Ethics and Erotica

[SimonDoom]

Which is why I suggested above that some kind of a summary of views (by author count, not name) would be interesting. It was clear to me from the start that many of us have the notion of personal, individual ethics, which you've acknowledged takes you by surprise.

Your acknowledgment also explains why some conversations run at cross-purposes, if there's an assumption been made as to meaning, which turns out not to be aligned.

This is the $64 issue. Debates over definitions are not meaningful; debates are only meaningful once we've agreed on the terms we're going to use, so we can meaningfully clash on grounds of policy and morality. But the exploration of what we mean by terms like "morals" and "ethics" can still be illuminating.

 

[AG31]

Debates over definitions are not meaningful; debates are only meaningful once we've agreed on the terms we're going to use,

Hear, hear!!!

 

[Bramblethorn]

A big difference, though, is that we have mountains of data concerning blood alcohol levels and the risk of physical injury or death. Even if we don't have a breathalyzer handy, we know to a high degree of probability that if we drink 5 beers in a relatively brief time at a bar and then get behind the wheel of a car we are substantially increasing the risk to ourselves and to others. We have no such data and no way to make such calculations when we publish stories.

You may have missed the part where I wrote "even in areas where the question can't satisfactorily be answered by empirical measurements".

For instance, I'm not aware of any quantitative data about the risks and potential harm that could be incurred by a lawyer showing up to a trial under the effects of alcohol, or a therapist counselling a suicidal patient while ditto, or for somebody to bid on an expensive house auction while ditto. But I think most people would consider it appropriate to have a conversation about "responsible drinking" with somebody who did such things, even in the absence of data that would allow for quantifying those risks.

It's an interesting comparison, because, objectively speaking, I think a much stronger ethical case can be made against drinking in public than against publishing erotic stories with even the most extreme content, but most people probably don't see it that way because of the peculiar way that people view sexual matters differently from the way they view other activities.

I do agree that sexual matters are often handled under a different standard to other issues, and I'd say the same for alcohol too. (Comparing to how we discuss other drugs.)

But I'm not sure that this particular topic is an example of that standard. Similar conversations about "responsible fiction-writing" do arise even when there's no sexual context. I recently mentioned "The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas" as a book that's sparked a fair bit of discussion on the ethics of historical fiction; Jojo Rabbit drew some similar conversation, although I think overall that's rather more defensible. Romance readers and writers have been talking about the ethics of genres like "plantation romance", and while there is a sexual angle to that conversation, it extends beyond just that angle.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Is it time for Marcus Aurelius yet?

Waste no more time arguing what a good man should be. Be one.

 

[ElectricBlue]

This is true. Just as it's true that John Hinkley watched the movie Taxi Driver, became obsessed with Jodie Foster, and tried to assassinate Ronald Reagan.

Precisely. My point remains only: never say, "It's only fiction, it will have no effect on others," which is what a lot of people say of their work a lot of the time, usually defending something they know to be somewhat iffy. Most of us, though, know when to say, "You know what, maybe I won't publish that one."

I agree, the fucktards are not our responsibility, but this notion that words don't have the power they quite obviously have is blindness. One could go on and point out your beloved Constitution, the Bible, the Koran, Mein Kampf etc etc. Only words, huh?

Carry on .

 

[HordHolm]

Every time these discussions come up, I think of Charles Manson playing The Beatles' White Album, and thinking the song Helter Skelter was a call for an all out race war.

That completely nut job belief did not turn out well for the Tate, La Bianca victims, nor the dozen or so other murders that have been attributed to the Manson Family.

So there's some very visible evidence right there. Crazy people exist, and go to unexpected places. Sure, Paul, John, George and Ringo aren't responsible for Manson's insanity, but their song was a trigger for the deeds (not the only trigger, obviously, but the most visible one).

It's self-reported, though, and thus completely unreliable. Particularly in Manson's case.

 

[AchtungNight]

It's self-reported, though, and thus completely unreliable. Particularly in Manson's case.

Was the Jodie Foster film Taxi Driver a trigger for a political assassination attempt? In John Hinckley Jr’s case, yeah, but not in the general public sense. You can’t blame Jodie or the other people who made that film for Hinckley’s stupidity. And yes, people can regret their life choices when it comes to erotic material. But in general I think it’s a good thing and worth making more quality content. So I continue my efforts.

