Give the authorities the finger! Write extreme porn!

[PoppingTom]

for purposes of this thread, let's take AJ's statement at face value. possibly this is wrong or partly wrong, but exegesis of AJ shouldn't become the thread topic.

Well, I don't say it was wrong, but he means it ironically, and that's the way I think about that, too.

In my perception, violence, rape, pedophilia, torture, snuff, cannibalism, necrophilia, and coprophilia is no "putrid" stuff. It's taboo stuff, and in our country, these are goverment-backed taboos, and a lot of people in Germany thinks "If absolute freedom of speech means to allow these taboos, I will forego that right."

You're living in a country that doesn't allow goverment-backed taboos at all. You could be happy about that, but you, too, live in a country where F-words were beeped out, even if it's said in a song. This looks like a much bigger censorship to me.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Well, I don't say it was wrong, but he means it ironically, and that's the way I think about that, too.

In my perception, violence, rape, pedophilia, torture, snuff, cannibalism, necrophilia, and coprophilia is no "putrid" stuff. It's taboo stuff, and in our country, these are goverment-backed taboos, and a lot of people in Germany thinks "If absolute freedom of speech means to allow these taboos, I will forego that right."

You're living in a country that doesn't allow goverment-backed taboos at all. You could be happy about that, but you, too, live in a country where F-words were beeped out, even if it's said in a song. This looks like a much bigger censorship to me.

Is this thread about writing about such things or doing them? Writing about such things might be gross, but it's not illegal. Some of these things are illegal. Violence depends on the circumstances. Defending yourself violently is legal if you are attacked with violence. Coprophilia would not be illegal. Torture is not illegal if the victim is willing. Necrophilia is probably against the law.

Writing about them is not illegal, although Lit. may refuse to post stories on some of the subjects. I have one story about necrophilia, a couple involving rape and some involving torture. I have also had some stories rejected for being about the subjects mentioned.

 

[lovecraft68]

Not in Central Virginia. Here it's a direction you don't want to take.

I will make a note of that if I am ever 'up' that way.

 

[lovecraft68]

lovey,

today you said a lit rule was "no harm may come during sex." (see below).
that there's no such rule was suggested by sr71, box, and me, with examples. but you don't have to believe us.

[lovey, previously] [post #9, today 7-27 lovecraft There is allegedly no violence allowed in sex. No harm may come during sex

====

[lovey currently][to pure] If there is no harm to come during sex why are a fairly high percentage of non con stories booted? They have the rule they are inconsistent with enforcing it just as occasionally some underage things will fall through the cracks.
Unless of course Lindseyrae is simply lying as everyone here knows you could never be wrong.


This reminds me of Glenn Beck's arguments: "If the Muslims haven't taken over the US Treasury, why was Room 3449 in the Pentagon, which stored Bibles and other Christian material, recently padlocked?"


Less authoritative tone? Who the hell are you supposed to be?

when you're wrong, the authoritative tone can be embarrassing. but if it appeals to you, go for it: free speech 'n all.

-----
Let's look at a paragraph Lovey quotes without saying what it is, or who said it, etc.

[to sr71] Yup, I made it up and posted it under the reasons why a story could be rejected section.


[lovey quoting without a link or reference]
[Offered advice to those wondering why their story was rejected]
[Muffin asks:] Was there excessive violence, snuff, or abuse of characters in your story?

Your story was too extreme for our guidelines. These judgments are subjective, and thus we can't give an exact definition of what exactly is "too much". Certain "violence" in a BDSM situation between consenting adults may be allowed, while the same "violence" between strangers in a non-consensual situation will not.

====

Lovey, you're quoting a POST of about 8 years back, by Killer Muffin, then a moderator. In Editor's Forum it's kept as a sticky, since she makes many useful points and gives generally good advice. She isn't and wasn't an official spokesperson for Lit, and that post isn't, in exact words, Lit policy.
see my post #14 in the Celeb thread of SDC.

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?t=752440

That said, even if her statement exactly and correctly stated policy, it doesn't confirm your original claim. She says, in effect 'no excessive sexual violence'. You said, "no harm may come during sex."

It's true that some stories with extreme sexual violence (especially, trashy ones), submitted to Lit, will never see the light of day, here. There's that true kernel in your otherwise wildly inflated claims about "no harm" policy.

pure

I am aware that that was posted in the editors forum. However I went to submission guidelines went into FAQ and clicked on "my story was rejected" it then took me to that thread.

