LITEROTICA PODCAST
LIT CAMS (200 Free Tokens)ADULT TOYSVOD MOVIES

Are some stories immoral? Should we observe some boundaries?

Roxanne Appleby

Roxanne Appleby

Masterpiece
Joined
Aug 21, 2005
Posts
11,231
I am picking up from another thread an interesting discussion that really deserves it's own thread. To set the stage, here are the last two posts from the "I am ashamed . . ." thread.

Pure said:
One poster said, with much agreement from some others:

Personally, I think it both wise and responsible to consider what one might stir in one's readers. Some behaviors do not require reinforcement.

Consider, that is, 'think about', perhaps.

Shape or alter one's story accordingly, no, in my opinion, because:

1) You don't know what you 'might stir' in a reader. A literary person might enjoy 'In Cold Blood' as literature; but a psycho killer might read it as a neat, thrilling, even arousing account of (at least one) psycho killer, and get off on the near rape of the young girl.

2) Assuming a story has at least some 'pornographic quality'**--as do many literotica stories (pornish erotica; erotic porn)-- and that it fits as typical in some literotica category, its stirrings in the arousal dept may be somewhat predictable: And this is true of the wider category of 'explicit/graphic' sex.

What you don't know is what will be acted upon , though it's safe to assume that, for some categories, most 'stirrings' are NOT acted upon. E.g., incest, 'reluctance,' group sex, and so on.

3) As to 'some behavior do not require reinforcement' presumably from a story one writes, this is, as argued above, entirely speculative. The 'reinforcement' of deviates and deranged people is sui generis and in any case out of our hands. It was feared, for instance, that American Psycho would be reinforcement for murder, because of its detail and 'flat' writing (no disapproval). Yet clearly it was not, at least in 999 cases of one thousand-- there was not a 'spike' in murders corresponding to its sales.

Since the writer him/herself writes fine, stirring tales of gay sexual/erotic experience, s/he is entirely subject to this exact principle: As the evangelical (American majority) would say, "Such behaviors do not require reinforcement." Who exactly is supposed to determine which behaviors fit that bill?

4) Since what a story or text reinforces is hard to ascertain, this line of thought leads to absurd results, such as sequestering anatomy books (which used to get me off as a pre-teen) sex manuals, etc.

It is well known that ANY pictures of nude or seminude children, as sometimes appear in fashion magazines or artistic photography books may be highly erotic for a pedophile, and in that sense 'reinforcing.' (Cut-out pictures are found in their collections.) But the literary and creative writers/producers cannot alter or sanitize their output based on the expected 'stirrings' in a few deviates' or criminals' psyches.

---
'pornography' which i define as:

explicit, graphic sex apparently written to arouse the reader;

sex 'for its own sake', in far more detail than necessary to 'tell a story.'

explicit sex taking place in a scenario that reflects fantasy (not 'real or probable events; e.g., the pizza boy invited in for a quickie) and fantasied gratification (e.g., 18yr old excites his very willing, mom to multiple orgasms), apparently to indulge the reader's fantasies.

such sexual events depicted, generally, as being without the possible or usual 'real' consequences, psychological or legal, e.g, guilt, shame, disease, pregnancy, arrest, etc., apparently in accord with the reader's assumed fantasy.
Click to expand...

Stella_Omega said:
Pure, it's more a case, I think, of personal boundaries as a writer.
And that takes a little self-knowledge, and also, can change from time to time.

an anlaogy-
Playing in BDSM, as a top, I have had requests from bottoms that go past what I am comfortable with. Sometimes the argument from such would be that it wasn't the top enduring the sensations, so why should the scene bother me?
Bottoms can be very selfish... I learned early on to evaluate carefully, and truthfully say "no" when I thought it neccesary for my comfort.
Click to expand...
 
well, Roxanne, every story, or for that matter, work of art has boundaries, e.g. its length. further there is selection of subject matter, and amount of detail, the latter being chosen with artistic/literary issues in mind.

i believe we are talking about 'boundaries' as regards acts that some would call 'despicable,' esp. when those acts are apparently 'glorified' or 'indulged as sex/violence for its own sake' or at least going unpunished.

i think most writers here have written of acts they think despicable, and I'm sure every writer here has written of acts that *many readers think despicable. so few of us follow the 'don't depict despicable acts' principle or boundary (either subjective or objective), if that's what you're asking. in my opinion.
 
