How is it that abuse is now king?

[AchtungNight]

Nope. If I'm being entirely honest, I've never read you yet.

Well, you’ve liked enough of my comments on these boards. If you want to give my stories a chance also, feel free. Link is in my signature.

 

[NoTalentHack]

A parting shot. Abuse has always been king, but in prior and much better generations the abusers laid low, but we now live in a day and age where not only is abuse glorified, but as some here prove is met with far more acceptance than condemnation.

All hail the era that calls itself "Progressive"

I’m going to skip the LW dig above, because this was a post from a few weeks ago, but I HAVE to comment here.

This is absolute nonsense, and it’s so wrongheaded that I… like, seriously, I have no idea where to start.

I know you're up in the northeast. Maybe you grew up there, and things were really different. I don't think they were, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt.

In the South, though? And even in suburban MI, where I lived for a while? Fuck no. Abuse was WAY more blatant back then. It was also a lot more societally normalized. The guys today, like Andrew Tate and his ilk, are a throwback to that previous "abuse as a default" scenario, it's just that people rightfully kick back against it now. They didn't back then. I mean, yeah, you made sure your daughter didn't get involved with a guy like that, but if she married a "good" guy, and that guy occasionally had to "deal with her," as long as it didn't get out of hand, you let it slide. And mind you, this was back in the 70s and 80s!

It was a societal thing. Like, in the very DNA of American culture until really recently, it was there. You don't see ads like these anymore, for example, or at least not from big companies, without massive public outcry:

Christ, I feel like I need to take a shower.

This was the baseline! The "hahah, isn't this funny" shit that guys were supposed to (and usually did) agree with. The things going on behind closed doors? FFS. Men didn't hide their abuse back in the day. They didn't have to, unless it was so over the top that their wife got hospitalized. and if it was "just" a sex worker? Who gave a fuck.

Shit, I remember when The Burning Bed came on TV and men were absolutely agog at the concept of a woman fighting back like that, or even that she really had a reason to fight back at all. Spousal rape as a legal concept, one punishable by jail time, came about in my lifetime. "Date rape" entered the vernacular during that time, too. I remember when I was a kid, barely old enough to understand what was being implied, guys arguing--seriously, honestly, thinking they had a point arguing--that if he bought dinner and took her to a movie, his date had a moral duty to put out.

Look, I'm not saying there aren't real issues still out there. Women are still attacked, both by friends and strangers, although at a much lower rate than in the past; the stats are upthread. The fact that a generation of disaffected young men--admittedly a relatively small minority of them--look up to guys like Andrew Tate and his ilk is sickening. But pretending that things aren't, overall, massively better than when we were kids, much less a generation before that? It's absolute hogwash.

 

[JaxRhapsody]

I’m going to skip the LW dig above, because this was a post from a few weeks ago, but I HAVE to comment here.

This is absolute nonsense, and it’s so wrongheaded that I… like, seriously, I have no idea where to start.

I know you're up in the northeast. Maybe you grew up there, and things were really different. I don't think they were, but I'll give the benefit of the doubt.

In the South, though? And even in suburban MI, where I lived for a while? Fuck no. Abuse was WAY more blatant back then. It was also a lot more societally normalized. The guys today, like Andrew Tate and his ilk, are a throwback to that previous "abuse as a default" scenario, it's just that people rightfully kick back against it now. They didn't back then. I mean, yeah, you made sure your daughter didn't get involved with a guy like that, but if she married a "good" guy, and that guy occasionally had to "deal with her," as long as it didn't get out of hand, you let it slide. And mind you, this was back in the 70s and 80s!

It was a societal thing. Like, in the very DNA of American culture until really recently, it was there. You don't see ads like these anymore, for example, or at least not from big companies, without massive public outcry:

Christ, I feel like I need to take a shower.

This was the baseline! The "hahah, isn't this funny" shit that guys were supposed to (and usually did) agree with. The things going on behind closed doors? FFS. Men didn't hide their abuse back in the day. They didn't have to, unless it was so over the top that their wife got hospitalized. and if it was "just" a sex worker? Who gave a fuck.

Shit, I remember when The Burning Bed came on TV and men were absolutely agog at the concept of a woman fighting back like that, or even that she really had a reason to fight back at all. Spousal rape as a legal concept, one punishable by jail time, came about in my lifetime. "Date rape" entered the vernacular during that time, too. I remember when I was a kid, barely old enough to understand what was being implied, guys arguing--seriously, honestly, thinking they had a point arguing--that if he bought dinner and took her to a movie, his date had a moral duty to put out.

