Offensive is as offensive does

[Levorotatory]

Although, admittedly it's a society wide problem. You can show all the sex and violence you want in a movie, but don't you dare have your characters light up a cigarette afterwards, because that will encourage kids to smoke!

Is it because it might encourage kids (who aren't supposed to be watching R-rated movies anyways) to smoke, or because a majority of society are now non-smokers whose reaction to someone lighting up afterwards would be something along the lines of "that's disgusting, way to ruin the moment"?

 

[Actingup]

It's Schrödinger's cat here in the AH. When it's something positive our words absolutely influence the audience, when it's something negative they absolutely don't. Funny how that works.

Although, admittedly it's a society wide problem. You can show all the sex and violence you want in a movie, but don't you dare have your characters light up a cigarette afterwards, because that will encourage kids to smoke!

Leave the poor cat out of it: it's got enough on its plate working out whether it's alive or dead and what's for dinner.

I do agree with this point though. What we say, write and show resonates, amplifies, for good and for bad. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't say it, but we need to take care where we point that thing. Which takes me back to my earlier post - be a good monkey, not necessarily by avoiding dark alleys, but by leading people out of them where you can.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Is it because it might encourage kids (who aren't supposed to be watching R-rated movies anyways) to smoke, or because a majority of society are now non-smokers whose reaction to someone lighting up afterwards would be something along the lines of "that's disgusting, way to ruin the moment"?

What's the evidence a majority of society would react that way?
People still watch Casablanca and tons of other classic movies where the characters smoke throughout.
Heck, watch the original Ghostbusters. The main characters smoke CONSTANTLY. I've never heard anyone complain that it "ruined the moment."

 

[filthytrancendence]

I think it's very funny that this thread was dead as a doornail, and the drama herein along with it, and it has been resurrected by somebody trolling by (probably intentionally?) misunderstanding what a forum troll is.

That's very meta.

Edit: I'll just preempt either response by saying it's even funnier if the misunderstanding was unintentional.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Leave the poor cat out of it: it's got enough on its plate working out whether it's alive or dead and what's for dinner.

I do agree with this point though. What we say, write and show resonates, amplifies, for good and for bad. It doesn't mean that we shouldn't say it, but we need to take care where we point that thing. Which takes me back to my earlier post - be a good monkey, not necessarily by avoiding dark alleys, but by leading people out of them where you can.

Sorry about the cat...

And I am not calling for censorship. But you can acknowledge something has a negative influence without the answer being ban! Censor! Off with their heads!
Smoking is absolutely bad for you, but we shouldn't ban it.

One of the other factors at work here is how we acknowledge that many of our readers assume we endorse whatever we are writing about as evidenced by some of the comments we receive.
Then people want to say, "well, just because I write about it doesn't mean I endorse it."
That's absolutely true, but it's also a point that we know is frequently lost on the audience.

 

[FrancesScott]

Real nonconsent is bad.

Bad? An author couldn’t find a better word or phrase? Like horrific? Like leading to suicidal thoughts or actual suicide? Like a life totally destroyed?

Enjoying lit fantasy stories does not in anyway imply endorsement of immoral activity in the real world.

As a wise person once said:

The point is, what is written here as alleged fantasy is most frequently women getting sexually assaulted. And it’s generally people who like to read or write such stuff who also enjoy telling women that they shouldn’t be bothered by it.

Any author who thinks their “harmless” words have no ability to influence the thoughts and deeds of others should probably give up writing.

Words are powerful. Words influence behavior; both good and bad. Words normalize the unthinkable. Words shape people. Just take a look at the world around you. Words should be used with utmost care.

 

[FrancesScott]

I think it's very funny that this thread was dead as a doornail, and the drama herein along with it, and it has been resurrected by somebody trolling

 

[filthytrancendence]

Any author who thinks their “harmless” words have no ability to influence the thoughts and deeds of others should probably give up writing.

It's wild how we were just writing 2 responses to 2 different people in 2 different threads about 2 completely different topics at the same time saying nearly the exact same thing.

