Why is there no "Loving Husbands" category?

[LJ_Reloaded]

And if there was, would anyone write stories for it?

Is it that the whole idea of wives bringing in women to fuck their husbands for her entertainment, or wives being duped by cheating husbands, is not sexually arousing for female readers?

Would "loving husbands" be the second least written-for category ever (coming closer to the category of "Non-English" than, say, "Illustrated")?

 

[Huckleman2000]

I don't even understand the appeal of "Loving Wives".

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I don't even understand the appeal of "Loving Wives".

If that confounds you then wait'll you see how popular the incest category is.

 

[SweetestThing]

I don't think it's a very popular fetish for women, no.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I don't think it's a very popular fetish for women, no.

Which says a lot about the hypocrisy of the readership.

They'll fap to everything else... except that.

Do they feel... threatened... by erotica involving mistresses?

 

[SweetestThing]

Which says a lot about the hypocrisy of the readership.

I don't think saying something is more attractive based on the gender of the person involved is hypocritical. I mean, cut-off jeans. Need I say more?

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I don't think saying something is more attractive based on the gender of the person involved is hypocritical. I mean, cut-off jeans. Need I say more?

Normally I would agree. Like when someone prefers men over women that's not bigoted, nor is prefering a white partner over a black one.

But this gets a bit muddy, because as you can tell Lesbian and Gay men stories are popular, cheating wives are popular, incest is practically a fiery rage, even non humans is popular as a genre............ but the moment you get into cheating husbands? It has all the traits of a culture-wide taboo, at least on Lit.

Here's my reasoning.

1) Consider how many men cheat in real life.
2) Consider how common the fantasy of a guy having more than one woman is. Including having a wife here and a mistress there. Concubines are hardly a rare occurrence in history, even if they're considered to be only available to the rich & powerful.
3) Yet as common as this fantasy is among men, we don't have a genre based on it?

Huh? The math ain't adding up here.

I suspect that guys are afraid to write that stuff and that this may be the case because women readers are deeply offended by it. Not because it's not erotic - clearly to one of two genders, it is - but because it's threatening to the other gender, on a very primal level.

I'm open to other theories about this...

 

[SweetestThing]

1) Consider how many men cheat in real life.
2) Consider how common the fantasy of a guy having more than one woman is. Including having a wife here and a mistress there. Concubines are hardly a rare occurrence in history, even if they're considered to be only available to the rich & powerful.
3) Yet as common as this fantasy is among men, we don't have a genre based on it?

Huh? The math ain't adding up here.

I think you're answering your own question here though. Most of the categories here that you mention involve the breaking of a particular taboo, be it sex with another race or homosexuality or incest. A man stepping out on his wife isn't really taboo at all. It's the biological imperative, more or less and taken as a given throughout history and still openly practiced in many places around the world.

There are lots of stories on Lit about married men having sex with someone other than their wives, they just tend not to dwell on that aspect of it. I can't speak for male fantasies but I'm guessing that guys who have a girl on the side aren't so much getting off on the thrill of stepping out on their wives as they are just enjoying sex with another woman.

I suspect that guys are afraid to write that stuff and that this may be the case because women readers are deeply offended by it. Not because it's not erotic - clearly to one of two genders, it is - but because it's threatening to the other gender, on a very primal level.

Like I said, I'm not a big fan of Loving Wives but I can say that just the idea of a cheating spouse, of either gender, doesn't offend me. It also doesn't do anything for me. If the most noteworthy thing about sex is that it takes place outside of marriage it doesn't strike me as being particularly kinky but fairly mundane.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I think you're answering your own question here though. Most of the categories here that you mention involve the breaking of a particular taboo, be it sex with another race or homosexuality or incest. A man stepping out on his wife isn't really taboo at all. It's the biological imperative, more or less and taken as a given throughout history and still openly practiced in many places around the world.

Not taboo? I'd qualify that. In the Western World an adventurous husband is scandal-bait. Ask Slick Willie. Or Mark Sanford. Even Newt Gingrich didn't earn himself kudos for his adventures. (Although his example was pretty awful.) Not taboo? I'm not so sure about that in this age of post-feminism.

