Offensive is as offensive does

[Kelliezgirl]

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.

I'll have to see if there are some clips on YouTube.
I watched a lot of old movies with my parents growing up, but not much TV so I'm pretty clueless about TV from back in the day.

 

[filthytrancendence]

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.

I really tried to give you a fair shake, but you're digging the hole deeper. You seem to have a habit of using critical thinking language to attempt to conceal the fact your position boils down to 'Nuh-uah'

We agree words have an effect.

I don't need to prove that a negative effect is possible. We already agreed about that, and it is plainly obvious to anyone not using motivated reasoning. You don't get to just artificially segment negative effects from positive ones because the negative ones are inconvenient to your position.

Neither I, nor anybody else here, said a single thing about the impact of your personal stories. I've not read them. I don't know what they contain. The fact this is where you went with this line of thinking is interesting, though.

 

[Just_Words]

I wish that I could laugh at the comment about baiting readers for snarky comments in the Loving Wives category, but bait is hardly necessary. It has become a very nasty environment where juvenile personalities write personal attacks against the author rather than sticking with the story. It used to be rare that I read a personal attack, but now it is all too common place. Usually it is the ever-present Anonymous who never writes a story of their own or subjects their efforts to the comments of others. I have noticed that many authors are submitting their stories to other categories that I would have expected to find in Loving Wives simply because the children have not found those categories yet, but they will, and when that happens many authors will move to other sites.

 

[filthytrancendence]

I wish that I could laugh at the comment about baiting readers for snarky comments in the Loving Wives category, but bait is hardly necessary. It has become a very nasty environment where juvenile personalities write personal attacks against the author rather than sticking with the story. It used to be rare that I read a personal attack, but now it is all too common place. Usually it is the ever-present Anonymous who never writes a story of their own or subjects their efforts to the comments of others. I have noticed that many authors are submitting their stories to other categories that I would have expected to find in Loving Wives simply because the children have not found those categories yet, but they will, and when that happens many authors will move to other sites.

I've made a personal decision to stop bitching about LW. If you don't have something nice to say, and all that.

But I suspect your prediction is incorrect. The thing at the heart of LW that makes it so toxic is pretty specific to the content of that category. And it's a self-accelerating negative feedback loop.

When the children, as you say, leak out to other categories, they'll find themselves screaming that nonsense into a void in which most authors will simply delete their nonsense and be done with it. Feedback loop annihilated.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

I think that the taboo was added originally because whoever named the categories personally thought incest as being 'taboo'. Even more than the other categories.
LW, as a category name, is almost tongue in cheek. There are very few stories where the wife is truly 'loving' their husband.

I would consider any of the "incest" that isn't with blood relatives, taboo. Or the "sexual act with my child and their friend(s)" to be half taboo. Or something that isn't sexual between family, directly, like somebody only watching secretly, or masturbating to others underwear, or while target is having regular sex, is taboo.

Of course generally speaking, incest itself is taboo, but going by the sections name outside of that technicality, on the premise that in Litworld, incest is incest, and taboo is something else

 

[M_K_Babalon]

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

Knowing there's to be a response is one thing. It's obvious. Art of any kind and type is there to elicit a response. Knowing what the response is, how people will interpet, which is what PSG is talking about, is different.

A protest song is obvious. Refuse Resist, Fight The Power, anything Rage Against The Machine. pThere are still people who don't know Semi-charmed Life, and the ever so popular at once, "graduation song", that even Radio Disney played during graduation season, was about drugs and debauchery. Songs are not always as straight forward, or seeming as straight forward as a story can be, and typically is.

 

[Cagivagurl]

Knowing there's to be a response is one thing. It's obvious. Art of any kind and type is there to elicit a response. Knowing what the response is, how people will interpet, which is what PSG is talking about, is different.

A protest song is obvious. Refuse Resist, Fight The Power, anything Rage Against The Machine. pThere are still people who don't know Semi-charmed Life, and the ever so popular at once, "graduation song", that even Radio Disney played during graduation season, was about drugs and debauchery. Songs are not always as straight forward, or seeming as straight forward as a story can be, and typically is.

There are a multitude of songs with hidden meanings.
We are talking literature, so if you write a story based around sexual assault, and you make it sexually arousing for those who get off on that. You are purposefully creating a piece that glorifies sexual assault... By making it titillating and highly sexual. You know it will trigger the people who read it.
You as the writer understand you are influencing them. You are creating something that normalises sexual assault...
Everything written influences the reader...Say anything often enough, and it becomes accepted as normal...
You can try to paint it as just a harmless fantasy, but the truth is very different..

In my opinion only... Yours may be different, but that is how I feel...

 

[FrancesScott]

We are talking literature, so if you write a story based around sexual assault, and you make it sexually arousing for those who get off on that. You are purposefully creating a piece that glorifies sexual assault... By making it titillating and highly sexual. You know it will trigger the people who read it.