Characteristically, I was much more verbose and less direct about it.

 

[SimonDoom]

Bad? An author couldn’t find a better word or phrase? Like horrific? Like leading to suicidal thoughts or actual suicide? Like a life totally destroyed?

As a wise person once said:

Any author who thinks their “harmless” words have no ability to influence the thoughts and deeds of others should probably give up writing.

Words are powerful. Words influence behavior; both good and bad. Words normalize the unthinkable. Words shape people. Just take a look at the world around you. Words should be used with utmost care.

Nobody said words have no effect. That's a red herring. Words influence people, but context is everything. This is one of those debates where people cling to dearly held narratives supported by little evidence. The reality in the USA is that society has become safer while the internet has made sexual and violent fantasy far more accessible to everybody. The connection appears to be tenuous and small. I don't believe anyone should feel bad about reading and writing their sexual fantasies, even if they are transgressive.

 

[filthytrancendence]

Nobody said words have no effect. That's a red herring. Words influence people, but context is everything. This is one of those debates where people cling to dearly held narratives supported by little evidence. The reality in the USA is that society has become safer while the internet has made sexual and violent fantasy far more accessible to everybody. The connection appears to be tenuous and small. I don't believe anyone should feel bad about reading and writing their sexual fantasies, even if they are transgressive.

I'm going to try and summarize here. Please explain what I'm missing because this reads to me like an entire paragraph of non-sequiturs.

1. Words do have an effect on people.
2. The context of those words matter more than the words themselves.
3. Now we're no longer talking about the effect words have on people, we're talking about evidence in a debate, for some reason.
4. The USA is safer as a result of sexual and violent fantasies being more accessible.
5. But also the connection between safety and the prevalence of violent fantasy media is tenuous and small.
6. No one should feel bad about producing or consuming 'transgressive' fantasies.

So... do words have an effect on people, or not? Cause it sure seems like you agree that they do have an effect as long as that effect is positive, but as soon as somebody points out the effect can also be negative... uhm... whatever you want to call points 2-6 above. A gish gallop?

 

[XerXesXu]

So... do words have an effect on people, or not? Cause it sure seems like you agree that they do have an effect as long as that effect is positive, but as soon as somebody points out the effect can also be negative... uhm... whatever you want to call points 2-6 above. A gish gallop?

I had to guess at 'gish gallop', but spot-on. SD is famous for his gish-gallops. Definitions are subjective, his is different to yours so yours don't count. Words can move others to masturbate, he boasts his ability to do that, he denies the power of words to move others to do anything other than fantasise and masturbate. He can always express himself with the power and confidence of a person with no qualifications, experience or talent; Dunning-Kreuger made flesh.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

The problem is...
You cannot remove fantasy from reality...
One become the other....
For people who go on to inflict sexual assault, do so from first thoughts, which probably were dreams, or fantasy...
Anything produced, that fuels those fires cannot simply be swept aside as merely fantasy, and it's all good in fantasy world....
I know this runs close to censorship, but that is the reality...
Again, this is only my opinion... Not claiming it as factual...

Cagivagurl

If that's true then we should never write anything other than picnic in the park on a perfect day and nary an ant to spoil the party. No villains, no conflict allowed ever.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Any author who thinks their “harmless” words have no ability to influence the thoughts and deeds of others should probably give up writing.

That's not the point. The point is that the author/songwriter/artist whatever ultimately has no control over how his work will be interpreted either by the masses or by the individual.

Everything is a rorschach test. One person sees fluffy clouds in the inkblot, the next person sees blood and rage. The poem 'In Flanders Fields' was written by a racist warmonger who intended to glorify the dead as a call to arms and inspire new recruits. Instead the world recites his poem every November as a plea for world peace. Nothing that McCrae can do about that. So if we write an incest story and it inspires a bunch of people to fuck their mothers in real life, we cannot be blamed.

 

[Cagivagurl]

The reality in the USA is that society has become safer while the internet has made sexual and violent fantasy far more accessible to everybody.

REALLY????