There are lots of stories on Lit about married men having sex with someone other than their wives, they just tend not to dwell on that aspect of it. I can't speak for male fantasies but I'm guessing that guys who have a girl on the side aren't so much getting off on the thrill of stepping out on their wives as they are just enjoying sex with another woman.

You've got a point there.

Like I said, I'm not a big fan of Loving Wives but I can say that just the idea of a cheating spouse, of either gender, doesn't offend me. It also doesn't do anything for me. If the most noteworthy thing about sex is that it takes place outside of marriage it doesn't strike me as being particularly kinky but fairly mundane.

Cuckolding, in particular, strikes me as a fetish. It's a very large subset of the loving wives genre.

Now we could easily take what you said and justify it by saying guys like menage-a-trois more than mere "reverse-cuckolding". While it is tangential to the issue of a lack of a "loving husbands" category, it is noteworthy that there is an orgy category which would cater to both genders. No doubt Lit is satisfied to leave this as a place for any "reverse cuckolding" stories that might pop up. If we go with your reasoning (which isn't all that far-fetched) it pains me to imagine that the best choice to find "loving husband" stories is to dig through there. Ick... but it beats coding in a new genre listing, I suppose.

 

[3113]

Hypocrisy?

Which says a lot about the hypocrisy of the readership. They'll fap to everything else... except that.

This statement confuses me. Which "readership" are you saying will flock to "everything" else? The readership for "Loving Wives," for example, is hugely heterosexual male and we KNOW they, for the most part, don't go for Gay Male or Romance. So they don't go for everything else. They only go for "Loving Wives" and maybe incest.

And why should it be hypocrisy that the readers of "Loving Wives" wouldn't read "Loving Husbands"? Why would that interest them if their fantasy is wife with other men?

Meanwhile, the Romance category strongly female. Those stories involve finding a single soulmate and remaining faithful to them. It seems quite consistent for women who like those stories to not want to read stories about cheating husbands. So why would it be hypocritical for "Loving Husbands" not to get readers if most women fantasize about finding a faithful mate?

And then there's this problem: there are stories all over Lit about wives giving husbands women. The group category has them, the interracial category has them, the gay category has wives giving husbands a guy for their birthday, etc. So, why have a "Loving Husband" category when such stories can be found elsewhere for those looking for them?

Finally, though we might surmise that "Loving Husbands" wouldn't be popular, we really don't know that for sure. So, really, the only hypocrisy is that Literotica has a "Loving Wives" but no "Loving Husbands" not that the "readership" wouldn't go for it. Because for it to be hypocrisy requires that the entire readership of Literotica, no matter their gender, sexual orientation or personal kinks, read EVERYTHING but that category. And that's not the case. The readership here doesn't go for everything. The readership here picks and chooses their favorites, "Loving Wives" included. Putting it another way, if lesbian fiction turns a man on, why is it hypocrisy if gay male doesn't and so he doesn't read that? And if there are more male readers here than women, that would make lesbian more popular than gay male...how is that hypocrisy?

I'm afraid I don't understand your reasoning.

 

[Stella_Omega]

You'll find stories about husbands who cheat on their wives in "loving wives." Go figure.

Why on earth that section was named that way is baffling.

it should really be seperated into three cats; "Vengeful husbands" "cuckolds" and "swingers."

But there are thousands of stories in the one, all mooshed together like cats, dogs and rats-- who would want to put in the time and labor of seperating them? Certainly not the owners; as long as it doesn't interfere with advertising revenue, they probably don't care.

 

[wet_special]

This statement confuses me. Which "readership" are you saying will flock to "everything" else? The readership for "Loving Wives," for example, is hugely heterosexual male and we KNOW they, for the most part, don't go for Gay Male or Romance. So they don't go for everything else. They only go for "Loving Wives" and maybe incest.

Let's not forget E/C, the 800 pound gorilla in the room. Did I mention Erotic Horror, Sci Fi/Fantasy, Toys/Masturbation .. although I realize these categories have less hits than incest, that doesn't mean straight heterosexual guys aren't checking them out. I should know

And why should it be hypocrisy that the readers of "Loving Wives" wouldn't read "Loving Husbands"? Why would that interest them if their fantasy is a wife with other men?

It is quite a misnomer, as Stella points out. I don't follow LJ's reasoning here either, and basically I think it's a bunch of hooey to create categories based on a framework of yin and yang, positive and negative, it's either this or that.