It is wholly impossible to argue cogently against this very clear statement. It’s simply true, and no amount of legalistic obfuscation and misdirection, goalpost shifting, straw-man creating, and whataboutism can make it untrue.

Glorifying, sexualizing, and normalizing rape is not done as an accidental and unfortunate byproduct of otherwise blameless art. It’s the whole point of a rape porn story. Arguing that it isn’t is frankly bizarre.

If you get turned on by the willful destruction of another human being, then own it. Be proud, don’t seek to say it’s all harmless fun with a knowing wink. Be honest about what turns you on.

 

[filthytrancendence]

It is wholly impossible to argue cogently against this very clear statement. It’s simply true, and no amount of legalistic obfuscation and misdirection, goalpost shifting, straw-man creating, and whataboutism can make it untrue.

Glorifying, sexualizing, and normalizing rape is not done as an accidental and unfortunate byproduct of otherwise blameless art. It’s the whole point of a rape porn story. Arguing that it isn’t is frankly bizarre.

If you get turned on by the willful destruction of another human being, then own it. Be proud, don’t seek to say it’s all harmless fun with a knowing wink. Be honest about what turns you on.

/thread

 

[SimonDoom]

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.

Sure you can. These are apples and oranges. I know for a fact that people like and do not like my stories. This is a demonstrable, evidence-based fact.

I have no idea, however, whether my stories affect people's behavior in the real world, for good or ill. In my 8 plus years as an author I cannot recall any evidence that would support the conclusion that my stories have actually affected behavior. I doubt others have received such evidence, either; if they have, they haven't cited it in these endless debates we keep having on this subject.

I'm basically agnostic on the issue. My view is that the presumption favors those who advocate freedom and nonjudgment and those who want to judge others bear the burden of proof. I have yet to see that burden met in the years across which this debate keeps getting waged.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

It is wholly impossible to argue cogently against this very clear statement. It’s simply true, and no amount of legalistic obfuscation and misdirection, goalpost shifting, straw-man creating, and whataboutism can make it untrue.

Incorrect.

Glorifying, sexualizing, and normalizing rape is not done as an accidental and unfortunate byproduct of otherwise blameless art. It’s the whole point of a rape porn story. Arguing that it isn’t is frankly bizarre.

Glorifying is in the eye of the reader.

 

[filthytrancendence]

if they have, they haven't cited it in these endless debates we keep having on this subject.

The fact that you want to have a debate about it is basically the problem. The side you are arguing with has iron-clad reasoning for our position and we can't help but notice you aren't actually engaging with that reasoning, just squawking about debate and evidence and misapplying terms you don't seem to understand.

I invite you to explain the fault in this reasoning:

1. Stories affect people.
2. Writers write stories specifically to affect people.
3. Writing a story that revels in the rape of a character will have an effect on people.
4. Reveling in the rape of a character is a bad thing to do. Because that's some evil, twisted shit.
5. The effect of a story reveling in the rape of a character is a bad effect. See #4.
6. Writers have an ethical obligation to avoid writing a story reveling in the rape of a character. See 1-5.
7. Writers who do not heed this obligation are doing some evil, twisted shit. See #4.
8. Writers have the agency to do evil, twisted shit if they want to. But those of us that care about minimizing the amount of evil, twisted shit in the world have an obligation to call a spade a spade.

You keep demanding evidence for #1. You already conceded that #1 is true. You also keep getting defensive, as if somebody is accusing you of #7. Nobody did.

Keep going down that road and you will begin to make people wonder if the writer doth protest too much?

 

[M_K_Babalon]

The fact that you want to have a debate about it is basically the problem. The side you are arguing with has iron-clad reasoning for our position and we can't help but notice you aren't actually engaging with that reasoning, just squawking about debate and evidence and misapplying terms you don't seem to understand.

I invite you to explain the fault in this reasoning:

1. Stories affect people.
2. Writers write stories specifically to affect people.
3. Writing a story that revels in the rape of a character will have an effect on people.
4. Reveling in the rape of a character is a bad thing to do. Because that's some evil, twisted shit.
5. The effect of a story reveling in the rape of a character is a bad effect. See #4.
6. Writers have an ethical obligation to avoid writing a story reveling in the rape of a character. See 1-5.
7. Writers who do not heed this obligation are doing some evil, twisted shit. See #4.
8. Writers have the agency to do evil, twisted shit if they want to. But those of us that care about minimizing the amount of evil, twisted shit in the world have an obligation to call a spade a spade.

You keep demanding evidence for #1. You already conceded that #1 is true. You also keep getting defensive, as if somebody is accusing you of #7. Nobody did.

Keep going down that road and you will begin to make people wonder if the writer doth protest too much?