This means that Lit linked this which means (to me anyways) that they endorse KM"s post. I also feel that if you look at the wording it reads as if it is the site owners saying it. If they linked it then they must feel it is in the spirit of their rules.

I am not sying that they adhere to it as they obviously do not, it's CYA all the way if anything ever takes exception to some of the stories here.

The only point I tried to make way back in the beginning is that pure and simple Lit has less tolerance than some other sites-asstr is lawless, storiesonline somewhere in between- but lit is stricter than many.
Only point I am trying to make.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

A lot of philosophers call the orgasm the "little death." I play with that occasionally and have no trouble with it.

Only very old ones who are out of the loop.

 

[LucyH]

Well, if we're going to take this perfectly seriously at face value, it's silly. It's when people publish vile stuff that the people advocating censorship get riled up.

I'm all for freedom of speech, and I don't want to censor anyone's porn as long as nobody's rights were violated in creating it. If people truly feel inspired to express themselves by writing about violence and necrophilia, then they should feel free to do so. It's their right. Sometimes censorship advocates getting riled up is an inevitable consequence of expressing yourself.

Publishing vile stuff for the purpose of making a point that you can publish vile stuff only has a negative effect on freedom of speech, though. It wouldn't inspire opponents of censorship to rally behind you. It wouldn't sway public opinion in your favor, and it wouldn't even do you any good. It would just upset people needlessly.

 

[sr71plt]

Only very old ones who are out of the loop.

That's rather a stupid back bite.

 

[Genus69]

Does everyone on Lit take things literally?

The 'Auden James' post used by the OP to launch this thread was an exercise in sarcasm. Now, maybe it's because 'Auden James' is German, and I'm a Brit, that we share the same kind of twisted European humour. But Gawd above, I'd have thought the capacity to appreciate the wry, the ironic, had also travelled across the Pond.

What James was referring to was the way porn so often takes itself so. . . seriously. That porn is in the vanguard of free speech and porn writers (like me) are custodians of truth, justice, and liberty for all.

What utter crap.

The samizdat writers in the yesteryear Soviet Union (who wound up in labour camps for their pains or psychiatric hospitals on mind-changing drug regimes): they were the ones who truly championed the democratic cause. So, too, are the writers out there in China today, who get locked up for authoring anything which might remotely imply that the Communist leadership is a self-serving elitist senile sham.

Forgive my language, but where the fuck does porn come into this?

Or brave writers (sic) like the hate-filled fantasist whose horrific narrative directed towards *real* individuals sparked so much concern here in the UK?

As for de Sade, oh puh-leeze. . . Indigestible political crap laced with fantasies so badly articulated, he'd get zero stars in the comments section were any of his clunking narratives to be freshly presented on Lit now.

Bottom line: porn isn't about changing the world. It isn't about taking life-threatening risks. It's merely the exercise of an aspect of all the freedoms we have inherited thanks to the many who went before us. . . and who weren't porn writers.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

Does everyone on Lit take things literally?

The 'Auden James' post used by the OP to launch this thread was an exercise in sarcasm. Now, maybe it's because 'Auden James' is German, and I'm a Brit, that we share the same kind of twisted European humour. But Gawd above, I'd have thought the capacity to appreciate the wry, the ironic, had also travelled across the Pond.

What James was referring to was the way porn so often takes itself so. . . seriously. That porn is in the vanguard of free speech and porn writers (like me) are custodians of truth, justice, and liberty for all.

What utter crap.

The samizdat writers in the yesteryear Soviet Union (who wound up in labour camps for their pains or psychiatric hospitals on mind-changing drug regimes): they were the ones who truly championed the democratic cause. So, too, are the writers out there in China today, who get locked up for authoring anything which might remotely imply that the Communist leadership is a self-serving elitist senile sham.

Forgive my language, but where the fuck does porn come into this?

...

You make a good point, but you don't live in the US, and so probably don't appreciate the deep and powerful conservative Puritan forces behind governmental censorship here. This is a country in which you can readily be prosecuted for publishing stories involving pedophilia or anything else that violates "community standards" of decency. A very few years ago, one of our major broadcasting networks was fined and threatened with loss of license for allowing a 3-second peek of a woman's nipple during the Superbowl, and over the past 5 years or so, galleries have been closed and artists have lost their funding due to charges of obscenity. Usually they're thrown out, but the cost of litigation can easily bankrupt the artist.

