About characters saying 'no'

[KeithD]

the kicker is that "no" is a nonliteral phase of a variety of sex games, enhancing arousal and a sense of the taboo. This hedges on an absolutist meaning of "no." In writing it up, I can have "no" being verbalized while revealing something less than that in the mind of the character. The more you slide into the legal ramifications of this in writing up your story the more distance you're putting between your audience and the evoking of eroticism.

 

[SimonDoom]

Simply the adage that no means no - what we tell our kids so that they hopefully don't end up on rape charges. Everything I've read is 'no but...' We write erotica, so it's a given it will include sex. I don't expect authors here to beat the drum for social education, just surprised it hasn't been raised.

"No means no" is a basic ethical principle. When person A says "no," person B should respect that. If they don't, there should be consequences.

But art isn't limited by ethical principles. It's perfectly legitimate for art to encompass the full range of human experience, whether it's ethical or not. To pretend that in fact, in the real world, "no" always means "no," is to bury one's head in the sand. It's not true. In the real world the way people deal with one another is infinitely varied. And even if that's NOT always true, it IS true that people fantasize about this. Women have fantasies about sex where they've said no. I don't see it as an elephant in the living room, because I don't think it's something people are ignoring. Not here, anyway, although elsewhere, certainly.

 

[Lifestyle66]

Simply the adage that no means no - what we tell our kids so that they hopefully don't end up on rape charges. Everything I've read is 'no but...' We write erotica, so it's a given it will include sex. I don't expect authors here to beat the drum for social education, just surprised it hasn't been raised.

If you read my post, you might understand.

As my series progressed, the MC wife changed her 'No, I'm not Bi and won't consider them' to "well, she was spread open in front of me, so I explored a little, but I'm still not Bi'. And she'll eventually admit to "OK, but I was just being polite and returning her oral favor."

We're not really talking about 'non-consent' NO, but IMO whether the characters are adamant with their 'no' or just reluctant and adaptable.

 

[lovecraft68]

I think you need to learn how to write women, that way you wouldn't be here looking for validation or an answer to your poorly veiled question of whether or not these scenarios work.

Typical gamer.

 

[lovecraft68]

"No means no" is a basic ethical principle. When person A says "no," person B should respect that. If they don't, there should be consequences.

But art isn't limited by ethical principles. It's perfectly legitimate for art to encompass the full range of human experience, whether it's ethical or not. To pretend that in fact, in the real world, "no" always means "no," is to bury one's head in the sand. It's not true. In the real world the way people deal with one another is infinitely varied. And even if that's NOT always true, it IS true that people fantasize about this. Women have fantasies about sex where they've said no. I don't see it as an elephant in the living room, because I don't think it's something people are ignoring. Not here, anyway, although elsewhere, certainly.

Good mansplaining attempt as always Simon.

I love when the high brow and snooty literary erotica types start trying to debate consent.

More fun when the men come running in to tell women all about the fantasies women have, then try to explain those.

I wish Handsinthedark was still here, it would be telling to watch how you and that clown you suck up to from downunder would be all over his jock when he rapesplained everything to all the little womens.

I think you mentioned you have a daughter....try an exercise; look at her for a few minutes before you start with your no doesn't always mean no crap. Because the first line of your post was correct, but put there as a 'look I'm decent' then a paragraph that shows you don't believe one word of what you initially said.

These threads are started, and fed, by people who want to justify what they write, when there is no need to, you write what you write. But when one comes here to be told, yes its cool no doesn't mean no, or it does, but should it...etc...its because they are not comfortable with their own mind or material or fantasies so we need like minded sheeple to tell them its cool. Maybe the question should be if you're not sure about it....there could be a good reason.

I've thought of writing things that after a little introspection I realize it may not be best to write because I'm not quite comfortable doing it, or with the reaction it garners within me...so I don't. But that decision has to be made by that person for that person's reasons., not let me go to porn board so I can find the one person to tell me its okay.

Personal responsibility...dead, or just twitching?

 

[Lovecraft_Lore]

On one hand, no means no.

On the other, it's not a sex story if one of the people says no and that is the end of it.

The whole point of Literotica is a story about sex.


Like in 'The Hobbit' if they had respected his "No" and the dwarfs just left, they took their dwarf rave somewhere else. ~The End

Instead they kept hounding him. Like "Hey, let's get high, eat some cheese, and you think it over for the night if you want to help us break into this place, steal everything, and kill some people."

 

[stickygirl]

"No means no" is a basic ethical principle. When person A says "no," person B should respect that. If they don't, there should be consequences.