Stella says Loving Wives should be broken up into 3 categories

it should really be seperated into three cats; "Vengeful husbands" "cuckolds" and "swingers."

This makes a lot more sense, because it is categories based on what actually goes on in the stories. Note that none of them have anything to do with wives loving their husbands, but rather the opposite. And yet, what happens when you split a category into several other categories? The reason you get incest traffic like crazy is probably because there's a lot of crossover readership of people who want to read about moms, or sisters, or brothers, all browsing the same category. That traffic attracts authors and competitive works. Imagine if you broke up Incest into "Moms doing daughters" "Family Orgy" and "Moms with sons" "Sister with brother" and on and on and on. You divide the eyeballs that see the lists in the name of specificity, and kill a good thing.

I think what they should do is change the name of the category from "loving wives" to "Someone's Wife" or "Sexy Housewives" or who knows. At least you don't get the impression she's just banging her boring hubby.

I'm just a noob, but, that makes sense to me.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

This statement confuses me. Which "readership" are you saying will flock to "everything" else?

I meant that every genre has some crowd flocking to it. Some more than others.

And why should it be hypocrisy that the readers of "Loving Wives" wouldn't read "Loving Husbands"? Why would that interest them if their fantasy is wife with other men?

The hypocrisy is that it appears no one at all would read it. But as you say below, stories that belong to this genre are scattered all around.

So why would it be hypocritical for "Loving Husbands" not to get readers if most women fantasize about finding a faithful mate?

Because "loving husband" situations exist in real life (if rarely) but there's no genre here that represents it (except maybe "orgies"?).

And then there's this problem: there are stories all over Lit about wives giving husbands women. The group category has them, the interracial category has them, the gay category has wives giving husbands a guy for their birthday, etc. So, why have a "Loving Husband" category when such stories can be found elsewhere for those looking for them?

Because exactly that: they're scattered all over. If I were actually wanting to read "Loving Husband" type stories that's one fun scavenger hunt. Imagine all incest stories being scattered along mature, erotic couplings and the like?

Finally, though we might surmise that "Loving Husbands" wouldn't be popular, we really don't know that for sure. So, really, the only hypocrisy is that Literotica has a "Loving Wives" but no "Loving Husbands" not that the "readership" wouldn't go for it. Because for it to be hypocrisy requires that the entire readership of Literotica, no matter their gender, sexual orientation or personal kinks, read EVERYTHING but that category. And that's not the case. The readership here doesn't go for everything. The readership here picks and chooses their favorites, "Loving Wives" included. Putting it another way, if lesbian fiction turns a man on, why is it hypocrisy if gay male doesn't and so he doesn't read that? And if there are more male readers here than women, that would make lesbian more popular than gay male...how is that hypocrisy?

Point taken. I hope I clarified my position better in the above text.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

You'll find stories about husbands who cheat on their wives in "loving wives." Go figure.

Why on earth that section was named that way is baffling.

There is most certainly that.

it should really be seperated into three cats; "Vengeful husbands" "cuckolds" and "swingers."

Ah yes, swinging is itself one huge category. But as I said it would probably be hard to code in such changes.

But there are thousands of stories in the one, all mooshed together like cats, dogs and rats-- who would want to put in the time and labor of seperating them? Certainly not the owners; as long as it doesn't interfere with advertising revenue, they probably don't care.

It wouldn't be worth the effort to separate existing stories that are misplaced.

Assuming that one has the time or inclination to code in a new category (which is probably untrue), it would be better off to leave the old stories where they are and direct new ones to their appropriate genres.

Correct me if I'm wrong but wouldn't looking for "loving(vengeful?) husbands" type stories in "loving wives" be like looking for lesbian erotica in the gay male section? Man, what a messed up section that must be.

 

[SweetestThing]

Not taboo? I'd qualify that. In the Western World an adventurous husband is scandal-bait. Ask Slick Willie. Or Mark Sanford. Even Newt Gingrich didn't earn himself kudos for his adventures. (Although his example was pretty awful.) Not taboo? I'm not so sure about that in this age of post-feminism.