 

[ElectricBlue]

It's self-reported, though, and thus completely unreliable. Particularly in Manson's case.

What do you mean, self reported? It was a major feature of the prosecutor's case, to get Manson convicted as the instigator, since he wasn't present at any of the murders.

You should read Vincent Bugliosi's book Helter Skelter - he was the prosecutor for all the killers, as well as Manson.

It contains some of the most horrifying descriptions of evil I've ever read, in the descriptions of the women, their actions in court.

 

[ChloeTzang]

No fictional content should be held responsible for real life actions. When they are accused of it, its just witch hunters looking for censorship. I can remember my first encounter with this back in the early 80's when Dungeons and Dragons was blamed for mental illness and suicide etc...and of course Heavy Metal has been making satanists out of kids for decades.

Now there, I would disagree. Desensitization and Conditioning are standard techniques that can be used to make the unthinkable, both thinkable and accepted. The military, for example, use both techniques in training soldiers to kill. Video games are particularly effective. Writing, not so much, but simulated reality is a great training technique - that's why pilots are trained in very realistic simulators, a lot of militaries now use simulated training - and what makes this training process work is the same thing that made Pavlov's dogs salivate and B. F. Skinner's rats press their bars. What makes it work is the single most powerful and reliable behavior modification process yet discovered by the field of psychology, and now applied to the field of warfare: operant conditioning.

Now, again, not so much writing, but things like porn videos are essentially exactly the same type of conditioning. We expose people to things like violent pornography and over time, we are conditioning them to accept this as reality. With the ubiquity and easy accessibility of online porn, this is much more the reality than it was thirty or forty years ago. Teenagers for example aren’t simply watching porn to satisfy their curiosities or to masturbate to. Seventy-nine percent of respondents to a survey on who’d consumed porn said doing so taught them how to have sex. Just over half had viewed content that depicted actors choking, assaulting, or otherwise inflicting pain on co-stars. What people watch, especially when they're young and more impressionable, shapes their current and future sexual expectations and behaviors.

Overexposure can normalize unhealthy views and behaviors about sex and sexual relationships that we don’t want young people to think are commonplace. In addition, with so much exposure to violent pornographic material, a major concern is how this might impact the sensitivity levels of teens to other types of violence.” Research in general shows the risks are more pronounced among young men.

So while fictional content can't be held responsible directly for real life actions, it is formative in shaping views and behavior - we're conditioning viewers to regard these things as normal, and there's a lot of content out there that would definitely NOT be regarded as normal - rape and faked snuff movies for example.

 

[SimonDoom]

Now there, I would disagree. Desensitization and Conditioning are standard techniques that can be used to make the unthinkable, both thinkable and accepted. The military, for example, use both techniques in training soldiers to kill. Video games are particularly effective. Writing, not so much, but simulated reality is a great training technique - that's why pilots are trained in very realistic simulators, a lot of militaries now use simulated training - and what makes this training process work is the same thing that made Pavlov's dogs salivate and B. F. Skinner's rats press their bars. What makes it work is the single most powerful and reliable behavior modification process yet discovered by the field of psychology, and now applied to the field of warfare: operant conditioning.

Now, again, not so much writing, but things like porn videos are essentially exactly the same type of conditioning. We expose people to things like violent pornography and over time, we are conditioning them to accept this as reality. With the ubiquity and easy accessibility of online porn, this is much more the reality than it was thirty or forty years ago. Teenagers for example aren’t simply watching porn to satisfy their curiosities or to masturbate to. Seventy-nine percent of respondents to a survey on who’d consumed porn said doing so taught them how to have sex. Just over half had viewed content that depicted actors choking, assaulting, or otherwise inflicting pain on co-stars. What people watch, especially when they're young and more impressionable, shapes their current and future sexual expectations and behaviors.

Overexposure can normalize unhealthy views and behaviors about sex and sexual relationships that we don’t want young people to think are commonplace. In addition, with so much exposure to violent pornographic material, a major concern is how this might impact the sensitivity levels of teens to other types of violence.” Research in general shows the risks are more pronounced among young men.

So while fictional content can't be held responsible directly for real life actions, it is formative in shaping views and behavior - we're conditioning viewers to regard these things as normal, and there's a lot of content out there that would definitely NOT be regarded as normal - rape and faked snuff movies for example.