I think there's a great deal in how an act is depicted. Whether the author condemns or glorifies the immorality, celebrates and elevates it or warns of its evil and its consequences, has a great deal to do with it. If we take, for instance, the example of pedophilia, I think there's a great deal of difference between depicting a fantasy world of complicit and eager pre-pubescent children (which plays into the very common pedophile belief that their victims are willing and desire sex) and depicting the devastating results of pedophilia in a realistic fashion. Even if one wishes to examine the pedophile not as a monster but as a human being with some elements of sympathy (I seem to think there's a recent film doing this), one must consider as well how the crime itself is depicted, and whether the tendency of the work is to reinforce or to challenge those desires.

Yes, Wilde has Lord Henry tell Dorian Gray that "art is superbly sterile" and incapable of influencing us one way or another. The key thing to remember in that tale is that he's lying - not only lying, but engaging at that very moment in the act of using art to shape and mold another human being. Wilde recognized it, and I think at heart that all of us must recognize it. Otherwise, what is art? Something capable of moving us profoundly in our emotions and intellects, of painting beautiful or terrible images of the world as it is or could be, of expressing new visions of humanity and life - and somehow, unlike every other thing in the whole of existance which so moves us, completely insulated from affecting us in any way. The thing does not make sense. If art has any power to move whatsoever, if it charms, delights, terrifies, or entices us at any point, then it is an active force, and the wielder of that force must be respectful of it. This is not to say that art can never depict that which is evil, or even make it sympathetic - but that the artist must be aware of the balance of the work and consider its likely effects, and take responsibility for them.

Shanglan
 
Pure said:
well, Roxanne, every story, or for that matter, work of art has boundaries, e.g. its length. further there is selection of subject matter, and amount of detail, the latter being chosen with artistic/literary issues in mind.

i believe we are talking about 'boundaries' as regards acts that some would call 'despicable,' esp. when those acts are apparently 'glorified' or 'indulged as sex/violence for its own sake' or at least going unpunished.

i think most writers here have written of acts they think despicable, and I'm sure every writer here has written of acts that *many readers think despicable. so few of us follow the 'don't depict despicable acts' principle or boundary (either subjective or objective), if that's what you're asking. in my opinion.
Click to expand...
That last paragrah is quite the tongue twister! :p
Other than that, I think you've nut-shelled the whoel issue quite well.
Someone here was talking about going into great detail about a bad guy torturing a victem. I plan on never reading that story, as it would interfere with my sexual enjoyment. I can handle any sexual act- most of the time, I'm anxious to handle any sexual act- but non-consensual violence turns me off.
On the other hand, someone was really shocked by my description of a simple and loving handjob between two close and loving- and stoned- buddies... so go figure. :)
 
As I posted in another thread, I can only quote Rod Serling.

I am responsible to the public, not for the public.
Click to expand...

Unless you specifically write a story intending to rouse others to harmful action you are not, in my opinion, responsible for the actions of others. They will take from your work what they wish.

The Turner Diaries was an immoral story. The writer intended to incite a racist revolution with it.

Gone With The Wind was not an immoral story. It was quite racist, but was not intended to be a handbook on how to be racist.
 
BlackShanglan said:
I think there's a great deal in how an act is depicted. Whether the author condemns or glorifies the immorality, celebrates and elevates it or warns of its evil and its consequences, has a great deal to do with it. If we take, for instance, the example of pedophilia, I think there's a great deal of difference between depicting a fantasy world of complicit and eager pre-pubescent children (which plays into the very common pedophile belief that their victims are willing and desire sex) and depicting the devastating results of pedophilia in a realistic fashion. Even if one wishes to examine the pedophile not as a monster but as a human being with some elements of sympathy (I seem to think there's a recent film doing this), one must consider as well how the crime itself is depicted, and whether the tendency of the work is to reinforce or to challenge those desires.