Look, I'm not saying there aren't real issues still out there. Women are still attacked, both by friends and strangers, although at a much lower rate than in the past; the stats are upthread. The fact that a generation of disaffected young men--admittedly a relatively small minority of them--look up to guys like Andrew Tate and his ilk is sickening. But pretending that things aren't, overall, massively better than when we were kids, much less a generation before that? It's absolute hogwash.

Sure most of that is bad, but I'm not gonna look at the past through the eyes of presentism. It happened already, all we can do is learn from it and move on.

 

[CyranoJ]

Sure most of that is bad, but I'm not gonna look at the past through the eyes of presentism. It happened already, all we can do is learn from it and move on.

It's not possible to learn from the past and actually move on when one is falsely idealizing it, is what I take to be the point. And it's correct.

 

[TheRedChamber]

I, for one, am not ashamed to admit that I want to read this (although I'm not willing to fund the author to the tune of 15c). After all, the ad raises more questions than it answers. Alas, although it seems that the ad appeared in Modern Man November 1960, and has appeared in countless 'most sexist ads ever' lists on the Internet, no-one seems to actually own a copy of the treatise advertised. From the picture, the wife's infraction is unclear, she's being spanked rather than beaten and is clearly into it, which makes me hopeful that it's just a proto-BDSM text. On the other hand, the idea that the ad is advertised at men who once beat their wife and have stopped...does not support that reading. I'd like to know who the author blames for the abandonment of domestic abuse ('is it the pinko communists? I bet it's the pinko communists'). Possibly though the ad is riffing off the old example of a loaded question 'When did you stop beating your wife' only the irony hasn't quite come across. Perhaps the author and artist just weren't on the same page regarding the tone of the pamphlet. Moreover, I'm perplexed as to what 'eminent practitioner of this manly art' means - after all, if you have to beat your wife regularly, either it doesn't work as a deterant or you aren't doing it very well - making me again come round to the idea that this is proto-BDSM albeit one with an inherent gender bias. It seems we will never know.

Although, whatever the original thesis, me senses, there may be a period story in this.

 

[NoTalentHack]

Although, whatever the original thesis, me senses, there may be a period story in this.

This reminded me of a tweet that I saw a few weeks back. Don't remember the exact language, but basically, "all the places where you see maids and secretaries in porn, particularly fetish and NC/R porn? Fifty years from now, you'll be able to replace them with a barista. Same level of power imbalance, updated for the future."

 

[HordHolm]

This reminded me of a tweet that I saw a few weeks back. Don't remember the exact language, but basically, "all the places where you see maids and secretaries in porn, particularly fetish and NC/R porn? Fifty years from now, you'll be able to replace them with a barista. Same level of power imbalance, updated for the future."

Kevin Smith already went there.

 

[madelinemasoch]

This reminded me of a tweet that I saw a few weeks back. Don't remember the exact language, but basically, "all the places where you see maids and secretaries in porn, particularly fetish and NC/R porn? Fifty years from now, you'll be able to replace them with a barista. Same level of power imbalance, updated for the future."

I can scarcely think of a job more miserable than a cashier/service clerk of any kind. Aside from being a miner or something.

 

[JaxRhapsody]

I can scarcely think of a job more miserable than a cashier/service clerk of any kind. Aside from being a miner or something.

Disney employee. Especially child stars.

 

[Stimtheone]

On the original question, while I do not particularly "understand" why people want abuse, I can certainly give some gathered observations.

As a comment to the Twilight thing, I once had this thing sorta show why it makes sense. Imagine if this high-school boy had this sexy, vampire lady looking like the best parts of young and old put together come into his life with a huge thirst for him. Then in the other book you suddenly have this Amazonian woman come in and start thirsting for him as well, having the women fight over him? Yeah, that can probably raise some boners.

I do think that it's coming from a skewed mentality of the readers... whichever they may be... they see in that relationship some sort of validation and ignore the rest. They don't think "This is someone who is toying with another person with no concern" but rather "the super special guy wants me, thus I am GREAT!". Another thing might be that the readers are so psychopathic that they can't see that it's abuse, or so blind to those parts, taking the good, ignoring the bad. A lot of people in abusive relationships can end up like that, discarding the bad stuff and focusing what good there is, going on because there is still some good. Yes, I know they hurt me constantly and I never asked for this, but sometimes they're nice.

Perhaps that's the reason. They discard the abuse and only focus on the good stuff, and these stories given as examples are always about the women attracting the attention of some rich, powerful guy. If The Grey guy lived in a trailer park, that story would be in the horror section. As said, they see it as some validation, as if "as long as they abuse, it means I have their attention" which I equivalate to some mental illness. Yes, some people will be offended by that, but go right ahead.