But here's the thing. There's no evidence that the ease with which the Internet makes pornographic content of all kinds more accessible to everybody has resulted in a net increase in bad behaviors. The Internet phenomenon started around 1994, one year after the peak in the violent crime rate in the USA in 1993. Since then, the violent crime rate has dropped, while Internet usage and the accessibility of porn have exploded.

It's not enough to say: "Here are a few examples where a bad person said he saw something online and said he reacted badly to it." That tells us nothing as moral actors or as responsible citizens about what we should do, because isolated incidents don't prove anything meaningful.

Precisely. My point remains only: never say, "It's only fiction, it will have no effect on others," which is what a lot of people say of their work a lot of the time, usually defending something they know to be somewhat iffy. Most of us, though, know when to say, "You know what, maybe I won't publish that one."

You continue to dodge my point, which is that, while it's obvious that written words have impacts, unless we have some grounds reasonably to foresee what impacts certain words will have, we have no information that is useful to us for making ethical decisions. We know after the fact that John Hinkley reacted negatively to Taxi Driver; that fact is useless for telling us what kind of art we should and should not produce and publish. Nobody says, "Well, Scorsese shouldn't have directed Taxi Driver. Schaefer shouldn't have written the screenplay." So extremely broad generalizations that "words have impacts" get us nowhere, ethically, in these conversations.

 

[NatalieDePlume]

Now, again, not so much writing, but things like porn videos are essentially exactly the same type of conditioning. We expose people to things like violent pornography and over time, we are conditioning them to accept this as reality.

I'm quoting you Chloe, inspired by what you said, but speaking in general to everyone.

I think the solution is education. Porn is fantasy, just like erotica. If more young people learn this, they're far better off. Because then they can still enjoy porn as fantasy, while at the same time not trying to choke out the girl next door with their peen. She's probably not going to like that in real life.

People are impressionable, true. But we also have to remember that adults are going out of their way to come to sites like this to read stuff like this. And we give plenty of warning as to what they might be getting into with keywords and so on.
We can't control for all the potentially infinite variables that might trigger someone. Even then it's a question of how much we should try to control for it, if people are coming out of their way for things that might trigger one person, or get another person off, or inspire them to do something (or someone) good in world.

What I love about erotic fiction is that it is so wild. I feel like you can just go unbridled compared to even regular fiction. That's what makes it so fun to write and why I do it. If I had to hold back, I'd just be writing regular fiction.

 

[ElectricBlue]

You continue to dodge my point, which is that, while it's obvious that written words have impacts, unless we have some grounds reasonably to foresee what impacts certain words will have, we have no information that is useful to us for making ethical decisions.

That's where one's own personal ethics enter the equation - those personal values you seem surprised people have, but which, from this thread alone, more people express them than don't. If that tortured sentence makes sense.

 

[HordHolm]

What do you mean, self reported? It was a major feature of the prosecutor's case, to get Manson convicted as the instigator, since he wasn't present at any of the murders.

You should read Vincent Bugliosi's book Helter Skelter - he was the prosecutor for all the killers, as well as Manson.

It contains some of the most horrifying descriptions of evil I've ever read, in the descriptions of the women, their actions in court.

OK, the point is here, despite what might be said in court, nobody prosecuting Manson saw him listen to this record, none of them were with him when he did. So where did that information come from? It can only be from your boy himself. Now, at that point we are reduced to replying, at whatever level, on Manson himself (or those who listened to his rantings) reporting that Helter Skelter was his inspiration. That 'it made him do it,' and how 'truthful' we believe those reports to be.

At this point we have to ask two questions which are germane:

1) how much could Manson himself, or those who were with him when he discovered his 'inspiration,' successfully ascribe that record as motivation? There's a need for some self-diagnosis at that point, and can we believe Manson was self-aware enough to self-diagnose, with the truthfulness for us to accept his self-diagnosis. And if it was an inspiration, to what level, as opposed to e.g. a headful of drugs, or a pre-existing psychopathy, or his anger at not being recognised as the next big thing in the music industry, or any number of other issues? Frankly, in this situation, I can both understand the prosecutor (using the song makes it easy for the jury to understand), and totally distrust the evidence - if Manson told me it was raining I'd reach for my suncream.

2) if we accept Helter Skelter played a role (and as it happens, I do), how much can we accept that it played the true role ascribed? Manson was a deeply manipulative individual - it is absolutely reasonable for us to speculate that he himself was using Helter Skelter as an excuse to his followers, and it was a tool.