Yes, Wilde has Lord Henry tell Dorian Gray that "art is superbly sterile" and incapable of influencing us one way or another. The key thing to remember in that tale is that he's lying - not only lying, but engaging at that very moment in the act of using art to shape and mold another human being. Wilde recognized it, and I think at heart that all of us must recognize it. Otherwise, what is art? Something capable of moving us profoundly in our emotions and intellects, of painting beautiful or terrible images of the world as it is or could be, of expressing new visions of humanity and life - and somehow, unlike every other thing in the whole of existance which so moves us, completely insulated from affecting us in any way. The thing does not make sense. If art has any power to move whatsoever, if it charms, delights, terrifies, or entices us at any point, then it is an active force, and the wielder of that force must be respectful of it. This is not to say that art can never depict that which is evil, or even make it sympathetic - but that the artist must be aware of the balance of the work and consider its likely effects, and take responsibility for them.

Shanglan
Click to expand...

To add to Shag's excellent post -

The problem with art and people recognizing such is perception. We all have different ideas of what art should be and therefore our enjoyment or understanding of art - a musical piece, a painting, a story - will always vary. (Example - it's a lovely Amish quilt - hang it on a wall - it's art. Or is it?)

Toss in the element of sexual arousal in a story and the differences (and difficulties) are compounded. With sex, one person's kink is another person's turn-off.

Which version is correct? Who can decide that? Certainly not me.

Roxanne, write that which appeals to you, that which grabs you by the throat and forces you to put those thoughts on paper. There should be no shame in what you write. If you wish to post it somewhere and Lit won't accept it, there are other sites that will. Go for it.
 
Smarter people than me have come out and insisted that legally, freedom of expression is a good thing, and I agree, though when it comes down to things like technical instructions for the manufacture of poison gases and WMD, I draw the line.

What people seem to forget, though, is that we all have the right to object to stuff we find offensive.

This isn't very fashionable anymore, but it should be, because freedom of speech doesn't mean that anything and everything goes now, or that everything's equally right or wrong. It means instead that we're free to discuss anything we want and decide ourselves where to draw the lines. These lines are drawn by consensus of opinion, and once they're drawn, you cross them at the risk of being admonished, disliked, ignored, or even hated.

But until we each take a personal stand on where these lines should be, we're operating in a moral vacuum where all things are equally good or bad, and that's not freedom. That's anarchy.
 
I would add that being unable to predict the results of one's actions does not resolve one of responsibility for them. Indeed, knowing that it is difficult to predict how the public will take one's work on the whole I think requires of one more caution, not less. Just as one drives one's car more cautiously around small children playing on the sidewalk - because one never knows quite what they might do - so one also excercises more caution when offering complex and potentially dangerous themes to the public, knowing that some of them may well not take them as intended.

The difficulty with all morals, of course, is that they are relative. Unless most people accept a common dogmatic standard - which in modern society we tend not to - then what is moral to one person may appear immoral to another. I don't think this a reason to reject all attempts to uphold a moral standard, however. While it makes it more difficult for one to determine what one thinks is moral, I believe that that simply conveys a greater responsibility for examining one's actions and determining one's own moral code. That, to me, includes restraining my own actions if they seem likely to encourage others to injure themselves or other people.

Of course, I interpret "injure" more broadly because I believe it incumbent upon a moral person to consider all ramifications of his or her actions. It is not sufficient to me to know that no one has murdered someone while holding a copy of my work. I wish as well not to offer the more subtle encouragement of glorifying and reinforcing desires and perceptions vicious to the personal, moral, or ethical development of the reader. I believe that if one has a moral standard at all, one is obliged not only to avoid such actions as violate it, but to avoid encouraging others to adopt a philosophy antithetical to that moral standard. Thus, if I prize free speech, I think it important not to write so as to suggest that it be destroyed; if I value tolerance, I must not encourage others to think other races, religions, or genders inferior to them. I must, in the end, elevate what I think vital to human happiness and to goodness. That is not to say that it must be done through simplistic tales with a moral taped to a brick and used to beat the reader about the head; rather, it is to say that my work must be true to my principles.

Shanglan
 
dr_mabeuse said:
Smarter people than me have come out and insisted that legally, freedom of expression is a good thing, and I agree, though when it comes down to things like technical instructions for the manufacture of poison gases and WMD, I draw the line.