I'm sorry but I don't believe that statement. I do not live in the USA, however, I do have a lot of American friends, and they all say the same thing. They feel less safe now than ever before. Is it due to what people see, hear and read????
I don't know, but can speculate...
I do believe that what we write can affect people reading it...
By sexualising sexual assault, by making it appear that women enjoy it. We strengthen the belief that it's OK...

Sorry, that is my opinion.

Cagivagurl

 

[Cagivagurl]

That's not the point. The point is that the author/songwriter/artist whatever ultimately has no control over how his work will be interpreted either by the masses or by the individual.

Everything is a rorschach test. One person sees fluffy clouds in the inkblot, the next person sees blood and rage. The poem 'In Flanders Fields' was written by a racist warmonger who intended to glorify the dead as a call to arms and inspire new recruits. Instead the world recites his poem every November as a plea for world peace. Nothing that McCrae can do about that. So if we write an incest story and it inspires a bunch of people to fuck their mothers in real life, we cannot be blamed.

Sorry, but that is simply bullshit...
Everybody creating a piece they know is going inflame response. Knows it before it before release.
Protest songs are exactly that...
PROTEST...
So don't hide behind the "We have no control over how it perceived.


Sorry, that is my opinion.

Cagivagurl

 

[SimonDoom]

I'm going to try and summarize here. Please explain what I'm missing because this reads to me like an entire paragraph of non-sequiturs.

1. Words do have an effect on people.
2. The context of those words matter more than the words themselves.
3. Now we're no longer talking about the effect words have on people, we're talking about evidence in a debate, for some reason.
4. The USA is safer as a result of sexual and violent fantasies being more accessible.
5. But also the connection between safety and the prevalence of violent fantasy media is tenuous and small.
6. No one should feel bad about producing or consuming 'transgressive' fantasies.

So... do words have an effect on people, or not? Cause it sure seems like you agree that they do have an effect as long as that effect is positive, but as soon as somebody points out the effect can also be negative... uhm... whatever you want to call points 2-6 above. A gish gallop?

Of course words have an effect. But neither you nor i have any clue, and i mean no clue, whether the publication of transgressive stories at literotica has a negative impact in the real world. Our intuition on the subject is mostly worthless. I imagine there is next to no such impact and we shouldn't worry about it. I don't really know, but I think the burden of proof rests with the person asserting a harmful impact.

I know my stories have a positive impact, because 1)my readers tell me so, and 2) my own personal experience. I have no evidence that my lit stories cause harm and no reason to think they do.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Ah, the old debate about what should be allowed in fiction.

In order to touch on Literotica as well, I'll just say that, while NonCon in general creeps me out, it's Literotica's rule about it that irks me the most. That would be the rule that the victim has to feel pleasure during the act. I'll come back to this.

In general, I am fully for freedom of expression. We should be able to write and make movies about violence, war, death, perverted sex, vices, depravity, and so on. But there should be some responsibility for how those things are being painted, and what message is being sent. I'll give an example.

Say a guy gets drunk, rapes a girl and she doesn't report it. A year or two later, they accidentally run into each other. The awkward conversation follows, and they realize they have some things in common. They meet again, and again, and they fall in love, and tender and sensual lovemaking follows. And then they live happily ever after.

In a different example, say a guy brutally rapes a girl. He gets away with it and then rapes her again, and then he rapes ten different women as well. Their pain and suffering, and the way the act has fucked up their lives is clearly shown. Say the guy is a sadist who hates himself, but he manages to get away with all of his horrible crimes because of wealth and influence. The final scene is that of him, eyeing his next victim and going in for the "kill." The End.

In my view, the first example, while by its content much easier to digest, should be criticized and condemned because it paints the rape as not being a big deal. It normalizes it.

The second example, while it turns both the stomach and the soul, should be fine as an extreme artistic portrayal of the real world. The wrongness and the horror of rape is clearly shown in the pain and suffering of all, even if the rapists managed to get away with it, and even if he goes unpunished, except by his own demons and self-hate.