There is no moral obligation.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Writers have an ethical obligation to avoid writing a story reveling in the rape of a character.

Stop right there. No they do not.

Art has no obligations to morality whatsoever. Whether a piece of art takes a moral stance is entirely up to the artist. The artist is free to do so or not at all. And if the artist does so choose to take a moral stance, those morals vary (widely) from artist to artist, so for you to claim that a piece of art has any moral obligation, then that is merely to your own morals, and any policing of such morals is nothing more than censorship, petty censorship. And what are we censoring? Stuff that you don't agree with, period. That's pretty selfish.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

as if somebody is accusing you of #7. Nobody did.

Not true. You are. Perhaps not directly in this thread, but should he ever choose to write a non-con story for titilation (the only kind that lit allows), he will be right in your crosshairs of righteous morality. And since he is standing up for those who wish to write what you say makes them a twisted piece of shit, that makes him a twisted piece of shit already, because if you stand up for freedom of expression, you stand up for everyone's freedom of expression, including those who write non-con fantasies. You also deem me a twisted piece of shit because I stand with them too - like I care what the fuck you think of me.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Stop right there. No they do not.

Art has no obligations to morality whatsoever. Whether a piece of art takes a moral stance is entirely up to the artist. The artist is free to do so or not at all. And if the artist does so choose to take a moral stance, those morals vary (widely) from artist to artist, so for you to claim that a piece of art has any moral obligation, then that is merely to your own morals, and any policing of such morals is nothing more than censorship, petty censorship. And what are we censoring? Stuff that you don't agree with, period. That's pretty selfish.

I agree that "obligation" is too strong a word. I would have said "responsibility."
Also, there shouldn't be any policing and censorship in this sense. The basic tenet of Art is to be free to create. But, as intellectuals, we also have the responsibility to react to such Art, and to criticize and condemn it if it sends the wrong kind of message - if it promotes murder, rape, racism, fascism, etc.

There are so many bands, for example, whose music promotes racism, radical nationalism, etc. From what I have seen, they rarely get banned. They are usually free to create their hateful "Art." And that's fine with me. If you started banning such artists, it wouldn't take long before someone misused the law in order to ban those who think differently, or those who speak up against the current government, social norms, etc.
So no, fuck censorship of any kind. But it's also a responsibility of any individual with an intellect to react and to condemn Art that promotes values that are universally considered "wrong."

 

[SimonDoom]

I invite you to explain the fault in this reasoning:

 

[ElectricBlue]

Sure you can. These are apples and oranges. I know for a fact that people like and do not like my stories. This is a demonstrable, evidence-based fact.

The context is, can words be powerfully good or powerfully bad, and the answer is yes to both. They're not only good when it suits you, but look the other way when it doesn't.

I have no idea, however, whether my stories affect people's behavior in the real world, for good or ill. In my 8 plus years as an author I cannot recall any evidence that would support the conclusion that my stories have actually affected behavior.

Someone having an orgasm is affecting their behaviour, surely.

I doubt others have received such evidence, either; if they have, they haven't cited it in these endless debates we keep having on this subject.
I'm basically agnostic on the issue.

No, you're not agnostic. You're very clearly in the camp that says, "Isn't it great when people say they get off on my stories," but you then argue the "It's only fiction, it's okay," response if ever someone suggests stories might have a negative effect. Note, I don't say "do", I say "might".

My view is that the presumption favors those who advocate freedom and nonjudgment and those who want to judge others bear the burden of proof. I have yet to see that burden met in the years across which this debate keeps getting waged.

There's no burden of proof needed, because that's missing the point, which is, take some responsibility for the things that you write, both for the white and for the black.

Everyone here would agree, I think, that art can be powerful, it can be transgressive (indeed that's its purpose - you've said that many times yourself), so the notion, "It's okay, it's only fiction," is the bullshit bit.

If you want to write transgressive content which might be repugnant to others, that's perfectly fine, go for it; but don't dismiss the repugnancy of others, at least take a moment to think about it, if only for ten seconds. Don't hide behind freedom of speech. As many up above have said, "Own it."

There have been plenty of times where I've thought, "You know what, I'm not going to write that after all," and strike the idea because it doesn't sit well with me, with my values. Have you never done that? Of course you have - you write your fun stories, but I don't think you've ever written something truly morally dark. You have your boundaries too, because you're a decent man.

It's my notion of socially responsible erotica, but there's no burden of proof needed. We're artists, not lawyers. We can fuck with people's minds, and don't ever pretend that we can't. That's why, in my mind, the "It's okay, it's only fiction" defence is rubbish.

Carry on .

 

[Gamblnluck]

Everything written influences the reader...Say anything often enough, and it becomes accepted as normal...