I'm not entirely sure what definition you're using of the Western World but I think you can agree that in most of the Western Hemisphere and Western Europe that having a philandering politician isn't going to be a huge deal. As a Canadian I don't think that applies up here. Heck, read up on Silvio Berlusconi if you think a politician getting some where he shouldn't is a big deal most places.

I think what you're talking about is pretty localized to the US and even then isn't so much about the sex as it is your political scene and it's weirdness.

Cuckolding, in particular, strikes me as a fetish. It's a very large subset of the loving wives genre.

Now we could easily take what you said and justify it by saying guys like menage-a-trois more than mere "reverse-cuckolding". While it is tangential to the issue of a lack of a "loving husbands" category, it is noteworthy that there is an orgy category which would cater to both genders. No doubt Lit is satisfied to leave this as a place for any "reverse cuckolding" stories that might pop up. If we go with your reasoning (which isn't all that far-fetched) it pains me to imagine that the best choice to find "loving husband" stories is to dig through there. Ick... but it beats coding in a new genre listing, I suppose.

I always think the idea of cuckolding here, though, is kind of screwy. Most Loving Wives stories are written by guys who get excited by and want their wives to screw around on them. If you want your wife to step out and get with another guy then it doesn't strike me as cuckolding, which to me implies doing something against his will and will hurt him instead of get him off, but it strikes me as a humiliation fetish or something.

That is a fantasy guys seem to have. Enough so that it warrants that section. That humiliation/whatever is the crux of those stories. Stories written about guys stepping out on their wives don't need their own category because that element of it doesn't seem to hold a lot of appeal to people. Women don't seem to get off on imagining their husbands with a better lover, Men don't seem to find it particularly thrilling to betray their wives specifically.

There may be some people who do get off on that, maybe, but I think you'd have to agree that the specific fetish there is rare enough to maybe not warrant a category. It's not like every fetish has one.

 

[JackLuis]

Loving Wives is Fiction.

Philandering Husbands are too common in reality to be interesting.

 

[RunningJib]

Because

We fuck around when we don't get any at home

 

[racheldearest]

Here's my reasoning.

1) Consider how many men cheat in real life.
2) Consider how common the fantasy of a guy having more than one woman is. Including having a wife here and a mistress there. Concubines are hardly a rare occurrence in history, even if they're considered to be only available to the rich & powerful.
3) Yet as common as this fantasy is among men, we don't have a genre based on it?

I think that's just it: it's so common in real life, who wants to read about it in a story? I mean, I think a lot of the readership are women, who have been crapped on by the men in their lives and come here to "get away". You know, read about a fantasy man who does no wrong. I don't think that segment of the readership would enjoy reading about a cheating husband.

 

[LJ_Reloaded]

I think that's just it: it's so common in real life, who wants to read about it in a story? I mean, I think a lot of the readership are women, who have been crapped on by the men in their lives and come here to "get away". You know, read about a fantasy man who does no wrong. I don't think that segment of the readership would enjoy reading about a cheating husband.

But plenty of women cheat in real life, too. As evidenced by the number of paternity fraud cases going on out there. (To say the least.)

 

[AsylumSeeker]

Undocumented Workers Loving Family

And if there was, would anyone write stories for it?

Is it that the whole idea of wives bringing in women to fuck their husbands for her entertainment, or wives being duped by cheating husbands, is not sexually arousing for female readers?

Would "loving husbands" be the second least written-for category ever (coming closer to the category of "Non-English" than, say, "Illustrated")?

I say we strive to achieve true Americana.

 

[xssve]

I say we strive to achieve true Americana.

To be sure, cuckqueening fetish's are much more rare than cuckolding fetishes, anecdotally speaking, I've run into it maybe Two or Three times - it's not really even a big male fantasy that I've run into.

Men all fantasize about fucking their friends wives, I don't think that many women fantasize about their husbands fucking their friends wives.

I think part of the deal is just that it's really not a "standardized" script, i.e., it hasn't gotten much press, though of course cuckolding is really just coming out of the closet in the last couple of years Still, at best, I've talked to maybe Two switches who even expressed interest in the idea, so it's there, but not what I'd call a real large demographic.

So just write the story - shit, a wife that pimps for you would be one very loving wife.

 

[Bebeslut]

I think what you're talking about is pretty localized to the US and even then isn't so much about the sex as it is your political scene and it's weirdness.

As an American, I'd have to say you're right.