What people seem to forget, though, is that we all have the right to object to stuff we find offensive.

This isn't very fashionable anymore, but it should be, because freedom of speech doesn't mean that anything and everything goes now, or that everything's equally right or wrong. It means instead that we're free to discuss anything we want and decide ourselves where to draw the lines. These lines are drawn by consensus of opinion, and once they're drawn, you cross them at the risk of being admonished, disliked, ignored, or even hated.

But until we each take a personal stand on where these lines should be, we're operating in a moral vacuum where all things are equally good or bad, and that's not freedom. That's anarchy.
Click to expand...

Dr. M., I more than like this post. I respect it immensely.
 
If some stories are amoral, aren't you assuming that there is a universal definition of morality?

Certainly, in my estimation, some stories are a complete turn-off, porn or mainstream. As others have pointed out, the writer is responsible for what they write, to their own personal code, but the writer isn't responsible for reader, or the reader's actions. How could they be? As Pure pointed out, how do you as a writer, know exactly what is going to be a "trigger" for the reader. We're not gods and a propensity to act a certain way already exists within the reader, not within our words.

Reading stories that play to my particular kink desensitizes me to the "deviance" of that kink, and perhaps validates the fantasy as a fantasy, but it doesn't make me any more likely to act on it in the real world.

Peace,

Yui
 
BlackShanglan said:
Dr. M., I more than like this post. I respect it immensely.
Click to expand...
Me too- and yours as well, Shanglan.

sweetsubsarahh said:
Roxanne, write that which appeals to you, that which grabs you by the throat and forces you to put those thoughts on paper. There should be no shame in what you write. If you wish to post it somewhere and Lit won't accept it, there are other sites that will. Go for it.
Click to expand...
Sweet, you're missing the point- which is that Roxanne decided she couldn't countenance what she'd written, and decided, of her own volition, to change it. It was already accepted by lit, but she herself later decided it wasn't acceptable by her own standards.
 
Ayn Rand, whose books have sold more copies than any other book except the Bible in the past fifty years, (ah but she never wrote a classic?), made a statement that might be useful in this discussion:

"Art is the selective recreation of reality according to the artist's value judgments..."

That is a paraphrase as I do not have the text at hand.

I wish I understood more, the motivation of Roxanne's public confession of 'being ashamed' at a piece of work.

I thought at first it was an epiphany of sorts, realizing that what one wrote did in fact express a set of values that she suddenly realized did not truly reflect her thoughts.

But the more I read, I began to think it was merely a matter of social acceptance or responsibility for the perceived possible effect of one's words.

Ayn Rand also wrote of, "Art and a sense of life..."

Roxanne toys with 'objective good', but other than the word, humanistic, does not explain the epistemological roots of good.

There is also a fast and loose definition of 'pornography' that leaves one with literally no definition at all.

I suggest that one is required to comprehend the definitions of the words and concepts one uses before clarity is achieved.

This is not a criticism beyond what I usually state about sloppy terminology, merely a request for clarification and identifying the essential characteristics of the discussion. Is it only about erotic writing or does it encompass the world of art in general?

If you haven't a clue, then just accept this post as a 'bump'.

Thanks


amicus...
 
I had a morality question in a story too, but of a different kind.

I wrote a story based on the Asian tsunami not long after it happened. It was supposed to show the redemptive power of sex to bring people together after a tragedy. I got some very bitter reactions to it by people who'd been personally affected and resented my using the tsunami as a setting for erotica.

I didn't agree, but then, I didn't lose anyone in the tsunami either, so what would I know? It was a so-so story and I didn't feel like I had the moral authority to use the tragedy when I hadn't really "paid" for it in any way, so it did feel uncomfortably close to exploitation to me.

In the end I decided that whatever positive value the story might have didn't make up for whatever pain it might cause, so I pulled it from the site.

It went into the Lit book for Katrina relief (thanks, Imp), so I like to think that it's paying off whatever moral debt it might have.