The thing is, even if Helter Skelter really was central to the whole thing, even if Manson really did find secret messages there, the evidence is subjective and speculative, not empirical. Furthermore, we can't tell whether, if it wasn't the Beatles, the man was so strung out he wouldn't have found the same madness on the back of a cornflakes packet instead. At which point we can safely assume that it wasn't the media, but the pre-existing condition that was the issue.

In a wider sense than Manson, we have to look at these reported instances - Ted Bundy's 'porn made me do it, honest guvnor,' or that teenager back in the day who was convinced Judas Priest were telling him to blow his head off, or any number of other supposed incidences, that we are faced with either a) simple excuses to shift the blame, or b) conditions where people would have found anything, and the thing they latched on to is neither here nor there, actually.

It reminds me of the football hooligan problem in England back in the 80s. There was an ongoing discussion at the time about the responsibility of football itself for the problem, and a strong conclusion was that whilst the football authorities needed to do something (and they did, in conjunction with the cops), there was a real probability that the factors fuelling hooliganism were far more to do with territorialism (visible now amongst street gangs that have no association with football). In short, the gangs would have latched on to anything that gave them the excuse to fight: correlation, not causation.

 

[Voboy]

OK, the point is here, despite what might be said in court, nobody prosecuting Manson saw him listen to this record, none of them were with him when he did. So where did that information come from? It can only be from your boy himself. Now, at that point we are reduced to replying, at whatever level, on Manson himself (or those who listened to his rantings) reporting that Helter Skelter was his inspiration. That 'it made him do it,' and how 'truthful' we believe those reports to be.

Read Helter Skelter.

Prosecutors had a VERY clear idea of what life was like at Spahn and, later, in the desert. It came from a lot more sources than just Charlie. Many witnesses (not all of whom were defendants, not all of whom were in The Family) described the lifestyle.

 

[XerXesXu]

Manson adopted 'Helter Skelter' as a cool name for the race-war doomsday cult he'd founded before the Beatles released that track. He was diagnosed, like Hinckley, as schizophrenic. No one can reasonably foresee what the insane will read into anything. I'm more interested in drill-rap, and how it affects perfectly sane teenagers from some minority communities. Is that reasonably foreseeable?

 

[OffNSFW]

"1. Do you accept the idea that there are ethical limits on what kind of erotica you should publish? Why or why not? What are those limits?"

This conversation is usually about which subject matter is and isn't acceptable. I look at it another way. I don't think any subject is off-limits. I do think that some subjects need to be handled with more care and finesse than others.

"2. Do you believe that your stories are likely to have an impact beyond the space of this forum? What kind of impact? Why do you believe what you believe on this question?"

I have no idea, but I hope they do. I believe pornography (which this is) can help people to better understand their own sexuality and have a more joyous and fulfilling sex life.

"3. Do you have any personal background or knowledge, or professional experience, that bears on the question?"

Just the personal testimony of porn having done that for me.

"4. Do you know of sources of evidence or analysis elsewhere that bear on this question in a significant way?"

I'm not going to Google it for anyone, but countries with more relaxed attitudes towards pornography and sex work tend to have higher rates of overall happiness and lower rates of sexual criminality.

"5. Are you open to having your mind changed on this question?"

Yes, in the sense that I arrived at my current perspective out of a willingness to evolve and modify my views. I don't anticipate being talked back into a more regressive opinion on the subject.

"6. When you write stories, do you do so with an ethical purpose in mind?"

My first priority is honest self-expression. But the idea that I'm providing pleasure to an audience, that providing pleasure is a kindness, and that kindness is a good unto itself, doesn't escape me. On occasion, I also go out of my way to normalize things like queerness, sex toys, and safer sex practices.

 

[HordHolm]

Read Helter Skelter.

Prosecutors had a VERY clear idea of what life was like at Spahn and, later, in the desert. It came from a lot more sources than just Charlie. Many witnesses (not all of whom were defendants, not all of whom were in The Family) described the lifestyle.

But that doesn't mean that he actually based his beliefs on that particular record, or just used it as a convenient conduit to fit his pre-existing ideas to. Given all his other issues there is no way of making a definitive judgement on the issue, and the only way of truly knowing would be to be inside his head.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

But here's the thing. There's no evidence that the ease with which the Internet makes pornographic content of all kinds more accessible to everybody has resulted in a net increase in bad behaviors. The Internet phenomenon started around 1994, one year after the peak in the violent crime rate in the USA in 1993. Since then, the violent crime rate has dropped, while Internet usage and the accessibility of porn have exploded.