Things are pretty lax now, but we should we put a hard-right Christian Conservative in the White House in 2012, we could very well see another of our periodic Campaigns for Decency.

So what's allowable and what's prosecutable is still a subject of debate and caution over here, and James' screed might be satirical to you, but it's been taken seriously by more than a few American authors and artists to give "socially redeeming value" to their work.

 

[Pure]

note to lovey

i wish you'd make your assertions about Lit, consistent.

Loveywhy are a fairly high percentage of non con stories booted?

P: you asserted, here, that stories with harm, esp. rape, get banned.


Lovey: I am not sying that they adhere to it [Muffins summary saying extreme violence may cause rejection] as they obviously do not,

P: Muffin's point about extreme sexual violence causing problems for acceptance is roughly (often) true. So your last statement "they obviously do not [adhere to KM]" is false. As well, it's inconsistent with your earlier position.

 

[lovecraft68]

i wish you'd make your assertions about Lit, consistent.

Loveywhy are a fairly high percentage of non con stories booted?

P: you asserted, here, that stories with harm, esp. rape, get banned.


Lovey: I am not sying that they adhere to it [Muffins summary saying extreme violence may cause rejection] as they obviously do not,

P: Muffin's point about extreme sexual violence causing problems for acceptance is roughly (often) true. So your last statement "they obviously do not [adhere to KM]" is false. As well, it's inconsistent with your earlier position.

If they were consistent with it then all of the stories authors here are saying they got published as well as the couple of links you provided would have gotten booted as well. The rule is old and after awhile people get lax.

It isn't an easy rule, extremely rough consensual can be as disturbing to some as actual non consent. I know because I write some pretty rough (but consensual) sex and have taken some abuse for the readers. hardcore BDSM also pushes the limits. In the end I think they are getting tired of debating it unless it is really blatant

 

[sr71plt]

If they were consistent with it then all of the stories authors here are saying they got published as well as the couple of links you provided would have gotten booted as well. The rule is old and after awhile people get lax.

It isn't an easy rule, extremely rough consensual can be as disturbing to some as actual non consent. I know because I write some pretty rough (but consensual) sex and have taken some abuse for the readers. hardcore BDSM also pushes the limits. In the end I think they are getting tired of debating it unless it is really blatant

You seem to have missed the point that the "rules" you cited aren't the Literotica submissions rules regarding content. This is the sum total of the posting limitations given in the actual Literotica story content rules (note nothing said about death and nothing said about violence beyond child abuse):

No sexual activity involving bestiality (you can write stories about supernatural beasts like ghosts, unicorns, werewolves, etc.) or underage persons will be considered. For the purposes of this site, the minimum legal age is 18. This site does not publish stories, articles, essays, or other material supporting, encouraging, or defending child abuse and/or exploitation.

 

[Pure]

ps.

to the direct and stated rules, one must add:

extreme torture and snuff.

 

[lovecraft68]

to the direct and stated rules, one must add:

extreme torture and snuff.

"Torture" is subjective. One could say that a woman who is being held down and gang raped is being tortured. One could make a case that a woman (or man) who is kidnapped and continuously force fed drugs and forced to have sex is being tortured.

Standard non con fare. Now you would say (and correctly) that that is not torture it is rape. But see there is a problem there. The word Rape is not allowed in story titles or tag lines.

If everything you are saying is true and I am wrong then short of the bestiality and under age rule. lit has no right rejecting any of the stories that they do.

I have a friend that writes some of the sickest shit you can imagine. I think I am going to talk him into trying to submit it here and see if it makes it through. If I can get him to do it I'll send it to you in a pm, then let you know if they approve it or not. My guess? If I can get him to do a few, some will go through some will get booted and all with the same basic content.

 

[sr71plt]

If everything you are saying is true and I am wrong then short of the bestiality and under age rule. lit has no right rejecting any of the stories that they do.

Tilt. It's a private Web site. The owners can reject anything they damn well want to for any reason they damn well want to have. And they can be just as inconsistent about it as they want to be.

This is where the standard "if you don't like it, buy your own Web site" slug fits.

 

[Cruel2BKind]

Stupid...

My biggest problem getting stories through is underage. I will mention something that happened when a character was fifteen, and then forget to specify that time has passed. I understand rejecting a story for that, because a person would have read it and thought that horrible things were happening to a 15-year-old. I DO NOT blame them for that.

