The Morality of Perverts

[AMoveableBeast]

The thing about Literotica that has always confused me, is why, on a site dedicated to sexual deviancy in all of its glory (Ok, most of its glory, excluding the odd unspeakable act involving children, animals, or brutal, unapologetic rape or murder), is there such a dedicated group of readers offended by, and fixated on the opposition of, infidelity?

 

[lovecraft68]

The thing about Literotica that has always confused me, is why, on a site dedicated to sexual deviancy in all of its glory (Ok, most of its glory, excluding the odd unspeakable act involving children, animals, or brutal, unapologetic rape or murder), is there such a dedicated group of readers offended by, and fixated on the opposition of, infidelity?

My theory is that they are/were victims of it.

 

[AMoveableBeast]

Who among us hasn't been the victim of an unfaithful partner? Date enough people and you're virtually guaranteed to find a cheater. It happens. It's an aspect of relationships, of sexual exploration. Might as well be angry at the sun for that burn you got at summer camp when you were a teen.

 

[lovecraft68]

Who among us hasn't been the victim of an unfaithful partner? Date enough people and you're virtually guaranteed to find a cheater. It happens. It's an aspect of relationships, of sexual exploration. Might as well be angry at the sun for that burn you got at summer camp when you were a teen.

It did happen to me way back with my first wife.

Hell she did me a favor, ended up with a much better life because of it. But some people can't let shit go.

 

[Stella_Omega]

These people hate women.
They also hate men who don't hate women.

 

[Handley_Page]

And for some, it's simple case of so-called 'humour'.

 

[Bramblethorn]

The thing about Literotica that has always confused me, is why, on a site dedicated to sexual deviancy in all of its glory (Ok, most of its glory, excluding the odd unspeakable act involving children, animals, or brutal, unapologetic rape or murder), is there such a dedicated group of readers offended by, and fixated on the opposition of, infidelity?

This comes up now and then in the how-to forum: somebody asks for advice on cheating on their partner and then complains that people on a porn site are telling them off for infidelity.

I have strongly-held moral views on quite a number of things, but that doesn't extend to believing that porn is intrinsically bad, largely because I don't believe sex is bad. I do believe cheating is bad, because it deprives one's partner of their right to make informed decisions about their own life - you're effectively getting a relationship by fraud.

That said, yeah, some of the commenters here are really obsessed with infidelity, especially when it's the wife who strays. I figure somebody got burned IRL and is venting steam here.

 

[StrangeLife]

It did happen to me way back with my first wife.

Hell she did me a favor, ended up with a much better life because of it.

Welcome to the club.

Not a story I can ever publish without getting 1-bombed into the ground though, because I didn't show up all in black and beat the guy to a pulp and sold my wife into slavery in Africa. Instead I did something far crueler - I divorced her and let them have each other.


And regarding the OP - I don't think Lit is especially intolerant in any areas except the ones specified by Laurel as being off limit. Most of the stories in Loving Wives are about sex with other people under some form.

 

[robertreams]

Your question is no more puzzling than Christians on this site. Does it surprise you that our readers are people?

 

[Jo_in_SF]

"Life is very unfair, and people are incorrigible hypocrites." Now you know everything you need to know.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

We-e-e-ll... 'Erotic' doesn't, in a lot of people's minds, mean ANYTHING and EVERYTHING goes sexually - it just means 'sexual' or to do with intimate love. And of course, 'lit' is acceptably high brow too...

Now, they ARE wrong though.

Erotic is essentially a Greek word, and in Greek it DOES mean the LIMITLESS depth of, and the power of, a Titanic force, in this case particularly, to do with sex. Aphrodite WAS a Titan to begin with and or co-existent and co-eternal with Zeus - or EVEN pre-existing him!

Eros, in Greek is completely UNcontrollable.

Now I am a Christian but I am not a Paulian Christian, which most people are. But they should be called 'Paulians' not Christians, and that is why there is so much contradiction and hypocrisy and distaste for so-called 'Christianity.'

Today, I listened to a speech by a Jew about the moral positives of Christianity(!) He quoted Corinthians this and Romans that. And I regularly hear argument or apology of this kind from a lot of people, ESPECIALLY so-called Christians.

Corinthians and Romans, of course, are letters of Paul - and, Paul never met Jesus. Sure the story is he 'saw a vision of Jesus.' But he never actually physically met him.

Paulian Christianity is basically the same kind of thing as Mohammed's Allah - we basically only have their word for it and those who have adopted their viewpoint. No supporting facts at all, for their moral ideology. Paul is certainly not consistent with the words of Jesus Christ... Much though a lot of Christian churches would have you believe that he is.

Christian 'morality' such as we see it today, is based on Augustine's and Paul's views, and not specifically and exclusively on the words of Jesus Christ at all.

On the morality of 'infidelity,' the intellectual high ground is this: for one thing 'infidelity' is not the same thing as multiple partners or deviant or kinked sexual practices... One could be faithful to the expectations of a co-polyamorous partner.