Coming back to Literotica's rule now. This is why it irks me. The victim having to feel pleasure during the act normalizes it in a way. Now, I understand Literotica does this purely for legal reasons, but still, that rule is fucked up, in my view.


My whole point is that we should be free to explore even the darkest corners of humanity, but we should also paint things accordingly. There should at least be a subtle message of right and wrong in such art.
This is why I dislike the relatively recent stream of these modern anti-superhero movies. Bad guys are consistently painted as being supercool.

 

[iwatchus]

I had been committed to staying on the sidelines with this one, but my foot is just looking too tasty.

There are a few categories here I will not touch, reading or writing, NC/R being the most notable. Others can do what they want, they have their own moral compasses. And the issue is not easy.

I have to agree with @AwkwardlySet to a large extent. This is like the people who want to ban gore from movies/games/... It is not the gore that is the problem. It is the way violence and its outcomes are treated. One hand is the classic Hollywood western, where John Wayne shoots 27 injuns without reloading his six shooter and is the hero. Violence saved the day. On the other hand, the classic samurai movies, which had immense gore, but demonized the violence, showing the fallen warrior bleeding to death as his wife and son weep beside him. I would much rather live in a society raised in a world with the samurai movies than one with John Waynes.

I worry that Lit's rule is the John Wayne approach; rape is okay as long as she enjoys it a little bit. And every rapist knows the woman really wants it, right? She just doesn't realize what she is missing.

As I said, I have no idea what actually gets written in NC/R here, but seeing some of the stuff and the mindset that gets displayed in other categories, I cringe to think what is there.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Words are powerful. Words influence behavior; both good and bad. Words normalize the unthinkable. Words shape people. Just take a look at the world around you. Words should be used with utmost care.

Absolutely agree. I'm forever arguing against the notion, "It's okay, it's only fiction, let me write what I want. No-one can get hurt by my words."

Yet those people are perfectly happy to say, "Isn't it great when people comment they get off on my writing!" but quietly ignore the contra. One can't have it both ways.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I had been committed to staying on the sidelines with this one, but my foot is just looking too tasty.

There are a few categories here I will not touch, reading or writing, NC/R being the most notable. Others can do what they want, they have their own moral compasses. And the issue is not easy.

I have to agree with @AwkwardlySet to a large extent. This is like the people who want to ban gore from movies/games/... It is not the gore that is the problem. It is the way violence and its outcomes are treated. One hand is the classic Hollywood western, where John Wayne shoots 27 injuns without reloading his six shooter and is the hero. Violence saved the day. On the other hand, the classic samurai movies, which had immense gore, but demonized the violence, showing the fallen warrior bleeding to death as his wife and son weep beside him. I would much rather live in a society raised in a world with the samurai movies than one with John Waynes.

I worry that Lit's rule is the John Wayne approach; rape is okay as long as she enjoys it a little bit. And every rapist knows the woman really wants it, right? She just doesn't realize what she is missing.

As I said, I have no idea what actually gets written in NC/R here, but seeing some of the stuff and the mindset that gets displayed in other categories, I cringe to think what is there.

Interesting point, but I think you miss the point in the John Wayne archetype.
John Wayne (and I'm referring to the character type and not the person for purposes of this discussion) isn't choosing violence for the sake of violence.
He didn't ride out to shoot Injuns for the sake of it. Watch "The Searchers", Comanches kidnap his neice and the movie is the saga of the attempt to get her back.
"The Man who shot Liberty Valance" is morally complex and questions the use of violence. In fact, in that movie the man who actually shoots the bad guy isn't the hero in the end.

Many of those westerns are more morally complex than the current stereotypes would suggest.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Ah, the old debate about what should be allowed in fiction.

In order to touch on Literotica as well, I'll just say that, while NonCon in general creeps me out, it's Literotica's rule about it that irks me the most. That would be the rule that the victim has to feel pleasure during the act. I'll come back to this.

In general, I am fully for freedom of expression. We should be able to write and make movies about violence, war, death, perverted sex, vices, depravity, and so on. But there should be some responsibility for how those things are being painted, and what message is being sent. I'll give an example.