But art isn't limited by ethical principles. It's perfectly legitimate for art to encompass the full range of human experience, whether it's ethical or not. To pretend that in fact, in the real world, "no" always means "no," is to bury one's head in the sand. It's not true. In the real world the way people deal with one another is infinitely varied. And even if that's NOT always true, it IS true that people fantasize about this. Women have fantasies about sex where they've said no. I don't see it as an elephant in the living room, because I don't think it's something people are ignoring. Not here, anyway, although elsewhere, certainly.

Yeah, I get that IRL no can mean any number of things and a Psych student friend told me how in their evaluations they're taught that yes means no and vice versa, but here we're talking specifically about sex. Not all of the posts have been about consent in any case, but I wanted and have now made the point.
I tried to reply earlier but the site was being flakey

 

[KeithD]

On the other, it's not a sex story if one of the people says no and that is the end of it.

This. As soon as you start going clinical or preachy in a story, you are moving away from the erotic.

 

[Lifestyle66]

I used the phrase 'permanent no' because in a lot of stories a 'hard no' becomes a yes later on - which is fine, people change their minds. This seems like a slower take on the 'no before yes' with a more extreme no at the beginning.

Thinking back on this, I do have one story with a more permanent 'no'.

In Lifestyle Ch 08/09: Clubs and Parties, I have a couple going to a sex club to become members. The club separates them for their "tour". The husband is the reluctant one, while the wife is wildly into her 'tryout". It's the husband who drags her out of there, amazed that she was so into it. So, his would be a 'hard no' to his wife enjoying a gangbang.

But, this no is not about non-consent or rape. It's about a spouse trying to control their partner.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

On one hand, no means no.

On the other, it's not a sex story if one of the people says no and that is the end of it.

As long as they say yes to something, it can still work to have a no too.

I like stories where the characters seem like real people. @EarlyMorningLight wrote one recently where a woman gets gangbanged. Often such stories give the woman no agency or personality - she's expected to be an indiscriminate orifice, and presumably that's what many readers like. This story had our woman get fucked by a few men, but then there's a hopeful guy who doesn't have a condom to use.

She says no to him. Her boyfriend ensures the guy goes away, she continues putting out for some more guys. To me, that 'no' proved she had some sense of self-preservation and thus became a much more real character - it made the story better.

Though I suspect that's because I'm a woman identifying with her in the story. It's likely most readers were male thinking about being one or more of the men, and didn't like a man not getting his leg over, though - it didn't score as well as the writing deserved, which always means some readers didn't get what they wanted.

 

[EarlyMorningLight]

I've written a few stories where the sub has forgotten to set a safeword, but usually with the clear authorial message of 'look, this is why you always set a safeword' although usually the characters are fine because I tend to write 'cosy' BDSM relationships anyway. Actually using a safeword can really kill the momentum of a scene, so I've only done it when there was an actual fire in the room! Inspiration! - I'm going to think about how you might start a story seconds after a safeword has been used, with the resolution of whatever issue triggered it being the culmination of the story.

This is why, in life and writing, I love the traffic lights system. I've got a couple of stories on the go where subs "yellow" to pause, slow down, or shift the action slightly. It's a way to assert boundaries and agency without derailing a scene. That being said, I think that even a "red" or a hard safeword can add to a story if handled well, because of the space it creates for conversation and deeper connection between characters, as well as opportunities to depict aftercare.

 

[EarlyMorningLight]

As long as they say yes to something, it can still work to have a no too.

I like stories where the characters seem like real people. @EarlyMorningLight wrote one recently where a woman gets gangbanged. Often such stories give the woman no agency or personality - she's expected to be an indiscriminate orifice, and presumably that's what many readers like. This story had our woman get fucked by a few men, but then there's a hopeful guy who doesn't have a condom to use.

She says no to him. Her boyfriend ensures the guy goes away, she continues putting out for some more guys. To me, that 'no' proved she had some sense of self-preservation and thus became a much more real character - it made the story better.

Though I suspect that's because I'm a woman identifying with her in the story. It's likely most readers were male thinking about being one or more of the men, and didn't like a man not getting his leg over, though - it didn't score as well as the writing deserved, which always means some readers didn't get what they wanted.

Weirdly, while I was sleeping, this story jumped from 4.53 to 4.84 with an additional seven votes. I couldn't figure it out, but now I'm wondering if this post had something to do with it? If so, thank you!!!

