How to Avoid Homophobic/Close Minded Readers

[dre_jones]

Interesting posts. I started this thread to give some advice and get feedback. However, the irony still remains that if you write a story in a category called Incest/TABOO and two cocks touch the trolls pounce.

Yet in the same category, Incest/TABOO, two sisters can go down on each other an no one says boo. I guess that gives us a good idea of who the trolls are.

 

[RejectReality]

There's a distinct double standard. F/F sex is fine anywhere. There are very few who are offended by it.

That's probably why GM is tolerant of M/F sex being present in stories there. It's the only safe haven for M/M, so the readership seems to understand and tolerate hetero scenes, even if they're not interested.

Such is not the case in Lesbian Sex, where anything resembling heterosexual contact is eviscerated. The authors who post there aren't persecuted elsewhere, so there's no empathic urge to prevent the readership from demanding purity.

Oh, and the "taboo" part of the category name may as well not be there. Regardless of the title or the description, that's the Incest category, and nothing else. The readership has defined that very loudly over many years, and it's not changing.

 

[J_R_Ashunwhy]

Interesting posts. I started this thread to give some advice and get feedback. However, the irony still remains that if you write a story in a category called Incest/TABOO and two cocks touch the trolls pounce.

Yet in the same category, Incest/TABOO, two sisters can go down on each other an no one says boo. I guess that gives us a good idea of who the trolls are.

You're not pointing out anything new:

"Overall, the report — which was released today and includes the responses of 1197 people in the LGBT community — indicates great strides in terms of the group’s feelings of inclusion in American society...
When it comes to overall social acceptance, respondents felt that the general public was most accepting of bisexual women and least accepting of transgender individuals. Similarly, lesbians were perceived as more socially accepted than gay men."

 

[nsymserotica]

bye-bye

 

[Serafina1210]

This has been an extremely useful thread. Has there been any research or theorizing about why MM depictions so often provoke a rage response in men, while you don't so often get that same response in women, straight or otherwise?

For me, the fantasy of being in bed with two men who are really into each other (as well as me) is hot, as it is for a number of women I know.

But how many straight men have similar fantasies?

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Research doesn't support the gals love fags proposition. As a rule gals don't like guys who dont pack the gear, be it money, testosterone, cocks, etc. My theory is: bisexual men afford the wife access to more sexual partners. I mean, what use is a fag to a woman?

 

[nsymserotica]

bye-bye

 

[sr71plt]

Research doesn't support the gals love fags proposition. As a rule gals don't like guys who dont pack the gear, be it money, testosterone, cocks, etc. My theory is: bisexual men afford the wife access to more sexual partners. I mean, what use is a fag to a woman?

What research? And, A. why do you think the bisexual male has to be married to a woman at all? and B. even if the bisexual man is married to a woman, why do you think that the wife even knows he's actively bisexual?

As usual, you're just making it up as you go along, aren't you, James?

 

[nsymserotica]

bye-bye

 

[Bramblethorn]

That's probably why GM is tolerant of M/F sex being present in stories there. It's the only safe haven for M/M, so the readership seems to understand and tolerate hetero scenes, even if they're not interested.

Such is not the case in Lesbian Sex, where anything resembling heterosexual contact is eviscerated.

Actual depictions of hetero sex, yeah. "Resembling" not necessarily. I've seen quite a few stories in there that read like "guy wants to write F/F, has no idea what the possibilities are, so writes it like M/F with a strap-on". (Not that it isn't an option! But some people write like it's the ONLY option.) In general I'd say the reaction to that is more "luke-warm" than "eviscerate".

The authors who post there aren't persecuted elsewhere, so there's no empathic urge to prevent the readership from demanding purity.

That's one way to read it, but I don't think that's the full explanation.

M/M and F/F have always been treated differently, long before Literotica came into being. A guy can be married for twenty years, but if he sucks one dick a lot of people will classify him as "gay". I've seen it several times in the last few years that a male celeb comes out as bi, the press translate this as "gay", then act shocked a couple of years later when the guy's dating a woman. For a guy, M/M trumps M/F in defining him to society, especially if he's the one being penetrated.

For F/F it's often the other way around. A woman sleeps with a woman, they're "experimenting" or "going through a phase". Or she's "100% straight" and doing it purely as a special treat for her husband. There's a scene in "Tipping The Velvet" where Nan confronts her lover's fiance: "Didn't she tell you that we fuck each other?" "I don't care to use such language Nan. And if I did, I wouldn't use it for anything a pair of girls could do, you need a man for that I think you'll find."