And, as far as a real Christian goes, the moral understandings about infidelity are like this: firstly, accept this as a fact - more or less everyone does it (more than one sex partner) because whatever you think about within, to yourself, or in your heart, is the same as you having done it in physical reality. Might as well actually do it then, and at least get the real physical pleasure from it, since the moral consequence is the same.

If you are an intellectual, you have to start looking more deeply into the actual meaning of what Jesus Christ said and did: e.g. don't harm other people intentionally and don't do to them what you wouldn't want done to you.

ALL relationships in which one partner has extra involvements, are relationships of unequal balance to begin with; AND the balance is a differential equation with multiple variables. The moral solution is to do good to people and to think about what the best thing IS you could do, in the face of real circumstances.

The logical conclusion of what the actual widely agreed words Jesus Christ himself said, is... ...VERY VERY different to the popular perceptions of what he might have said or meant.

The logical implications of what he actually is accepted to have said, cause me personally to have to think A LOT about how you could really go about living with many people where there was no limitation to sexual involvements. Factually, as far as written texts goes, by canon and by dogma and by orthodoxy, one is meant to understand 1. that angels can have sex with humans, and this Jesus Christ guy, very clearly and specifically said that 2. all those who attained his kingdom, lived like the angels and were not married to one partner. That was very specifically what he actually is recorded by all orthodox and accepted texts, to have said.

And there is a certain point where scrupulously pedantic intellectuals have to face what he said and deal with what he said without running away from its implications.

I don't care if you are the Pope. You can't alter what he said, nor interpret it to mean just whatever you want because it suits you as an ideologue.

The real moral outlook for a real Christian is more of a question than a cut-and-dried one word or one line or short answer.

And the question is this: well just how DO you manage to live with a bunch of people of equivalent powers and attributes and who are having or may do or could all have sex with each other all of the time?

A lot of people continually take up this idea that somewhere in the Old Testament, 'the watchers' came down to earth and mated with women and somehow this was bad... And this idea is in the Book of Enoch.

There is no Book of Enoch in the Old Testament.

There IS, however, a Genesis chapter 6, in which 'the sons of God saw that the daughters of men were fair and took to wife such of them as they chose.'

But there is no condemnation of that. AT ALL. What there actually is is this (immediate next statement): 'The Lord saw that the wickedness of man was great in the earth, AND THAT EVERY IMAGINATION OF THE THOUGHTS OF HIS HEART WAS ONLY EVIL CONTINUALLY.'

And for THAT he sent the flood and wiped a lot of people out!

And so I guess, the resolution is 'do not make imaginings of the thoughts of your heart ONLY EVIL CONTINUALLY...!'

In other parts of Genesis it merely says that 'in those days the angels walked with men and they saw them, but not afterwards because of the great wickedness of mankind.'

People who come here (Lit-e) and criticise the 'morality' of stories they find here, are ideologues, and bigots, and very misguided about genuine Christian thinking and practice, and they are self-involved, and hard, and stubbornly wedded to ignorant ideas.

No one ought to be saying everything about personal relationships is absolutely simple and easy and black-and-white. Being casual or blindly cavalier about relationships is not necessarily a good thing either. There is an intelligent, thoughtful, and responsible way in between - which has room for monogamy in certain cases and circumstances, and other behaviours, in different other circumstances.

 

[49greg]

I came up the idea in another thread that the LW rants and 1 bombs are for the most part done by a small group of uber right wing so called Christians who are led by a pastor who tells them to read all the LW/cheating wife stories on Lit and punish the authors by making the rabid comments and the 1 votes. I made up this idea as a joke.

Now I'm not so sure. It would explain a lot. - surely all these 'anonymous' posters aren't all different people, surely there's not that many people who would go through the trouble of looking up stories that they know will piss them off.

It's organized I tell you. Organized!!

They drive black SUVs, and they watch us. They watch us. And they fly around in black heliocopters. I tell you they're out there! and they're watching us!

The only way to keep it from happening again is for everyone to line the walls and windows of our houses in aluminium foil, and wear hats made from it too.

That's the only way we'll be free!!


Did I say that out-loud?

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

49greg...

Your idea has that sound of something that could be true.

It's entirely possible, isn't it, and it sure would explain a few things.

'Looking up stories that they know will piss them off...' Hmn. Excellent point. Fuck you could be right!

Hmn. Battle coming. Know your enemy, eh. Fuck I might have to write something for LW. Aw Jesus I could screw with these guys' heads. Believe me.

 

[sr71plt]

Story plot. Pastor oversees a group of sweet young things in cyber attacks on porn in one room, while periodically taking one of the sweet young things out to another room to fuck--and to record the act for the Internet.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

And by sweet young things I hope YOU mean 'young men,' and then the one he takes out back turns out to be a girl dressed as a boy because she (lovingly of her husband) works for the church for food parcels in order to support her young husband as he studies to be er, er, er, help me, here, er, corporate lawyer for Mitt Romney's Wall Street firm. Sorry Mitt. I thought you were given a tough run by the media. Serves you right though, still!