 

[Lovecraft_Lore]

Though I suspect that's because I'm a woman identifying with her in the story. It's likely most readers were male thinking about being one or more of the men, and didn't like a man not getting his leg over, though - it didn't score as well as the writing deserved, which always means some readers didn't get what they wanted.

I could imagine the guys thinking about being the one getting rejected then down voting the story. That is a good example. Hopefully the down votes will get sweeped away.

 

[SimonDoom]

Personal responsibility...dead, or just twitching?

I see you've run out of the meds again. Time to run to the drug store. You might want to let the wife drive, however.

 

[TheRedChamber]

Weirdly, while I was sleeping, this story jumped from 4.53 to 4.84 with an additional seven votes. I couldn't figure it out, but now I'm wondering if this post had something to do with it? If so, thank you!!!

Possibly, but the grand sweep for the Nude Day Competition seems to have gone through, so some of your hater votes might have disappeared. I am also now hot where yesterday I was not (yay!).

 

[TheRedChamber]

I think you need to learn how to write women, that way you wouldn't be here looking for validation or an answer to your poorly veiled question of whether or not these scenarios work.

Typical gamer.

I need to learn how to write women and place descriptions and food descriptions and descriptions of the act of physical love making and men.

But you seem to have fallen into your weird logical snafu of 'Don't come to the place specifically set up to help writers get better at writing, just get better at writing.' I seem to remember a thread not so long ago where you did the same thing. You have an inability to learn from your mistakes and then get good.

Typical non-gamer...

 

[Bramblethorn]

Simply the adage that no means no - what we tell our kids so that they hopefully don't end up on rape charges. Everything I've read is 'no but...' We write erotica, so it's a given it will include sex. I don't expect authors here to beat the drum for social education, just surprised it hasn't been raised.

FWIW, the biggest "no" in Red Scarf is a permanent one. In very brief summary: Sarah and Anjali are friends who somewhat accidentally slip into an escorting/sugar type relationship. They discuss the terms of that arrangement, more or less as mature adults, in the knowledge that it will probably end when Anjali finishes her doctorate.

As that approaches (and as other things complicate their relationship) Sarah isn't ready to let go of it, and she effectively proposes to Anjali - Anjali is going overseas to take up a new job. To her shock, Anjali tells her no: in essence, "I had a lovely time but we never agreed to a permanent commitment and I need to move on to the next stage of my life". And Sarah has to deal with that. There's no High Fidelity boombox scene to turn it around.

It was interesting seeing how people reacted to that one. Anjali is a very honest character; she never ever promises more to Sarah than she's willing to deliver and she's never said anything to indicate that she's looking for a longer-term commitment with Sarah. But readers tend to expect that in the end, the protagonist will get everything they want, and the idea that Sarah had to deal with a permanent "no" caused some of them a great deal of consternation.

Sometimes "readers expect" feels like a good reason not to do something. I understand the appeal of wish fulfillment, stories where the protag eventually gets all the sex and love they could ask for. But we have about four hundred thousand of those stories on Literotica already. I think it's good to explore the other side of things at least occasionally. Eating candy all day gets cloying.

 

[Lifestyle66]

In the real world the way people deal with one another is infinitely varied. And even if that's NOT always true, it IS true that people fantasize about this. Women have fantasies about sex where they've said no.

I was once "schooled" by a woman at a party about her reason for wearing a collar and picking up her partner on a fetish site.

She went on in great detail about fetishes and how she knew some women arranged for their own assault, going over the situation they wanted acted out with her assailants.

In the real world, there are all kinds of fetishes and different people with different desires. Anyone who claims only they know how to write about men or women seem to believe everyone must think as they do.

 

[stickygirl]

FWIW, the biggest "no" in Red Scarf is a permanent one. In very brief summary: Sarah and Anjali are friends who somewhat accidentally slip into an escorting/sugar type relationship. They discuss the terms of that arrangement, more or less as mature adults, in the knowledge that it will probably end when Anjali finishes her doctorate.

As that approaches (and as other things complicate their relationship) Sarah isn't ready to let go of it, and she effectively proposes to Anjali - Anjali is going overseas to take up a new job. To her shock, Anjali tells her no: in essence, "I had a lovely time but we never agreed to a permanent commitment and I need to move on to the next stage of my life". And Sarah has to deal with that. There's no High Fidelity boombox scene to turn it around.

It was interesting seeing how people reacted to that one. Anjali is a very honest character; she never ever promises more to Sarah than she's willing to deliver and she's never said anything to indicate that she's looking for a longer-term commitment with Sarah. But readers tend to expect that in the end, the protagonist will get everything they want, and the idea that Sarah had to deal with a permanent "no" caused some of them a great deal of consternation.