In media, an awful lot of what's presented as F/F sexuality is there for male titillation or as a setup for validating a male character (James Bond cures Pussy Galore of Lesbianism, etc. etc.) rather than actually exploring F/F attraction.

It's complicated and I don't know how good a job I've done of explaining it, but that sort of baggage means that for a lot of readers, M/F elements have potential to overshadow a F/F storyline in a way that they don't have for M/M. At least, that's my take on it.

 

[Serafina1210]

Terrific, thoughtful posts from nsymserotica and Bramblethorn. It's going to take me a while to simulate them, but let me just say that this is one of the most thought-provoking threads I've ever followed here on the AH.

 

[BuckyDuckman]

This has been an extremely useful thread. Has there been any research or theorizing about why MM depictions so often provoke a rage response in men, while you don't so often get that same response in women, straight or otherwise?

For me, the fantasy of being in bed with two men who are really into each other (as well as me) is hot, as it is for a number of women I know.

But how many straight men have similar fantasies?

I have a theory that starts with the idea that society fears a man's sexuality much more than a woman's sexuality. Maybe it has something to do with how men are (typically) stronger than women. Men (again, typically) are allowed to be more aggressive sexually and otherwise. That sort of strength and aggression is often rewarded and admired.

So, a physically strong, aggressive guy with a hard-on who goes both ways is, by nature, an immediate threat to all since he could force his way on anyone weaker than him. While an equally strong and aggressive woman would not be considered as much of a threat. She can't force me to fuck her if I don't get hard, that sort of thinking.

I know so many closeted guys who either had a bisexual experience in their past or who would be willing to entertain one under the right circumstances. Guys who "experimented" with mutual masturbation or in a circle jerk seldom consider that a gay act later in life. Of course, I believe they're fooling themselves, too.

Again, though, as Bramblethorn so correctly points out, guys risk being labeled "Gay" the moment they express any interest in another man.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

Again, though, as Bramblethorn so correctly points out, guys risk being labeled "Gay" the moment they express any interest in another man.

Well, it makes sense. I'm straight. I just don't get gay male sex. Not one inkling why a guy would ever care to have relations with another guy. (I'm not curious either, thanks). So from my viewpoint, and it's probably a large minority if not the majority view, if a guy gets entangled with another cock, he must be gay. He'd never want that, even once, if he wasn't. He'd feel total disinterest if not some amount of outright aversion.

I suppose the best analogy is being a herbivore (think vegetarian) and being offered a nice juicy raw slug. It's meat and not very palatable meat either; if someone actually bites into that slug, he must have a pretty desperate craving for meat and not be any kind of a vegetarian at all. Because why else would he ever want to eat a slug? It's a freaking slug; it doesn't even look like food. Food looks like fruit salad. If you want to put a slug in your mouth you have to be a desperate carnivore because what else could possibly explain it? Anyway you're definitely no vegetarian. I don't want to hear about your slug-and-cockroach-on-toast recipe either.

 

[Carnevil9]

......Oh, and the "taboo" part of the category name may as well not be there. Regardless of the title or the description, that's the Incest category, and nothing else. The readership has defined that very loudly over many years, and it's not changing.

I must beg to differ. I specifically set out to write a "taboo" story that had taboos other than incest. It had incest as well, granted, but a major plot line was sex with a priest, including in his confessional. About as taboo an action as I could think of.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Well, it makes sense. I'm straight. I just don't get gay male sex. Not one inkling why a guy would ever care to have relations with another guy. (I'm not curious either, thanks). So from my viewpoint, and it's probably a large minority if not the majority view, if a guy gets entangled with another cock, he must be gay. He'd never want that, even once, if he wasn't. He'd feel total disinterest if not some amount of outright aversion.

I suppose the best analogy is being a herbivore (think vegetarian) and being offered a nice juicy raw slug. It's meat and not very palatable meat either; if someone actually bites into that slug, he must have a pretty desperate craving for meat and not be any kind of a vegetarian at all. Because why else would he ever want to eat a slug? It's a freaking slug; it doesn't even look like food. Food looks like fruit salad. If you want to put a slug in your mouth you have to be a desperate carnivore because what else could possibly explain it? Anyway you're definitely no vegetarian. I don't want to hear about your slug-and-cockroach-on-toast recipe either.