'Bad behaviours' is one hell of a broad brush.

I agree with your general point - violent crime has indeed dropped, while what you could call violent-crime-porn, characters viewers are supposed to identify with or admire doing violent things, is probably available at much the same level since 1990, films in cinemas, shops and to download, and on TV. Slight decreases in what TV will show as normalised, but it's much more likely that removing lead from petrol and reducing levels of drunkenness in public have been key causes.

But if looking at porn, you'd expect it to influence sexual behaviour, rather than violence. Certain activities that once were very taboo are now something many people will try - threesomes, toy use, same-sex, being watched. The activities which are seen as edgy that people are embarrassed to ask about have changed - in the 90s young people were too shy to ask for anal, but men who were wankers would often try to 'oops' into the wrong hole, like decades earlier apparently they'd often 'oops, I slipped' into a vagina, or try to.

By 2010-15, anal was mainstream enough couples would actually talk about it and there was more understanding that shoving your dick where it wasn't invited was rape. But choking was suddenly a thing, with over half of 20s women saying someone had tried to choke them, usually without asking, and generally assuming women liked it (or do the chokers just say that? Hard to say.)
Crap article here but links to some evidence.

Now, being less likely to get sodomised but more likely to get asphyxiated may be a zero net change, depending on your feelings on those activities and which end you're on, but it's very unlikely porn wasn't a key factor changing those behaviours. It wasn't mainstream TV or films or influencers on Insta.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Now, being less likely to get sodomised but more likely to get asphyxiated may be a zero net change, depending on your feelings on those activities and which end you're on, but it's very unlikely porn wasn't a key factor changing those behaviours. It wasn't mainstream TV or films or influencers on Insta.

With the caveat that most of that shift in sexual attitude is a direct consequence of visual porn and its influence on teenagers discovering their sexuality, but I see no reason why the plethora of written porn wouldn't have a similar, although possibly, a lesser effect.

It's got to the point in Australia where there's now a bunch of new consent law coming through each state, and we have a new Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Anna Cody (appointed in September 2023).

All of our waffle here focuses on the effect of porn on adults, but it's the effect on kids I worry about - and you can bet your booties young teenagers are reading content here.

 

[ChloeTzang]

With the caveat that most of that shift in sexual attitude is a direct consequence of visual porn and its influence on teenagers discovering their sexuality, but I see no reason why the plethora of written porn wouldn't have a similar, although possibly, a lesser effect.

It's got to the point in Australia where there's now a bunch of new consent law coming through each state, and we have a new Federal Sex Discrimination Commissioner, Dr Anna Cody (appointed in September 2023).

All of our waffle here focuses on the effect of porn on adults, but it's the effect on kids I worry about - and you can bet your booties young teenagers are reading content here.

Visuals have a much more substantial impact that the written word. I take pilots as an example - you learn much more and absorb much more from a flight simulator than from reading a flight manual. Visuals are much more "hands on" conditioning, and video games even more so. Movies fall in the middle of the scale, atho that may well change as virtual reality becomes more prevalent - there was already that case in the UK where police were after somebody for harassments in a VR game or something. Start moving from porn movies to virtual reality porn and imagine how that changes the game and what hacking could do. Probably been done before but thate's a few plot bunnies here.

 

[CalebZhass]

Unless we weer into areas that are straight up illegal - what "ethics" one follows is pretty much an individual decision that comes from within. I don't think there is, could be or will ever be a defined standard on what's ethical writing, be that in erotica or elsewhere. Most of the time, discussing this ends up with people throwing hollow (to the others) arguments around with literally zero chance of convincing anyone.

Everyone writes (and reads) what they can fit into their own ethical code. What their conscience can live with.
I read lots of true NC stories, I enjoy them personally. Yet I do not write them, as I too am part of the - maybe misguided - group, which believes that a story can serve as inspiration for someone to act on, and I personally would hate it for my work to be the catalyst that leads to someone else's suffering. (I mean, apart from the suffering they go through having to read my work - that's on them for doing it.)

So no matter how slim that chance is, I sleep better knowing that I write stuff that is more on the socially accepted side of sex, even if I myself more than enjoy the darker side as well.