Sometimes "readers expect" feels like a good reason not to do something. I understand the appeal of wish fulfillment, stories where the protag eventually gets all the sex and love they could ask for. But we have about four hundred thousand of those stories on Literotica already. I think it's good to explore the other side of things at least occasionally. Eating candy all day gets cloying.

I remember that chapter quite clearly and loved the tension you created. I prefer stories with their feet on the ground where people suffer setbacks and rejections because they're the obvious foil to easy acceptance. In the Red Scarf series I read both characters as equal and the 'no' was needed given the characters you'd created.

 

[Thefireflies]

Consider this classic scenario: two close-but-platonic friends have a night out on the town, and despite the platonic nature of their friendship, they’re having so much fun and at some point they kiss, which leads to deeper more passionate kissing, and eventually they’re close to sleeping together. However, one or both friends voices concerns how they don’t feel comfortable or are worried about changing the nature of their friendship, and they both back off from their almost sex. Things are a little awkward but ultimately their friendship is still intact. Still, one or both are horny as fuck, and privately when they’re alone, they have a wank, where their imagination takes up their fantasy from the moment right before they stopped irl. Maybe even delve into how they feel about the whole situation, wondering if their friendship would be any different if they’d ended up sleeping together that night.

 

[AlinaX]

Our real lives are governed by opportunity, legality/morality and safety.
1. There are the things we want to do (or think we'd like to do, or at least want to try) but there is no one to do them with, perhaps because you're not currently in a relationship or because you are but you're not sexually compatible with your partner: a husband you'd love to peg, for example, or a wife whose throat you'd love to fuck.
2. There are the things that we'd love to do but fear of being put up on criminal charges is too dissuasive - and this might be anything from a quick public fuck on the dance floor to kidnapping the neighbours' daughter on her 18th birthday and forcing her to ride the Sybian for hours.
3. There are the things we'd love to do but would simply never dare, for fear of STDs or physical violence or even just it being found out by people who actually know us: perhaps being gangbanged by strangers without condoms, or perhaps being forced to be your boss's slut while your husband watches helplessly.

Most of porn and erotica is about the fantasy of doing what is denied by real life. In real life, 'No' very often means a permanent 'No', and that should be respected. Erotica, however, is all about the 'What if?'

Add in to that, stories are all about obstacles being overcome. A 'No' voiced early on is like a target painted. If the 'No' stays permanent throughout, then it becomes almost an unresolved plot point, and there had better be something else more important going on to justify it.

 

[MillieDynamite]

In a story, a hard no, as opposed to not now, or not yet, becomes like Star Trek's "Resistance is Futile," if it remains futile and they relent and give in, was it seduction, coercion, or slow form of rape. It remains no. Why does it do so, and is the reason reasonable? Conflict in a story drives the plot. Not all conflicts need resolution. In fact, a soft no, a not yet, that turns to a hard no due to events could make for a great story. But on Literotica, you'll need some titillation, eroticism, or outright sex for the average reader.

I have a few weeks off from ghost work and hope to pen a long story for her, a few shorter pieces, or at least one story before I get mowed over with work again.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Add in to that, stories are all about obstacles being overcome. A 'No' voiced early on is like a target painted. If the 'No' stays permanent throughout, then it becomes almost an unresolved plot point, and there had better be something else more important going on to justify it.

Not sure I agree with this. It's a very common basis for a story, and probably the most straightforward, but it's far from the only one. Some of the most successful stories of all time don't fit that description: off the top of my head, Christie's "And Then There Were None", Saint-Exupéry's "The Little Prince", Shelley's "Frankenstein", for instance.

Erotica tends to favour happy endings and overcoming obstacles is an obvious path to a happy ending, but it's not the only way to tell a story.

 

[AlinaX]

Perhaps, but if Victor, having theorised that electricity could bring a body to life, had acknowledged that such an act was too immoral and abandoned his work, would we still have such a massively influential work of fiction to inspire us 200 years later?

ETA: Indeed, the obstacle overcome in Frankenstein is no less than a Law of Nature.

 

[EarlyMorningLight]

Erotica tends to favour happy endings and overcoming obstacles is an obvious path to a happy ending, but it's not the only way to tell a story.

Even many of the HEA stories here start with a hard no, featuring a breakup early in the story before the protagonist finds new love. A no doesn't have to be a roadblock -- it can be a detour.