Lawrence Block says a cock in your ass makes you wanna fuck a girl (at the same time) all the more. That is, anal sex increases your libido to fuck your female partner.

 

[IvyMarquis]

...Have you heard of omnivores, my friend? Or in this case, bisexuals?

I dunno if anyone's told you the good news, but bi men are not gay, and bi women are not straight. They are bi. (also let's take a moment to note that both assumptions presume either gender has a male preference, which is its own conversation). They might engage in straight OR gay sex (because your options are either a partner whose bits match yours, or do not match yours), but they themselves are not gay or straight based on who the partner is. They're bi.

Some of them may have a gradient preference on either the same or opposite sex, but they are all still bi because they like both. Maybe not a 50/50 split, but the only qualifier for bisexuality is 'do you like both penis and vagina'. If you check yes; congratulations. You're bi.

You're 100% on the nose that a straight man wouldn't be interested in any penis (peni?) other than his own, because he's straight. But again, there's this awesome thing called being bi (and pan and other stuff, but if you're having trouble wrapping your brain around bisexuality then I won't convolute this conversation even further with the other stuff). Bi dudes can totally be down for the occasional dick, even if they're mostly interested in vaginas (or vice versa) and not be gay. Or straight. Because they're bi.

Some guys might not realize they're bi (or hell, even gay), because gay men catch so much crap and society still struggles to wrap its brain about bisexuality. So in that case, yeah a "straight" guy might not be all-that-straight when he realizes dick is a viable option, but that again is its own conversation.

 

[BuckyDuckman]

Well, it makes sense. I'm straight. I just don't get gay male sex. Not one inkling why a guy would ever care to have relations with another guy. (I'm not curious either, thanks). So from my viewpoint, and it's probably a large minority if not the majority view, if a guy gets entangled with another cock, he must be gay. He'd never want that, even once, if he wasn't. He'd feel total disinterest if not some amount of outright aversion.

You're not alone in that assessment. It's a black and white sort of equation for you. If you're not part of Group A, by your definition, you're part of Group B. Nothing in between. I don't agree, but let's accept your conditions at face value so I can ask this question:

Do you apply the same line of thinking to women who go both ways? If she touches another woman's pussy, she much be gay, right? Because a 100% straight chick would never want to do that.

 

[Serafina1210]

Well, it makes sense. I'm straight. I just don't get gay male sex. Not one inkling why a guy would ever care to have relations with another guy. (I'm not curious either, thanks). So from my viewpoint, and it's probably a large minority if not the majority view, if a guy gets entangled with another cock, he must be gay. He'd never want that, even once, if he wasn't. He'd feel total disinterest if not some amount of outright aversion.

I think HandsInTheDark posted this graph out of kindness, wanting to illustrate what Bramblethorn told us just a couple of posts above.

Unfortunately, it gets me no closer to understanding where the mindset is coming from. I just realized that I was puzzling over this a couple of years ago when I wrote "Diary of a Faithful Wife," in which Alice addresses her husband Ralph: "Dearest, you really ought to try sucking a cock sometime. I know you think real men don't do it, but I know plenty of really masculine men who love a nice cock now and then, and their wives don't think any less of them."

Yeah, it was a troll, but it was also a fantasy of mine with a valid query hiding inside.

 

[BuckyDuckman]

I think HandsInTheDark posted this graph out of kindness, wanting to illustrate what Bramblethorn told us just a couple of posts above.

Unfortunately, it gets me no closer to understanding where the mindset is coming from. I just realized that I was puzzling over this a couple of years ago when I wrote "Diary of a Faithful Wife," in which Alice addresses her husband Ralph: "Dearest, you really ought to try sucking a cock sometime. I know you think real men don't do it, but I know plenty of really masculine men who love a nice cock now and then, and their wives don't think any less of them."

Yeah, it was a troll, but it was also a fantasy of mine with a valid query hiding inside.

So many men (myself included) find a lot of pleasure seeing two women together, whether they are included or merely watching. It's never made sense to me why women shouldn't have the same fantasy, enjoying the visual of two men together. Why shouldn't that work in both directions?

 

[sr71plt]

So many men (myself included) find a lot of pleasure seeing two women together, whether they are included or merely watching. It's never made sense to me why women shouldn't have the same fantasy, enjoying the visual of two men together. Why shouldn't that work in both directions?

I get fan male on GM stories that claim there are those who do. But this isn't an issue that can be either grasped as a statistic or purposely affected much. It just is what it is.

