?

It's a straw man. Saying "X is problematic and we can do better" is not the same as "let's jail people for X".

JasonClearwater said:

The point is, behaviour needs to change..

Click to expand...

Jason, I agree with pretty much everything you said above, with one possible exception, depending upon what you meant by the above statement.

If you mean that people's behavior should change so they do not engage in nonconsensual sex, then I agree. Sex should be consensual, period, and people, especially men, should be taught to be more aware of this so they are less prone to try to force nonconsensual sex on women.

But if you mean that law or policy should force or tell people to change the way they have consensual sex, at possible risk of criminal punishment if they do not, then I don't agree. It is not the business of law or rules to change people's consensual sexual behavior, in my opinion. Adults should be free to engage in consensual sexual behavior as they see fit.

SimonDoom said:

Jason, I agree with pretty much everything you said above, with one possible exception, depending upon what you meant by the above statement.

If you mean that people's behavior should change so they do not engage in nonconsensual sex, then I agree. Sex should be consensual, period, and people, especially men, should be taught to be more aware of this so they are less prone to try to force nonconsensual sex on women.

But if you mean that law or policy should force or tell people to change the way they have consensual sex, at possible risk of criminal punishment if they do not, then I don't agree. It is not the business of law or rules to change people's consensual sexual behavior, in my opinion. Adults should be free to engage in consensual sexual behavior as they see fit.

Click to expand...

No, I don't think the law should change. I see it more as a case of a societal attitude adjustment. The law is less effective at changing human behaviour, than the disapproval of your peers.

Bramblethorn said:

Where are y'all getting this notion that positive consent means people being charged with rape for drunken hookups etc?

It's a straw man. Saying "X is problematic and we can do better" is not the same as "let's jail people for X".

Click to expand...

Coastal Carolina University created a poster about 'Jake and Josie' hooking up while both were drunk, advising that Josie could not consent and thus rape occurred. There is a conviction amongst certain positive assent supporters - and I last saw someone supporting this on the weekend on Facebook but can't for the life of me find the community I saw it in - that because the male is penetrating, he is culpable even if both parties are equally inebriated and agreed to sex.

So no, not a straw man argument.

ausfet said:

Coastal Carolina University created a poster about 'Jake and Josie' hooking up while both were drunk, advising that Josie could not consent and thus rape occurred. There is a conviction amongst certain positive assent supporters - and I last saw someone supporting this on the weekend on Facebook but can't for the life of me find the community I saw it in - that because the male is penetrating, he is culpable even if both parties are equally inebriated and agreed to sex.

So no, not a straw man argument.

Click to expand...

The poster you're referring to appears to have been used briefly in 2008, with about 20 printed, and not used since. So, yeah, real thing, and I'll agree that message is misguided.

That said, I'm not really convinced that one stupid poster published ten years ago in a small run by a couple of students is a strong argument against the concept as a whole. If this really was a widespread part of campus "affirmative assent" campaigns, surely there'd be some more prominent examples?

Re. the FB post you mention, worth remembering that one of the popular sports on 4chan is to fabricate exaggerated "SJW" material and try to pass it off as the genuine article as a way of smearing their opponents. Unless you've verified the identity of the original poster, it might be unwise to take it at face value.

Not stupid, but the weirdest I've ever had was a bunch of garbled text. I mean just random "xcfhvfhbct".

Guess they were punching their keyboard in frustration.

First off, I think you're all missing the bigger point. A guy banging his 18 year old virgin sister - no problem; they're consenting adults. A guy and his girlfriend agreeing to positive approval for every step every time - now we're talking about something that's really offensive.

Bramblethorn said:

The poster you're referring to appears to have been used briefly in 2008, with about 20 printed, and not used since. So, yeah, real thing, and I'll agree that message is misguided.

That said, I'm not really convinced that one stupid poster published ten years ago in a small run by a couple of students is a strong argument against the concept as a whole.

Click to expand...

I don't think it was stupid - it was poorly written. If she's so drunk that she can't consent, then it's rape in my book.

3 and 1/2 years ago, California passed the "Yes Means Yes" law. That (among other things) requires college and universities that receiving state funding to enact the following policy for their students:

SB-967 said:

An affirmative consent standard in the determination of whether consent was given by both parties to sexual activity. “Affirmative consent” means affirmative, conscious, and voluntary agreement to engage in sexual activity. It is the responsibility of each person involved in the sexual activity to ensure that he or she has the affirmative consent of the other or others to engage in the sexual activity. Lack of protest or resistance does not mean consent, nor does silence mean consent. Affirmative consent must be ongoing throughout a sexual activity and can be revoked at any time. The existence of a dating relationship between the persons involved, or the fact of past sexual relations between them, should never by itself be assumed to be an indicator of consent.

Click to expand...

I googled up the results of SB-967 and it appears to have had very little discernible impact. I don't know if that's because it's taking a long time to be fully implemented. The one article I found that mentioned an impact had the spokesman for a men's right group say that they've got more calls from parents in California that their son has been falsely accused of rape (but apparently not a whole lot more calls).

ausfet said:

Oh come on, we're all supposed to stay sober and straight (no drugs) for sex and we need to repeatedly seek express consent for every iota of sexual activity?

Not only is the idea that a drunk m/f couple happily agreeing to have a shag tantamount to rape of a woman utterly preposterous, but it's a complete fucking insult to every person who has ever experienced sexual assault. Next morning regret does not equal rape.

