Writing Pan/Omnisexual character

[jsmiam]

Lot of good that would do. Lobbying has been going on for a bi category for over a decade, even heavily polled (coming out in favor of a bi category) once with Laurel's blessing, which she later denied having given, leading to a blowup with a regular forum poster, Stella Omega, departing. Just a lot of wasted asking.

I don’t necessarily disagree, but for the price of a PM, why not

One difference is that it’s (the original topic) in a way a brand new territory that’ll make laurel look progressive. So appeal to her vanity in the request.

In a manner of speaking, being brave enough to have gay categories in the past, she had already been progressive. a bisexual category wouldn’t have been new ground, in an “I wanna look progressive “ manner of speaking.

 

[KeithD]

Thanks! It makes more sense from that perspective, but yeah, it falls apart over larger arcs. I do understand why there's resistance to letting the categories proliferate, as it could easily get unwieldy.

If it were done, it probably would be best to have two for bi: female perspective and male perspective. Which, yes, then gets into a proliferation issue. But with over twenty hetero categories (as pretty much forced by the readers) here, the heteros don't really have much to save against proliferation.

 

[KeithD]

I don’t necessarily disagree, but for the price of a PM, why not

Because it's pretty much a "don't bother to waste your breath" issue here.

 

[Enchantment_of_Nyx]

If it were done, it probably would be best to have two for bi: female perspective and male perspective. Which, yes, then gets into a proliferation issue. But with over twenty hetero categories (as pretty much forced by the readers) here, the heteros don't really have much to save against proliferation.

You're right. We don't really have much to say against proliferation. I didn't mean it that way, but I can certainly see how that's basically what I said. I guess I was trying to say that I understand why there's an impulse to try to control it, but that shouldn't result in uneven user experiences.

The suggestion you make about needing a bi-female and bi-male category illustrates why it would be so nice if it was possible to apply secondary filters. Instead of having any categories that were based on gender or orientation, the categories could be limited to themes. Then the reader could apply a filter for the sexual dynamic. That would give everyone the same variety of categories.

I'm sure that can't be done on the current software. I've visited this site off and on for about 20 years, and I don't recall any significant changes in the story portion of the site in all that time. I think the site architecture has stayed the same during all that time. I'm not an IT person, but I'm betting it's too old to transition in a way that's not extraordinarily laborious. It's a shame.

 

[AlinaX]

TBH, I can't see the point of a bisexual category, but filters would be nice.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I'm sure that can't be done on the current software. I've visited this site off and on for about 20 years, and I don't recall any significant changes in the story portion of the site in all that time. I think the site architecture has stayed the same during all that time. I'm not an IT person, but I'm betting it's too old to transition in a way that's not extraordinarily laborious. It's a shame.

That's the nub of it. We've been watching the progress of a site overhaul for a couple of years now, with a few steps taken - the new Control Panel, the Beta presentation, the Tags library, but it's slow, with no announced plan. Meanwhile, look at the volume of content that goes up each day, and who knows how millions of hits - damned if I know how the hamsters keep the wheels turning.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I don't recall hearing any response at all--other than posting that there was no intention to add the category, and posting that on an entirely different board from the one where a claimed sanctioned discussion on the issue had been running for eighteen months.

Found a response, though it's not what I recalled: https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=53173202&postcount=217

I'm not sure whether the version I gave above was from somebody else, or at a different time, or if I misremembered it. Anyway, that appears to be Laurel's position on the matter.

 

[SimonDoom]

Found a response, though it's not what I recalled: https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=53173202&postcount=217

I'm not sure whether the version I gave above was from somebody else, or at a different time, or if I misremembered it. Anyway, that appears to be Laurel's position on the matter.

I think the ultimate answer to this issue -- though it may be a long, long way off given the pace of change around here -- is customized reader home pages via the use of tags or other preference indicators. It would significantly enhance the ability of authors and readers to connect with one another on the basis of story types. It would represent a move away from a category-based system, but I think that would be a fine trade-off.

 

[KeithD]

Found a response, though it's not what I recalled: https://forum.literotica.com/showpost.php?p=53173202&postcount=217

I'm not sure whether the version I gave above was from somebody else, or at a different time, or if I misremembered it. Anyway, that appears to be Laurel's position on the matter.