Other stories might be written with the intent of titillating the other side, of being an enjoyment for the abuser to go wreck the things they hate. I mean, can't do it in real life? Go write a book where your author avatar can pump, dump and demolish thin strawmen of the women you hate. Maybe that's a sign of a wider issue... of people having a lot of repressed feelings that they get out through writing.

And I certainly qualify to be in that last section since my stories had some kinds of people that I disagree with existing getting some demolishing in the story, but not in the sexual way or such. But I still don't get the whole abusive relationships that seem to pop up. Stuff like that doesn't do it for me. I wanna see nice, happy stories where the sex is good.

 

[AchtungNight]

I want to see nice happy stories where the sex is good too. What day we drop this discussion and go find some, nice lady?

Great idea! Or better yet, let’s write our own. You and me. In the bedroom. Right now.

Soon as I finish typing this message, dear.

 

[Stimtheone]

I want to see nice happy stories where the sex is good too. What day we drop this discussion and go find some, nice lady?

Great idea! Or better yet, let’s write our own. You and me. In the bedroom. Right now.

Soon as I finish typing this message, dear.

I'm a dude, but if you insist.... I'll be there in ten minutes.

 

[AchtungNight]

I'm a dude, but if you insist.... I'll be there in ten minutes.

My lady said you aren’t invited. Sorry. [slams door] The person of your preference standing behind you will take care of your needs.

 

[lovecraft68]

Sure most of that is bad, but I'm not gonna look at the past through the eyes of presentism. It happened already, all we can do is learn from it and move on.

Let me know when we've moved on. Toxic masculinity on one side, incels on another, men now playing victim saying everything in the world is the fault of feminism....politically the right wants to control women's bodies and the left? They want to eradicate the entire gender and eliminate words like mother, woman, coed etc... funny they're not eliminating male pronouns

Women still afraid to come forward if assaulted for fear of being slut shamed or called a gold digger. Still trapped in abusive marriages for the same reason...hell, as we speak people are supporting Iran, a country where women are jailed-and worse-for wanting to show their hair.

So when things have changed, please make me aware of it.

Because I'll be happy to let the women at the shelter I volunteer for know...the shelter that's always full.

 

[lovecraft68]

View attachment 2279340


I, for one, am not ashamed to admit that I want to read this (although I'm not willing to fund the author to the tune of 15c). After all, the ad raises more questions than it answers. Alas, although it seems that the ad appeared in Modern Man November 1960, and has appeared in countless 'most sexist ads ever' lists on the Internet, no-one seems to actually own a copy of the treatise advertised. From the picture, the wife's infraction is unclear, she's being spanked rather than beaten and is clearly into it, which makes me hopeful that it's just a proto-BDSM text. On the other hand, the idea that the ad is advertised at men who once beat their wife and have stopped...does not support that reading. I'd like to know who the author blames for the abandonment of domestic abuse ('is it the pinko communists? I bet it's the pinko communists'). Possibly though the ad is riffing off the old example of a loaded question 'When did you stop beating your wife' only the irony hasn't quite come across. Perhaps the author and artist just weren't on the same page regarding the tone of the pamphlet. Moreover, I'm perplexed as to what 'eminent practitioner of this manly art' means - after all, if you have to beat your wife regularly, either it doesn't work as a deterant or you aren't doing it very well - making me again come round to the idea that this is proto-BDSM albeit one with an inherent gender bias. It seems we will never know.

Although, whatever the original thesis, me senses, there may be a period story in this.

Is that on the new list for Loving wives?

 

[NoTalentHack]

They want to eradicate the entire gender and eliminate words like mother, woman, coed etc... funny they're not eliminating male pronouns

Oh my god. Are you a TERF, too? Why am I not surprised?

 

[lovecraft68]

My wife doesn't reply to me as fast as NTH does.

The faster you defend one side the faster you condemn yourself in the eyes of the other side.

 

[NoTalentHack]

My wife doesn't reply to me as fast as NTH does.

The faster you defend one side the faster you condemn yourself in the eyes of the other side.

I like how you had the time for a feeble attempt at an insult, but not to answer the actual question. Seen a lot of that from you lately. In retrospect, I wish I'd kept a screenshot of that hissyfit you threw a few weeks back. Thing was fucking hilarious, especially the part where you implied that a man having platonic female friends that he actually treated as equals was in some way sinister. You really are just the most adorable little white knight, aren't you? Keep on signalling that virtue, buddy. Someone will believe it. Maybe. Eventually.