Say a guy gets drunk, rapes a girl and she doesn't report it. A year or two later, they accidentally run into each other. The awkward conversation follows, and they realize they have some things in common. They meet again, and again, and they fall in love, and tender and sensual lovemaking follows. And then they live happily ever after.

In a different example, say a guy brutally rapes a girl. He gets away with it and then rapes her again, and then he rapes ten different women as well. Their pain and suffering, and the way the act has fucked up their lives is clearly shown. Say the guy is a sadist who hates himself, but he manages to get away with all of his horrible crimes because of wealth and influence. The final scene is that of him, eyeing his next victim and going in for the "kill." The End.

In my view, the first example, while by its content much easier to digest, should be criticized and condemned because it paints the rape as not being a big deal. It normalizes it.

The second example, while it turns both the stomach and the soul, should be fine as an extreme artistic portrayal of the real world. The wrongness and the horror of rape is clearly shown in the pain and suffering of all, even if the rapists managed to get away with it, and even if he goes unpunished, except by his own demons and self-hate.

Coming back to Literotica's rule now. This is why it irks me. The victim having to feel pleasure during the act normalizes it in a way. Now, I understand Literotica does this purely for legal reasons, but still, that rule is fucked up, in my view.


My whole point is that we should be free to explore even the darkest corners of humanity, but we should also paint things accordingly. There should at least be a subtle message of right and wrong in such art.
This is why I dislike the relatively recent stream of these modern anti-superhero movies. Bad guys are consistently painted as being supercool.

Very much agree with the rule that "She has to enjoy it in the end" is creepy for the exact reasons you mentioned.

 

[iwatchus]

Interesting point, but I think you miss the point in the John Wayne archetype.
John Wayne (and I'm referring to the character type and not the person for purposes of this discussion) isn't choosing violence for the sake of violence.
He didn't ride out to shoot Injuns for the sake of it. Watch "The Searchers", Comanches kidnap his neice and the movie is the saga of the attempt to get her back.
"The Man who shot Liberty Valance" is morally complex and questions the use of violence. In fact, in that movie the man who actually shoots the bad guy isn't the hero in the end.

Many of those westerns are more morally complex than the current stereotypes would suggest.

I readily concede I am being unfair to the western genre by grouping it all together. There are some marvelous westerns in general and John Wayne movies in specific. Off the cuff, True Grit to go with your Searchers. I could have just as easily picked on 1970's TV cop shows (maybe Kojak or Streets of SF?). American culture (my culture) has a long history of showing consequenceless violence solving problems especially when used against othered groups. I think that is one of the sources of our societal problems.

It is not limited to American productions, of course. But we seem to do it more and probably better than anyone else. And good old fashioned oaters have always epitomized the problem to me.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Sorry, but that is simply bullshit...

Blah blah blah ... (eyeroll)

 

[Kelliezgirl]

I readily concede I am being unfair to the western genre by grouping it all together. There are some marvelous westerns in general and John Wayne movies in specific. Off the cuff, True Grit to go with your Searchers. I could have just as easily picked on 1970's TV cop shows (maybe Kojak or Streets of SF?). American culture (my culture) has a long history of showing consequenceless violence solving problems especially when used against othered groups. I think that is one of the sources of our societal problems.

It is not limited to American productions, of course. But we seem to do it more and probably better than anyone else. And good old fashioned oaters have always epitomized the problem to me.

We certainly have a complicated history regarding violence in popular culture. Kojak was well before my time, but I'm assuming it was similar to the gritty Serpico phase of American movies/TV.

 

[iwatchus]

We certainly have a complicated history regarding violence in popular culture. Kojak was well before my time, but I'm assuming it was similar to the gritty Serpico phase of American movies/TV.

So I am showing my age a bit. As I think back, I am not sure Kocak was actually that bad, but after fifty years, things are blurring a bit. Less gritty , more clean cut than Serpico. Much more black and white. Lovable white male cops sucked lollipops and took care fo the bad guys for us.