That was the beginning of eighteen months of discussion on one area of the board (Story Ideas, I think) with, eventually, Laurel posting to a question on the Feedback board that said she never sanctioned a discussion on the issue at all--and Stella Omega departing the Web site.

So, with over twenty hetero category breakdowns with quandaries still existing on which one to use, what's the real problem of two bi categories with occasional quandary which one to use? (Just a rhetorical question. It's been a decade of spinning wheels to discuss this issue at all.)

 

[Stillrandy]

No dog in this particular fight, but..

1. Literotica is free!
2. I would hate to see it go away simply because it is not 'modern'.
3. It works well as it is, as I see it.

 

[Bramblethorn]

No dog in this particular fight, but..

[*]Literotica is free!

Yes indeed. So are many other sites with far better navigation systems.

[*]I would hate to see it go away simply because it is not 'modern'.

It's not about "modernity". I could point to sites that have been around almost as long as Literotica where authors and readers don't have to choose between prioritising the sexual orientation of the participants and all the other elements that define a story, because they allow readers to filter on stuff like "stories that contain F/f and F/m and F/mf content, with romance, in a workplace setting, with exhibitionism and spanking but not rape".

[*]It works well as it is, as I see it.

It works well for cis hetero stories that fit neatly into one of the existing categories. If you want to read, say, "sci-fi about hetero pairings", or "hetero romance", those things are easy to find.

If you want to read sci-fi or romance about same-gender pairings, it works far less well. If you're an author writing an Arabian Nights piece about a djinni princess who's courted in poetry by a woman from another land... well, good fuckin' luck deciding where to put it. Every time I post a story here, I have to play the game of "which would-be readers will I throw away this time?" as I pick a category.

There's plenty to appreciate about this site, but that doesn't mean its flaws aren't flaws.

 

[AlinaX]

If you're an author writing an Arabian Nights piece about a djinni princess who's courted in poetry by a woman from another land...

Please tell me you are!

 

[Bramblethorn]

If you're an author writing an Arabian Nights piece about a djinni princess who's courted in poetry by a woman from another land...

Please tell me you are!

As it happens...

 

[Damoiselle]

On the matter of there being a moral weight to writing, I lean quite hard on saying "yes, there is."

I think this moral weight is difficult to calculate (and that it must be calculated on a case by case basis), and while I believe we as a human collective *ought* to try to bring societal concerns and representation of different types of people into our stories on the whole, it would wrong to conclude that I'm them condemning someone who doesn't.

If I pass a person with a sign asking for change on the street, I believe that it is good to give them money (I realize this is controversial, and I don't really want to debate about it--It's just my moral viewpoint), but it doesn't follow that I believe not giving them change is bad. I ascribe positive moral value to the former, but not much positive or negative moral value to the latter.

Similarly, I think that a person just writing a story for their own fun without regard for the morals of it is making a mostly morally neutral action, but if that story for their own fun turns out to be glorifying nazism or the KKK, that would shift it into a negative moral territory. I think the claim that creators shouldn't feel *any* moral responsibility is dubious, because nazi propaganda existed...and exists, and potentially does demonstrable damage.

 

[Bramblethorn]

On the matter of there being a moral weight to writing, I lean quite hard on saying "yes, there is."

If I didn't believe writing had the power to affect others for better or worse, I wouldn't bother to do it.

If it does have the power to affect others, then it's hard not to think of it as having a moral dimension.

(Before somebody gets in with the inevitable take: no, this doesn't mean every line gets run past the Ministry of Vice and Virtue. But I do try to think about whether the story as a whole is likely to be adding to the woes of the world or subtracting from them.)

 

[ElectricBlue]

On the matter of there being a moral weight to writing, I lean quite hard on saying "yes, there is."

I agree. After seeing the response I got to my Rope and Veil story (about an able bodied man who falls for a woman with a broken spine) I've adopted the notion of "erotica with a social conscience" because writers can and do affect readers.

It doesn't need to be a crusade, but stories can be more than mere fap fodder. When someone says, "Thanks for giving me a safe haven in your stories," there's a pretty poignant sub-text going on which makes me, at least, step up a notch.

 

[AlinaX]

As it happens...

(One of only five search results for the word 'aromantic', and one of the two of those that use it in the context of a romantic orientation.)

 

[Bramblethorn]

(One of only five search results for the word 'aromantic', and one of the two of those that use it in the context of a romantic orientation.)