I find, though, that if someone calls me names for one of my BDSM stories in which I have no qualms about what goes on in there, it doesn't bother me. I write reluctance, not rape. Comments only bother me when I'm already uneasy about the morality or tastefulness of a story, so I take that uneasiness as a sign to be very careful
 
Last edited:
dr_mabeuse said:
Smarter people than me have come out and insisted that legally, freedom of expression is a good thing, and I agree, though when it comes down to things like technical instructions for the manufacture of poison gases and WMD, I draw the line.

What people seem to forget, though, is that we all have the right to object to stuff we find offensive.

This isn't very fashionable anymore, but it should be, because freedom of speech doesn't mean that anything and everything goes now, or that everything's equally right or wrong. It means instead that we're free to discuss anything we want and decide ourselves where to draw the lines. These lines are drawn by consensus of opinion, and once they're drawn, you cross them at the risk of being admonished, disliked, ignored, or even hated.

But until we each take a personal stand on where these lines should be, we're operating in a moral vacuum where all things are equally good or bad, and that's not freedom. That's anarchy.
Click to expand...

The problem is dual... knowledge in bad hands and lack of knowledge.

Which do you choose? Here is an cut/dried example of the dilemna.

Microsoft has been very vocal and pushed hard against services provided by security groups that give specifications for security holes in Microsoft technology. MS states that the security groups are being irresponsible in giving malicious hackers the very tools they need to breach the gap.

The security groups state that without them the general and interested public is left unaware of potential risks AND MS is not pressured to resolve issues.

It seems stupid but keep in mind we're talking billions of dollars when it comes to computer security flaws. As an individual who makes a (relatively speaking) lot of money due to technology, I need to know.

My choice is let the stupid bad guys know (because you can't keep the smart ones out... believe me, if I want to kill a lot of people, it isn't lack of technical knowledge that is going to stop me.) as long as the same information is placed in my hands and MS is forced to deal with it.

And therein lies the larger problem when talking at a social level... the government would LOVE to have us say 'Yes, you can censor X' because a loaded and cocked gun has no morality, it's bullet don't know it was only meant to be used against those who don't think like YOU.

First, they'll come for us.

Oh wait... they already have... that's what Gonzo is trying to do.

Sincerely,
ElSol
 
Stella_Omega said:
Me too- and yours as well, Shanglan.

Sweet, you're missing the point- which is that Roxanne decided she couldn't countenance what she'd written, and decided, of her own volition, to change it. It was already accepted by lit, but she herself later decided it wasn't acceptable by her own standards.
Click to expand...

Perhaps I should have read the other thread - :rolleyes:
 
Pure said:
well, Roxanne, every story, or for that matter, work of art has boundaries, e.g. its length. further there is selection of subject matter, and amount of detail, the latter being chosen with artistic/literary issues in mind.
Click to expand...
I disagree. If it (whatever it is, be it painting, writing, poetry) possesses boundaries, it isn’t art.
 
Art is in the eye of the creator. If the artist believes it to be so, it is.

There is no other answer.
 
Stella_Omega said:
my eyes are rolling...
Click to expand...
Bwahahahahaha! I :heart: you, Stella. :D




<cough> Very sorry! Carry on with the pretensions, peeps ... :D
 
How much is too much?

If I understand the gist of the thread, the basic question is; how much of the reaction our stories provoke is our responsibility?

I'm not sure how to respond to that. Some of the things I write, I look back on and just shudder. "Lucid Dreaming" is one of those, although it got good reactions in general, I wrote it in fit of pure rage at a feedback I recieved. Although I understand and appreciate the concept of bloodplay, it isn't something I enjoy or necessarily condone. (I admit to a certain morbid fascination with it, but can't actually put it into practice. I've tried >.<) But what if someone who had no clue that bloodplay even existed read that story and decided to attempt it? Would I be responsible for any injury they or their partner sustained? Should I feel guilty for writing something so blatantly about taking justice into one's own hands?