What I DO blame them for, is recently I wrote a noncon story called The Slave Girl (link at the bottom if you're interested) and when the man is at the market, I said something along the lines of

"Unless girls were very homely, they usually were taken by several men by the age of sixteen"

Other then that, I specified that the main character was nineteen, never went into underage sex, etc, etc, and they still rejected it on the grounds of having underage sex. What makes it even worse is that lately it takes a week to get stories through, so I had to send it again! GRRR
http://www.literotica.com/s/the-slave-girl-2

PS, someone earlier said that the Marquis De Sade had nothing on what you see every day... To the person who said that, try reading 120 days of Sodom. I have nightmares from reading the wikipedia description...

 

[Spacefender]

I don't see that reading putrid stories is, in itself, a defense of liberty. However I certainly guard the liberty-- my liberty-- to read putrid stories.

I feel this is exactly right. Writing smut on the internet is not some stirring defense of freedom. But I certainly don't want my freedom to write smut on the internet to be curtailed.

...It's when people publish vile stuff that the people advocating censorship get riled up.

Vile is a subjective term. It wouldn't be hard to find people who would call pretty much every story on Literotica 'vile'. I'll bet there are people reading and commenting on this thread who would find the stuff I write to be 'vile'. It's like being charged with obcenity, there are no set standards as to what is grounds for being charged with obcenity. What might land you with obcenity charges in one locale might very well be perfectly legal somewhere else.

All too often when someone says that something ( a story, a movie, a song, a painting,) is vile what they really mean is:

"It offends me so it shouldn't be allowed to exist."

 

[SpunkySarah]

Yes - we're seeing much of that in politics these days.

"It offends ME so it shouldn't be allowed to exist."

Some person's squick is another person's lust.

 

[LucyH]

Vile is a subjective term.

Yes, it is, but some things are more likely to be judged vile than others, and some are more likely to provoke an emotional response than others. A conservative person might not be sufficiently offended by conventional porn to do much of anything about it, but might be horrified enough to go on the warpath against something more "out-there."

 

[autoplot]

I'm going to write porn about two people jumping out of an airplane and fucking while drinking Mountain Dew. And when they come they yell "EXTREEEEEEEEEEME!"

So look for my new Literotica story*, Holy Fuck I'm Extreme Over Here, coming soon.

* or better yet, don't

 

[sr71plt]

I'm going to write porn about two people jumping out of an airplane and fucking while drinking Mountain Dew. And when they come they yell "EXTREEEEEEEEEEME!"

So look for my new Literotica story*, Holy Fuck I'm Extreme Over Here, coming soon.

* or better yet, don't

I doubt you could submit it to Literotica, because they'd hit the ground and only he'd have time to have an orgasm before you could get the story over 750 words.

 

[autoplot]

I doubt you could submit it to Literotica, because they'd hit the ground and only he'd have time to have an orgasm before you could get the story over 750 words.

You have a point. Maybe I'll make it the space shuttle instead of an airplane and add a bit in the middle where they have to doff their spacesuits....

 

[Spacefender]

A conservative person might not be sufficiently offended by conventional porn to do much of anything about it, but might be horrified enough to go on the warpath against something more "out-there."

You don't have to be conservative to be against porn. I'm pretty sure NOW is not conservative in any way, shape or form but it certainly is against porn. It objectifies and degrades women I believe is their argument. It's stupid and NOW is basically a bunch of hypocritical douchecanoes but that's their position. I thought feminism was supposed to be about a woman's right to choose but I guess it's about a woman's right to choose as long as her choices agree with NOW.

Anyway, my point is that the threats to Freedom of Speech is hardly only coming from the right. There is plenty also coming from the Left. There are people on both sides who would love nothing more than to ban all porn.

Beyond that, if we start sacrificing the more 'out-there' stuff it won't be long before they start demanding you stop writing your more vanilla porn.

 

[Stella_Omega]

...There is plenty also coming from the Left. There are people on both sides who would love nothing more than to ban all porn.

*sigh*
yes, there are a few fringe feminist types that want to ban all porn. But they are well-known to be fringey, even amongst other radical feminists.

Unlike the conservative crowd, for whom the censorship of erotica is a quondam virtue.

 

[sr71plt]

It objectifies and degrades women

Most of the porn I write doesn't.