I have intentions to increase that number, when I get around to writing the relevant thing...

 

[SimonDoom]

but if that story for their own fun turns out to be glorifying nazism or the KKK, that would shift it into a negative moral territory. I think the claim that creators shouldn't feel *any* moral responsibility is dubious, because nazi propaganda existed...and exists, and potentially does demonstrable damage.

It's hard to argue with this . . . and I'm not going to argue with it. I agree, sort of. I wouldn't write something that intentionally glorified or promoted evil, and I would think less of a work that did.

But it's tricky, because stories can be interpreted in many different ways, and the question then becomes whether the author is morally responsible for the different ways their story might be read, even if some of those ways lie far outside their artistic purpose or intention. I don't think there's a hard and fast answer, but I think I end up with the notion that in evaluating an artist's work we should give the artist very wide latitude and be cautious about making moral judgments.

For example, consider the movie Starship Troopers, based on Heinlein's famous novel. The movie is set in the future, and the world is controlled by a quasi-fascist, militaristic, authoritarian government. The odd thing about the movie is that the government is not portrayed in an obviously negative way. At times it seems almost like propaganda for its politics, although its director Verhoeven, didn't see it that way. It's a subtle satire, intended to show how easy it is to be seduced by fascistic propaganda. But some people might not get the joke. It's possible that some people come away from the movie thinking militaristic fascism looks pretty cool. Is the director responsible for that? Should he be criticized for it? I don't think so. I think it's important to permit the widest possible modes of artistic expression, and that ultimately we benefit from being exposed to different points of view, and to subtle and contrary modes of expression like irony and mockery and parody and satire. These are just as much essential parts of living in a civilized society as compassion, in my view. I wouldn't want to live in a society without them. A society that valued compassion alone would be unendurably dull.

So, while I agree that at the margins there are works of art that are "immoral" if they obviously promote immoral things, I think it's better most of the time to suspend our moral judgment about what a story should or shouldn't say and evaluate it more on artistic grounds, even if it may make us uncomfortable to do so.

 

[Damoiselle]

I often include in my stories what matters to me, but that’s a personal choice. I’m not going to ask that from others. In the end, the main point of stories is that people enjoy them. When readers get ‘sick’ of yet another ‘perfect world’ story, they will close it and move on. Nope, I’m no fan of stories that make Incest acceptable, but I have come to accept that it’s a big thing on Lit, and I’m not going to demand writers to stop writing those stories. I hope I provide an alternative.

Your beggar-example perfectly shows how your ideas about doing good differ from my ideas—I rarely give to the people on the street (I can’t buy off my conscience by giving a few coins to one person and looking away from the others. And I think in many cases it may be a bad thing which helps keeping a bad situation in place.) I sponsor several people in Ethiopia, providing money for a living, health and education, but I won't give a dime for rescuing street dogs in Bulgaria—so who’s going to measure the positive and the negative?

Okay, no glorifying Nazism and KKK, I can see that. But what about glorifying Genghis Khan, Napoleon, Bill Cosby, Southerners, Black Panthers, Freedom Fighters, …?

Some people consider it their moral obligation to find the boundaries of acceptable, to topple holy cows, to shock and provoke. Others think it’s their moral obligation to provide light-hearted entertainment, without deeper thoughts, so readers can relax and forget about their daily life. It’s great there is the freedom of diversity.

That's quite a mixed bag of things you've asked about, and I'm confused. Do you perceive each of those as having something in common, do you want me to weigh in on the ethics of each separately, or is this just some kind of rhetorical question to lead into your "huzzah, freedom of diversity" final point?

Um, I guess I can answer the whole "Who measures the positive and the negative," question. You do. That's gonna have to be your role in your life. There are some philosophers that want to help you, but they can't, like, actually wear that burden for you.

 

[Damoiselle]

It's hard to argue with this . . . and I'm not going to argue with it. I agree, sort of. I wouldn't write something that intentionally glorified or promoted evil, and I would think less of a work that did.

But it's tricky, because stories can be interpreted in many different ways, and the question then becomes whether the author is morally responsible for the different ways their story might be read, even if some of those ways lie far outside their artistic purpose or intention. I don't think there's a hard and fast answer, but I think I end up with the notion that in evaluating an artist's work we should give the artist very wide latitude and be cautious about making moral judgments.