The answer is complicated. I would be appalled if anyone took something i wrote as a purely fictional piece (albeit with factual undertones) and tried to put it into practice in the flesh. The cynical, bitchy part of me would be disgusted with the stupidity that allowed someone to think this was a viable option, and the fluffy little part of myslef that I try very hard to hide would probably just cry itself sick. But I didn't put a knife in their hands and tie down their partner, so I can't even fathom claiming responsibility. If someone took the other aspect of the story, using sex as a weapon in revenge against someone who had done them wrong, and put it into practice.. no, I wouldn't feel a moment's worth of guilt. Men and women have been using sex games to cause each other pain for cenuries, I hardly came up with the idea on my own, and I honestly feel that it's safer than resorting to violence... not to mention that psychological scars take longer than physical injuries to heal.

I don't know how far is too far. I have a pretty high squick tolerance level, and very little affects me in a volatile way. Someone else, with a lower threshold of tolerance, or a higher level of suggestibility, might have a different response. What it comes down to, basically, is that responsibility, like free will, rests in the reader. No one held a gun to their head and frced them to read our work, and our responsibility is to provide quality writing, not to hold the hand of the reader and explain to them, step-by-step, what is and is not acceptable to humanity.

Just my opinion. :p
 
yui said:
Bwahahahahaha! I :heart: you, Stella. :D




<cough> Very sorry! Carry on with the pretensions, peeps ... :D
Click to expand...

I'm glad someone said it.

:rolleyes:

:D

A twisted freak can read anything into a work and use it as a how-to manual for a perversion. If you limit your writing based on what someone might or might not read into it, you'll be stuck writing nursery rhymes. Even then, who knows what pie Little Boy Blue Balls might stick his finger in...
 
LadyJeanne said:
I'm glad someone said it.

:rolleyes:

:D

A twisted freak can read anything into a work and use it as a how-to manual for a perversion. If you limit your writing based on what someone might or might not read into it, you'll be stuck writing nursery rhymes. Even then, who knows what pie Little Boy Blue Balls might stick his finger in...
Click to expand...
I've never, ever heardf anyone define art- in quite that way, that's all. Whatever else art is, as a painting, or work of writing, or work of music- it's going to be limited by its very nature.
I keep on saying- I limit my writing according to my own limits. No one elses.

Angelshadow,
your post was very interesting to me. I write some fairly extreme scenes also, and every one of them is physically possible- and I have, lucky me, been involved in almost every type of activity I've written.
Regardless of other people's squick tolerances, I consider myself as holding to my own morals; I never let my characters come to harm, either physically or emotionally. That's moral writing, to me.
 
rgraham666 said:
As I posted in another thread, I can only quote Rod Serling.

Unless you specifically write a story intending to rouse others to harmful action you are not, in my opinion, responsible for the actions of others. They will take from your work what they wish.

The Turner Diaries was an immoral story. The writer intended to incite a racist revolution with it.

Gone With The Wind was not an immoral story. It was quite racist, but was not intended to be a handbook on how to be racist.
Click to expand...
"The Turner Diaries" was the book I had in mind in the previous thread when I mentioned "KKK porn," and is really the kind of thing I had in mind starting this thread. I read that book years ago and remember it as a spooky experience. The author was reasonably skillful, and had you identifying with the characters and their motives to such an extent that when one of them leaps up and exclaims, "That's enough! Let's go lynch all the porn writers," you found yourself thinking, "Yeah, go lynch all the porn writers."

Well, as a modern, balanced and well educated person I didn't really think that, but I felt the tug that skillful fiction can exert, and knew that I held evil in my hands. I could easily picture an ignorant and disaffected individual succumbing. To me, that "tug" was the real evil here, more than the fact the author wanted to incite a race war, although that's pretty bad too.

I threw that book in the woodstove. Sometime later I saw a copy on the used book shelf in a Salvation Army store. I bought it and threw that one in the woodstove also. Given the precedents it felt funny being a "book burner," but I'm pretty sure it was the right thing to do.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

M
Some questions about story tags
2
Replies
28
Views
786
Bamagan
Bamagan
E
Some doubt's regarding stories(incest)
Replies
11
Views
467
JGittes
J
Anjalisinha
How long a story should be ?
Replies
10
Views
235
TiberiusPrime
TiberiusPrime
NoCa
Link Sharing Guidelines
Replies
9
Views
227
HeyAll
H
GrantBricksly
Novels and novellas
Replies
9
Views
212
MelissaBaby
MelissaBaby
Back
Top