 

[JaxRhapsody]

Let me know when we've moved on. Toxic masculinity on one side, incels on another, men now playing victim saying everything in the world is the fault of feminism....politically the right wants to control women's bodies and the left? They want to eradicate the entire gender and eliminate words like mother, woman, coed etc... funny they're not eliminating male pronouns

Women still afraid to come forward if assaulted for fear of being slut shamed or called a gold digger. Still trapped in abusive marriages for the same reason...hell, as we speak people are supporting Iran, a country where women are jailed-and worse-for wanting to show their hair.

So when things have changed, please make me aware of it.

Because I'll be happy to let the women at the shelter I volunteer for know...the shelter that's always full.

I was mainly refering to how people look at the past and think they can cancel it in the wrong way, like all those statues that got removed. The deeper you go left or right, the more insane idiots you come across. If things are changing, it's probably for the worst. It's one thing to look at the past and say "we shouldn't beat women like we used to", versus trying to cancel Married... With Children because Al is fatphobic. Sure those generals who's had statues razed were racist- most white folk were, it's not why the statue is there, and it's funny because nobody gives Abraham Lincoln any shit- yeah he "freed the slaves", but he was still racist.

 

[NoTalentHack]

Sure those generals who's had statues razed were racist- most white folk were, it's not why the statue is there, and it's funny because nobody gives Abraham Lincoln any shit- yeah he "freed the slaves", but he was still racist.

Actually, it kinda is why they're there. Most of the statues and memorials commemorating the Civil War went up in one of three periods, corresponding to pushbacks against civil rights victories at the time. In each case, they were sponsored by groups that were either straight up Klan (or similar groups) or by groups trying to whitewash the history of the Confederate south, like the Daughters of the Confederacy. They were meant to sell the "Lost Cause" idea, that "these weren't people that went to war for slavery! Oh, gosh no! They were there for States Rights!"

There is, and has been, for most of the last hundred and fifty years, an active attempt by groups like that to soft-sell their ancestors aims and to reclaim a little of the lost "glory" of the Antebellum south... by putting black people "in their place." History should be taught, yes, and memorials have their place. But General Lee had it right in one way.

“I think it wiser,” the retired military leader wrote about a proposed Gettysburg memorial in 1869, “…not to keep open the sores of war but to follow the examples of those nations who endeavored to obliterate the marks of civil strife, to commit to oblivion the feelings engendered.”

Confederate memorials are, and always have been, an attempt to re-litigate the past. It's good to see them gone.

 

[CyranoJ]

Keep on signalling that virtue, buddy. Someone will believe it. Maybe. Eventually.

There are certain people who, the longer they talk, the faster they'll reveal how little they actually know. That guy's posts are a case study. Although he's remarkable for his apparent ability to be wrong about a subject from almost every possible angle all at once.

Confederate memorials are, and always have been, an attempt to re-litigate the past. It's good to see them gone.

Well said. It was extra-telling the way they had of turning up in states that didn't exist during the Civil War.

 

[NoTalentHack]

There are certain people who, the longer they talk, the faster they'll reveal how little they actually know. That guy's posts are a case study. Although he's remarkable for his apparent ability to be wrong about a subject from almost every possible angle all at once.

Lovecraft68: The Joe Rogan of Literotica.

Well said. It was extra-telling the way they had of turning up in states that didn't exist during the Civil War.

Yup.

 

[AchtungNight]

State’s rights to uphold human rights, per the North. Which is the side I would have been on, despite being a Texan. My family wasn’t the other kind of Looney.

 

[lovecraft68]

Just looking at the looking for a story forum and this thread came to mind. Look at the description of some of the requests

https://forum.literotica.com/forums/looking-for-a-story.63/

A wife is FORCED to have sex

A woman raped and left for dead

A reluctant mother persuaded to enslave her daughter....

Be sure to go a little ways down for the "NC trophy Hunter" which was moved from story ideas because it was reported so the mod, who is notorious for allowing his forum to be a cesspool's idea to handle a reported rape suggestion was to dump it in another forum.

But take note on how "Liverpool Master" is upset someone is pointing out the story would probably get rejected here(and odds are they're wrong)

But also notice how many just go along with it.

This is the culture one creates when you decide to allow rape stories....then of course claim with a wink you don't. A lot of these ideas and stories being looked for aren't even in NC.

Lit's underage rule-allegedly-is not in place for legal reasons because its not against the law, its more about not wanting to draw the kind of crowd that likes to read about minors having sex because often times they're predators and are caught, and oh, look at all these stories on this site, maybe we should start staking it out....

But they have no issue with the rape and incel crowd infesting the place.

You keep garbage in your house, you're sure to get roaches.