Click to expand...

Yeah, I don't think anybody in this thread was proposing that it is equivalent to rape.

Furthermore, by applying a strict code of conduct to the progression of sexual activity we reduce the spectrum of human sexuality to an incredibly constricted, vanilla affair with no regard to an individual's choices, desires and limits. The BDSM community engages safe words to counter situations where the submissive is being pushed to feel uncomfortable. Surely teaching people that it is OK to say 'no' and when someone says 'no', that no is a complete sentence and you need to stop what you are doing, is a more logical, simple and user friendly solution?

Click to expand...

I've been doing BDSM for a couple of decades now, and I can assure you that positive consent is a big part of it. Safewords are great but they shouldn't be seen as the only tool for managing consent in BDSM.

Very often people negotiate consent to BDSM activities in advance. That can be as formal as planning out a master-slave contrct, or as talking through the details of a scene, or as informal as "I'd like to hurt you"/"Yes, please!" It's also very common to continue that communication during the scene by checking in on one's plaything^Wpartner: "How are you doing?" "Mmm, good."

Safewords provide a method to withdraw consent, but they're not 100% reliable because sometimes people find it hard to say "no". If I recall correctly, Jay Wiseman's "SM 101" discusses an incident of that nature - he was playing with a new partner, she hadn't used her safeword but he was getting uncomfortable vibes from her, so he explicitly asked her if she was okay and she said no.

I'd also note that many BDSMers avoid mixing alcohol with BDSM play, especially with new partners, precisely because we understand that it can impede communication and consent.

8letters said:

First off, I think you're all missing the bigger point. A guy banging his 18 year old virgin sister - no problem; they're consenting adults. A guy and his girlfriend agreeing to positive approval for every step every time - now we're talking about something that's really offensive.

Click to expand...

Especially if they're using a condom.

"Rape" in non-consent category. Also, there was an established safe word!

"Here, eat my condom" comes to mind. Alas, the site administrator deleted it.

Mine

I had a guy go to every single one of my stories and post a pseudo sympathetic plea for sick people like me to get help and detailing some treatment options.

A comment I got on today's posted story is up there near the top for stupidity, I think. It criticized me for using the commenter's father's name for a character and said authors should avoid that. How does one avoid using the names of all reader's fathers--and why should they have to? The comment quickly disappeared. I think it came with a 2 vote.

KeithD said:

A comment I got on today's posted story is up there near the top for stupidity, I think. It criticized me for using the commenter's father's name for a character and said authors should avoid that. How does one avoid using the names of all reader's fathers--and why should they have to? The comment quickly disappeared. I think it came with a 2 vote.

Click to expand...

That's pretty far out there. Mind you, consider the impact on his masturbatory mind when he realised that dad was the object of his fantasy...

rae121452 said:

my current favorite is: i prefer tuna to peanut butter.

the fact that the story is in the gay male section should have been a clue.......that it's tagged gay anal really should have been another. so, what compelled some idiot not only into that section but also to read the story that offends their preference? and, then comment on it?

whoever comes up with the stupidest comment gets to personally bite the head off of a troll.

Click to expand...

I just had a dude try to blackmail me with his rating. He stated that if I killed off the female lead in the next chapter he would give 5 stars, 4 stars for a divorce and 2 stars for a happy ending. LW category of course.

One thing that gets me is when the title of a story is very clear about what type of work it is, and then readers complain about it.

For example, I wrote a fetish story series called 'My Best Friend's Crazy Fat Sister' and a reader commented that he could only read half a page as the characters were all totally unsympathetic. It would seem pretty obvious from the title and that it is in the Fetish section of an erotic fiction site that the people inhabiting the story might not be very nice people, and who you probably wouldn't want in your life if they existed in reality.

I think I have a new champ for missing the point. From my Winter Holidays Contest story "Can't Stop the Girl" (linked on my sig-line) :

YDB95, can you show us on this doll...
...where the bad, conservative man, touched you?

We just can't escape the insidious creep of political propaganda in the news media, TV sitcoms, movies, books or even here in the pages of Literotica. I can understand and even tolerate an author's political leanings seeping into a story, since it part of who they are.

What I can't stand is when they make their personal politics the whole message of the story, while portraying any contrary philosophy with simplistic straw man villainy. The moral lecturing of those who feel necessary to create villains of the supposed opposition is as tedious to sit through as a cable TV evangelical sermon marathon. Both will get tuned out quickly.

Click to expand...

Yes, first there's the rather tasteless trivialization of child molestation in the first line. But that's not what makes this eligible for the dumbest comment title. What does put it over the edge is...Well, without spoiling the story for anyone who wants to read it, the comment makes it clear that he either didn't finish the story or missed the point entirely. I can hardly blame him if he didn't finish the story, as it is eleven Lit pages and my style isn't for everyone, but maybe don't jump to conclusions then, huh?

Someone recently bashed some fellow commenters:
"by Anonymous user on ‎10/‎28/‎2018
And here come the retards, (aka Trump fans)!
It really isn't that difficult - he picked up from that point near the end."

But this one takes the cake:
"Chapter Two
by Anonymous user on ‎07/‎29/‎2018
If there isn't a followup, I will track you down and kill you!
But don't rush it, just because you have a death threat hanging over you - take however much time you need to get it just right.
xx"

I was planning to write a sequel before that, but now...no way. I don't give in to threats.