 

[cababge]

Having skimmed a lot of the thread and the debates about whether fiction can desensitize people/lead towards real-world atrocities, I would say this:

It can. I don't think that's really disputable. Watch Ted Bundy's interview prior to his execution. He talks about the escalation ladder that comes from looking for continually more stimulating media. Violent porn is an extreme example, and a demented murderer's word should hardly be considered gospel, but I think it does show how much we can be affected by the media we consume.

I would say it's more ethical to write violent erotica than produce violent porn. It could still affect readers.

It might sound cold, but I don't think that responsibility falls on the author. Is is the readers job to mediate their own media consumption appropriately. That doesn't mean I won't judge you for writing something which glorifies rape, but if it's fiction I probably won't hold you responsible for the next real-world abuse that occurs.

It gets more complicated, though. What about a manifesto? When does a work of fiction cross a line from endorsement to incitement? I don't have an answer.

 

[CalebZhass]

That doesn't mean I won't judge you for writing something which glorifies rape....

I understand where you are coming from with this and on one hand it is understandable and the socially accepted stance. I have to wonder though, is this not a slippery slope? If we start judging people for their fantasies, where do we draw the line?

I guess your emphasis there would be on "glorifying it", but again, that's a very rubbery criteria. If the rapist enjoys the rape, is that glorifying? If the victim feels pleasure as a result (even if unwanted), is that glorifying? If the bad guy is not caught at the end, is that glorifying it?

How about milder, but still socially shunned topics, like masochism or sadism? If someone clearly enjoys whipping people until they cry, does it make that person somehow morally reprehensible? If someone enjoys receiving pain, does that make them crazy?

I think the answer to all those questions really, is no. Consequently, it is not on us to judge others for what they like or how they like things. We can judge people for their actions, not their thoughts or fantasies. Being curious about how pipe bombs work do not make me a latent bomber. Writing stories with pipe bombs involved do not make me a latent bomber or one who endorses others going out and blowing shit up. Doing the same, while also going around shopping for parts and having maps of the local shopping mall in my basement however is already grounds for going to jail. The difference here is having taken action.

Some people who fantasize about rape fulfill those fantasies with their partner, role playing a non consensual encounter into a consensual one. A very small, minuscule fraction goes out and does harm to people. Guess what, the same people would also go out and kill people, rob people, etc. There are bad people in the world, period. Not because of what they fantasize about, but because they are unable to control their urges. Their actions make them bad, not their thoughts.

Don't take this the wrong way, you are in your right to think any way you want, I am just trying to show that maybe the question is not as morally straightforward as it seems and following the socially accepted norm might not be the correct way in every case, especially here of all places, where we read and write about a wide variety of sexual encounters.

 

[KeithD]

I understand where you are coming from with this and on one hand it is understandable and the socially accepted stance. I have to wonder though, is this not a slippery slope? If we start judging people for their fantasies, where do we draw the line?

I guess your emphasis there would be on "glorifying it", but again, that's a very rubbery criteria. If the rapist enjoys the rape, is that glorifying? If the victim feels pleasure as a result (even if unwanted), is that glorifying? If the bad guy is not caught at the end, is that glorifying it?

How about milder, but still socially shunned topics, like masochism or sadism? If someone clearly enjoys whipping people until they cry, does it make that person somehow morally reprehensible? If someone enjoys receiving pain, does that make them crazy?

I haven't followed this thread closely, so I may be taking this discussion out of the frame, but this struck me as an opportunity to note how I get past this moral and selection dilemma of the rape fantasy here on Literotica. I write mostly GM, and the rape fantasy is real and arousing for gay males mainly because society's response to homosexuality makes "giving it up without control" more compelling for gays than for straights. The rape fantasy--or at least the first initiation not wholly willingly--theme is a strong one for gay males, so it begs to be written.

What I do with it here on Literotica is to establish that the character is open to it and ready to be pushed over that edge before it happens. Simple, really. But it takes care of the "has to enjoy it" requirement here when coupled with that ending. Establish the protagonist is ready for it even if there's that initial reluctance and forced nature and then, yes, show the relief of having gotten across that barrier (which I often write as having gone through the beaded curtain in a doorway).

 

[Omenainen]

My latest (a 750 for this year) exemplifies the way I feel it’s appropriate to write about kidnapping, raping and forced breeding.