 

[Bramblethorn]

So many men (myself included) find a lot of pleasure seeing two women together, whether they are included or merely watching. It's never made sense to me why women shouldn't have the same fantasy, enjoying the visual of two men together. Why shouldn't that work in both directions?

I understand M/M is VERY popular with female fanfic authors and readers.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

There are 2 schools of thought for scholarship. One school requires all to do as God and PILOT demand. The other school suggests discovery is available to all. I belong to the 2nd school.

I submit traits are normally distributed across populations....Pygmys and Watusi coexist but most of us cluster about the mean of 5-6 feet. Pgymys and Watusi each account for 2% of humanity. Likewise, faggots hold down 2% of humanity. Faggots suffer from developmental delays.

Frankie Avalon wrote this for PILOT
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TYpnIDzMzhE

 

[HandsInTheDark]

You're not alone in that assessment. It's a black and white sort of equation for you. If you're not part of Group A, by your definition, you're part of Group B. Nothing in between. I don't agree, but let's accept your conditions at face value so I can ask this question:

Do you apply the same line of thinking to women who go both ways? If she touches another woman's pussy, she much be gay, right? Because a 100% straight chick would never want to do that.

A friend of mine is a bi female. I've had lengthy conversations with her about it, and teased her about being a lesbian with a fetish for submission to males. (But in her case I think I had it close to right; she wasn't very interested in dicks. She liked being spanked by dominant males and then told to go down on females).

Let me point out that what I wrote about the straight view of gay behaviour is a sort of a hind-brain view of sexuality. Consciously I Get that there are males who are into males, and for that matter there's someone who's into just about anything imaginable. But conscious thought is learned behaviour we use to paper over what our instincts really believe. We need that wallpaper - instincts can be nasty things. But it's the instincts that really define our gut reactions and longings.

My views on straight guy instincts - and I'm basing this on me - is that deep down, below conscious thought, the following is true:

1. A guy wants to do anything with someone else's cock, even once, is gay. See previous post.

2. Lesbians don't actually exist. When you see two girls licking each other up, what you're "really" seeing is two girls so desperate for sexual pleasure they'll actually use other women. They don't love each other because women are defined by their interest in men, just as men are defined by their interest in women. (CAVEAT! This is what I think instincts believe, not what I think anyone should consciously believe!) "Lesbians" getting it on really represent two desperate pussies, and if a guy stepped into the scene they'd be all over him.

Actual lesbians, of course, find that "thinking" insulting. I cant' blame them. But when you look at all the lipstick lesbian videos online, it's obvious they're mostly produced for the male audience, and some of them "go all the way" and put a male in the scene by the end. But for a straight guy, the male actor is always implied. Lesbianism makes no sense because pussies are for cock. Period.

Much of my writing takes the deliberately provocative view that most people (all the straight ones and many of the bi ones) have those genetically transmitted instincts, wired right in. We're taught to paper over them with ideas on tolerance, self-control and decency, but they don't go away. So I write characters that don't bother with the papering over, and act like what instinct says they should act like.

It slams the hindbrain; women in particular masturbate to my stories like crazy, even while some are trying to intellectually reject the fundamental premise. I have a lot of straight female readers, a number of bi female readers, and a fair share of straight male readers - but I suspect very few gay readers. They have different instincts and my writing probably does very little for their hindbrain, and nothing for the rest of their brain.

Add to all this, the fact that women find each other pretty, while (straight) males don't give a fuck what any other male looks like. This fact causes a lot of confusion. If Joe hears Susie say that Eva's pretty hot, Joe's first instinct is to tell Susie to invite Eva to bed with them. Of course it is. Males are wired to fuck as many females as possible; and 2 >> 1. Susie, of course, didn't mean that at all, and she's busy working out what's Eva's done with her hair to make her look so hot. If Susie IS so fascinated by Eva that her thoughts go sexual - in other words, if Susie is bi - then she's probably thinking about getting Eva alone, with Joe nowhere nearby - because in her fantasies, she doesn't want Eva distracted by Joe's cock, which *of course* Eva would be.

Upshot, straight males will assume that any guy liking cock is 100% gay, but can maybe sort of grasp (heh heh) bisexual females, especially if it might get him two girls in bed. I mean girls do seem to find each other hot so maybe they're all bi, right? I mean lesbians can't really exist so they must be bi. Because there's no conceivable, possible world in which cock isn't what it's all about.