Um, the pastor fucks her in the ass just the same.

 

[SteelPoint]

A confession: I find the whole idea of female infidelity hugely and irrationally arousing.

I say 'irrationally' since:

1. I would certainly not wish it upon myself in the case of my own wife

and

2. I see little to arouse (or deter) me in the shape of male infidelity.

So why, I wonder, do I not feel myself to be the hypocrite which this clearly implies? Is it because there is little by way of conscious decision making involved in these reactions? i.e. I have not chosen deliberately to be inconsistent or to be cruel?

Is it perhaps that there may be deeper 'natural' psychological forces at work? Are men, as has often been alleged, 'natural' strayers? Are women 'naturally' loyal home makers? I wonder what the statistics say...

Sorry, OP, for 'straying' slightly off track...

 

[AMoveableBeast]

It seems to me that erotica is nothing if not the exploration of sexuality in (as we spoke to earlier, nearly) all of its facets. There are categories here lovingly designated to sodomy, rape-play, incest, fang-banging, water sports that would drown a fish, group sex featuring numbers not seen since the Great Crusades, and that's just the stuff advertised on the letterhead. Dig only a tad deeper and you will find stories tip-toeing murder, beastiality (it's okay if Mr. Ed does it), and pedophilia (On the planet Everdoll, the aliens, all of whom bear clear identification establishing them as well beyond eighteen of our earth-years, resemble nothing so much as barely pubescent girls from the 1950's. Even more coincidental, there religion seems entirely transfixed around spanking as a form of purification, features ritualistic slumber parties, and demands that each citizen constantly suck on a lollipop in a show of respect to roundness of the cosmic bodies.) and more.

Yet, if you witness true anger on this site, in a comment, odds are it stems from an element of infidelity, which is so common sexually to be downright boring in comparison to the other things going on here. Cheating is almost a fact of life. Infidelity is a more common destination than marriage in a relationship. Virtually all popular stories about sex or lust feature cheating: sometimes it is glorified, sometimes it's so expected as to be almost inconsequential. Why then does it still rattle such a large contingent of readers?

 

[AMoveableBeast]

A confession: I find the whole idea of female infidelity hugely and irrationally arousing.

I say 'irrationally' since:

1. I would certainly not wish it upon myself in the case of my own wife

and

2. I see little to arouse (or deter) me in the shape of male infidelity.

So why, I wonder, do I not feel myself to be the hypocrite which this clearly implies? Is it because there is little by way of conscious decision making involved in these reactions? i.e. I have not chosen deliberately to be inconsistent or to be cruel?

Is it perhaps that there may be deeper 'natural' psychological forces at work? Are men, as has often been alleged, 'natural' strayers? Are women 'naturally' loyal home makers? I wonder what the statistics say...

Sorry, OP, for 'straying' slightly off track...

No need for apologies. I enjoy open--perhaps even chaotic--discourse far more than some stiffly organized bitch session, especially one led by me. Plus, I sympathize with what you wrote.

 

[walkerlong]

I don't think it's morality that motivates the haters at all. Just simple misogyny. Ironically, I think that's what motivates a lot of the authors as well.

 

[Hypoxia]

There are categories here lovingly designated to sodomy, rape-play, incest, fang-banging, water sports that would drown a fish, group sex featuring numbers not seen since the Great Crusades, and that's just the stuff advertised on the letterhead.

Fang-banging? Is that the werewolf section?

 

[Doopey]

So if I am a pervert does that make me moral? Or does it mean if I have morals, I am a pervert?

 

[AMoveableBeast]

I don't think it's morality that motivates the haters at all. Just simple misogyny. Ironically, I think that's what motivates a lot of the authors as well.

Such a strange finding for a group that spends hours upon hours pouring over the most alluring descriptions of the female form. I would think such a hobby would tend the participates toward worshipfulness more often than spite.

 

[sr71plt]

And by sweet young things I hope YOU mean 'young men,' and then the one he takes out back turns out to be a girl dressed as a boy because she (lovingly of her husband) works for the church for food parcels in order to support her young husband as he studies to be er, er, er, help me, here, er, corporate lawyer for Mitt Romney's Wall Street firm. Sorry Mitt. I thought you were given a tough run by the media. Serves you right though, still!

Um, the pastor fucks her in the ass just the same.

Umm, no, that wasn't my image of the story. I'm bi; I don't only think in GM images. In fact three of my next four stories to post at Lit. are going to be MF, FFM, and MMF.

You're scenario is fine, though.

 

[sr71plt]

So if I am a pervert does that make me moral? Or does it mean if I have morals, I am a pervert?

Maybe.

 

[AMoveableBeast]

Fang-banging? Is that the werewolf section?

Werewolves, vampires, Lovecraftian tentacle monsters with a proclivity for unlubricated anal. Not a knock on the genre--Great Old Ones need love too--just an acknowledgement that we cater to far less socially accepted practices than running around on your husband.