For example, consider the movie Starship Troopers, based on Heinlein's famous novel. The movie is set in the future, and the world is controlled by a quasi-fascist, militaristic, authoritarian government. The odd thing about the movie is that the government is not portrayed in an obviously negative way. At times it seems almost like propaganda for its politics, although its director Verhoeven, didn't see it that way. It's a subtle satire, intended to show how easy it is to be seduced by fascistic propaganda. But some people might not get the joke. It's possible that some people come away from the movie thinking militaristic fascism looks pretty cool. Is the director responsible for that? Should he be criticized for it? I don't think so. I think it's important to permit the widest possible modes of artistic expression, and that ultimately we benefit from being exposed to different points of view, and to subtle and contrary modes of expression like irony and mockery and parody and satire. These are just as much essential parts of living in a civilized society as compassion, in my view. I wouldn't want to live in a society without them. A society that valued compassion alone would be unendurably dull.

So, while I agree that at the margins there are works of art that are "immoral" if they obviously promote immoral things, I think it's better most of the time to suspend our moral judgment about what a story should or shouldn't say and evaluate it more on artistic grounds, even if it may make us uncomfortable to do so.

I don't think there's much that actually calls for my response here, but I am for the record, quite bemused by the notion that evaluating art "more on artistic grounds" makes people uncomfortable.

 

[AlinaX]

I like to evaluate 6" platform stiletto heels on artistic grounds.

 

[Bramblethorn]

For example, consider the movie Starship Troopers, based on Heinlein's famous novel. The movie is set in the future, and the world is controlled by a quasi-fascist, militaristic, authoritarian government. The odd thing about the movie is that the government is not portrayed in an obviously negative way. At times it seems almost like propaganda for its politics, although its director Verhoeven, didn't see it that way. It's a subtle satire, intended to show how easy it is to be seduced by fascistic propaganda. But some people might not get the joke. It's possible that some people come away from the movie thinking militaristic fascism looks pretty cool. Is the director responsible for that? Should he be criticized for it? I don't think so.

If a director intends to give an anti-authoritarian message but his audience come away with the opposite impression? Then that's a matter of good intentions, poor execution. I wouldn't criticise the intentions, but poor execution? We criticise that all the time.

(I'm making no comment on whether Verhoeven's execution actually was poor in this case, I'm talking in generalities.)

I think it's important to permit the widest possible modes of artistic expression,

I don't think anybody is arguing otherwise here - unless I missed something, the conversation has been about responsibility, not imposing bans.

and that ultimately we benefit from being exposed to different points of view, and to subtle and contrary modes of expression like irony and mockery and parody and satire.

That needs to be unpacked. It's like saying "ultimately we benefit from eating different kinds of food" - yes, we do, but that doesn't mean we need to scarf down raw chimpanzee meat. For instance, it's probably worthwhile for an adult to understand what Mein Kampf was about, but it's not something you'd just leave lying around in a children's library... or, for different reasons, in a synagogue.

Irony etc. are tools, and the moral angle is less about what tools you use than what you do with them. You can use a hammer to build a house or bash somebody's head in; you can use mockery to weaken a tyrant, or to torment a hungry child.

So, while I agree that at the margins there are works of art that are "immoral" if they obviously promote immoral things, I think it's better most of the time to suspend our moral judgment about what a story should or shouldn't say and evaluate it more on artistic grounds, even if it may make us uncomfortable to do so.

I'm not really seeing how this conclusion follows from the above. Echoing Damoiselle, I think thinking about the moral dimension of art is far more likely to provoke discomfort than ignoring it. As a perennial example, I enjoy HPL's horror fiction but it's definitely not comfortable to think about how it ties in with the man's personal opinions and attitudes. It's like seeing where sausage comes from.

 

[Damoiselle]

"Raw chimpanzee meat" is such a good way to put it. Thanks for articulating what I couldn't.

 

[Damoiselle]

In short, my reaction on your On the matter of there being a moral weight to writing, I lean quite hard on saying "yes, there is." and everything else you put in that post:
I don't think so.

Huh. Do you think you said that clearly, then? Because the only thing I actually claimed is that nazi propaganda exists and that producing it is a morally negative action, and you said that you could "see that."

I mean, then you went on to say, "What about these dozen other unrelated topics?"

But..."what about these other issues" isn't actually an argument, or even a good line of a reasoning. It's actually a huge, glaring fallacy.