So sayeth the straight male hindbrain.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

A friend of mine is a bi female. I've had lengthy conversations with her about it, and teased her about being a lesbian with a fetish for submission to males. (But in her case I think I had it close to right; she wasn't very interested in dicks. She liked being spanked by dominant males and then told to go down on females).

Let me point out that what I wrote about the straight view of gay behaviour is a sort of a hind-brain view of sexuality. Consciously I Get that there are males who are into males, and for that matter there's someone who's into just about anything imaginable. But conscious thought is learned behaviour we use to paper over what our instincts really believe. We need that wallpaper - instincts can be nasty things. But it's the instincts that really define our gut reactions and longings.

My views on straight guy instincts - and I'm basing this on me - is that deep down, below conscious thought, the following is true:

1. A guy wants to do anything with someone else's cock, even once, is gay. See previous post.

2. Lesbians don't actually exist. When you see two girls licking each other up, what you're "really" seeing is two girls so desperate for sexual pleasure they'll actually use other women. They don't love each other because women are defined by their interest in men, just as men are defined by their interest in women. (CAVEAT! This is what I think instincts believe, not what I think anyone should consciously believe!) "Lesbians" getting it on really represent two desperate pussies, and if a guy stepped into the scene they'd be all over him.

Actual lesbians, of course, find that "thinking" insulting. I cant' blame them. But when you look at all the lipstick lesbian videos online, it's obvious they're mostly produced for the male audience, and some of them "go all the way" and put a male in the scene by the end. But for a straight guy, the male actor is always implied. Lesbianism makes no sense because pussies are for cock. Period.

Much of my writing takes the deliberately provocative view that most people (all the straight ones and many of the bi ones) have those genetically transmitted instincts, wired right in. We're taught to paper over them with ideas on tolerance, self-control and decency, but they don't go away. So I write characters that don't bother with the papering over, and act like what instinct says they should act like.

It slams the hindbrain; women in particular masturbate to my stories like crazy, even while some are trying to intellectually reject the fundamental premise. I have a lot of straight female readers, a number of bi female readers, and a fair share of straight male readers - but I suspect very few gay readers. They have different instincts and my writing probably does very little for their hindbrain, and nothing for the rest of their brain.

Add to all this, the fact that women find each other pretty, while (straight) males don't give a fuck what any other male looks like. This fact causes a lot of confusion. If Joe hears Susie say that Eva's pretty hot, Joe's first instinct is to tell Susie to invite Eva to bed with them. Of course it is. Males are wired to fuck as many females as possible; and 2 >> 1. Susie, of course, didn't mean that at all, and she's busy working out what's Eva's done with her hair to make her look so hot. If Susie IS so fascinated by Eva that her thoughts go sexual - in other words, if Susie is bi - then she's probably thinking about getting Eva alone, with Joe nowhere nearby - because in her fantasies, she doesn't want Eva distracted by Joe's cock, which *of course* Eva would be.

Upshot, straight males will assume that any guy liking cock is 100% gay, but can maybe sort of grasp (heh heh) bisexual females, especially if it might get him two girls in bed. I mean girls do seem to find each other hot so maybe they're all bi, right? I mean lesbians can't really exist so they must be bi. Because there's no conceivable, possible world in which cock isn't what it's all about.

So sayeth the straight male hindbrain.

EGAD I wasted 65K, 8 years of school, and the last 50 years figgering humans out; I coulda sat by your knee and been a god.

People do all kinds of crazy shit because they like it: murder, drugs, eat snake urine soup, etc. A local reporter joined a band of homeless forest dwellers and remained with them at the end. The crazy fuck liked the life style. And the cops find their bones occasionally.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

So, I guess you put that on the front of all your stories then? Because I don't think there's anything that can be written and posted to Lit. that there wouldn't be someone who would have a vomit-sensitive aversion to.

I try to be honest and comprehensive with the tags (although it's unfortunate that they post only at the end of the story) but I don''t include defensive "you may not like this for whatever reason" slugs on the front of them. It's not my job to try to figure out what reader would be squeamish about what. In fact, I don't think readers who won't take responsibility for their own reading and won't just stop reading and move on if they see something that gives them the vapors should be on an adult site anyway.

Must be a first! I agree totally with sr.
Tags should be upfront; no-one should complain if they dip into a story and don't like it. As they say, "Just move on".

The nuances in erotic couplings are for the author to choose and the reader to enjoy or reject
You don't like a story then pass on the other side.