Very true. It is exactly how propaganda works. Literature is no different.
The counter argument that you have a choice to listen and absorb the message or not is BS. You still absorb a certain amount. The influence is subtle but exists. Something you enjoy or even half believe already will have a greater influence.

 

[XerXesXu]

I invite you to explain the fault in this reasoning:

Doesn't the fact that, as you were about to dazzle us with your reasoning your mind went blank, tell you something?

 

[Cagivagurl]

Incorrect.



Glorifying is in the eye of the reader.

It might be incorrect in your opinion...
But that's all you're offering non facts to support your argument...
Just another opinion...

Cagivagurl

 

[Cagivagurl]

I agree that "obligation" is too strong a word. I would have said "responsibility."
Also, there shouldn't be any policing and censorship in this sense. The basic tenet of Art is to be free to create. But, as intellectuals, we also have the responsibility to react to such Art, and to criticize and condemn it if it sends the wrong kind of message - if it promotes murder, rape, racism, fascism, etc.

There are so many bands, for example, whose music promotes racism, radical nationalism, etc. From what I have seen, they rarely get banned. They are usually free to create their hateful "Art." And that's fine with me. If you started banning such artists, it wouldn't take long before someone misused the law in order to ban those who think differently, or those who speak up against the current government, social norms, etc.
So no, fuck censorship of any kind. But it's also a responsibility of any individual with an intellect to react and to condemn Art that promotes values that are universally considered "wrong."

In my opinion, responsibility and obligation can be switched... They both suggest the same thing. As writers, we have the ability to support or not some types of activity....
In this instance we are discussing sexual assault...
I hope we can all agree that sexual assault is horrific and abhorrent, and cannot be acceptable in any form...
If you accept that statement, explain to me how it is acceptable to write a story that empowers people to sexually assault another human being???

They are opposing viewpoints....

There are bounds in common human decency that should never be crossed...
Removing a human beings licence to say no. Is crossing those bounds, and writing stories that suggest otherwise is counter productive to the work people around the world undertake every day to make people understand...

I dislike censorship, I hate the fact we need it, but a world devoid of censorship is one where anything goes, and to me that is unacceptable...

Writers can hide behind, "It's just a little harmless fun." But the truth is, if you write something that normalises sexual assault, and the right of another human being. You are in fact promoting the notion....

Yeah, it's an unpopular opinion in here, because the audience is 80% Male.... Fact: Men get raped as well...
In here, the opinion is we're just having fun... Nobody's getting hurt... Sorry, but that's bullshit... Words influence readers. Some of those readers are not able to separate fact from fiction... You only have to read comments to see that...
Words... Are they simply harmless????

I don't think so, and that is my opinion...

Don't hide behind the argument of free speech.
Either you are for or against sexual assault...
It's your right to have that opinion. All I ask is be honest about it.

Cagivagurl

 

[filthytrancendence]

I really feel like this one's done, but this one particular word I used has been being argued about several times, so I'll clarify:

Writers have an ethical obligation to avoid writing a story reveling in the rape of a character. See 1-5.

People seem worked up about my use of obligation there.

I'm not going to soften the language. I'm just going to point out that the phrase had more than one word in it. It's an ethical obligation because if you do not meet it, you are not behaving ethically. It is not an obligation in the sense that you must do it. We are all free to behave unethically if that is what we choose to do. Those of us that hold ourselves to that standard are equally free to name unethical behavior and call it out. This is not censorship. You're free to do it, I'm free to call it what it is.

If you want to quibble with me about the ethics of it, I've already laid out my case in points 1-5 above. Feel free to explain what I've missed.

 

[Actingup]

I really feel like this one's done, but this one particular word I used has been being argued about several times, so I'll clarify:


People seem worked up about my use of obligation there.

I'm not going to soften the language. I'm just going to point out that the phrase had more than one word in it. It's an ethical obligation because if you do not meet it, you are not behaving ethically. It is not an obligation in the sense that you must do it. We are all free to behave unethically if that is what we choose to do. Those of us that hold ourselves to that standard are equally free to name unethical behavior and call it out. This is not censorship. You're free to do it, I'm free to call it what it is.

If you want to quibble with me about the ethics of it, I've already laid out my case in points 1-5 above. Feel free to explain what I've missed.

I agree with this. People may not see that they have any obligation to behave ethically, or they may differ on what a common ethics should be. In fact, they will differ, given the broad range of permissible topics on the platform. But I don't think that it's controversial to say that ethical behaviour should not encourage sexual assault.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

If you want to write transgressive content which might be repugnant to others, that's perfectly fine, go for it; but don't dismiss the repugnancy of others, at least take a moment to think about it, if only for ten seconds. Don't hide behind freedom of speech. As many up above have said, "Own it."

The repugnance of others is free to change the channel. It's not the writer's fault if it doesn't.