What do do about content regulation at Literotica

[NotWise]

I don't understand the non-consensual part. I just searched "Rape" and come up with 603 pages of stories on here?

The whole idea of Rape is surely non-consensual?

Lit has no rule against rape or other non-consensual relationships. It has a rule against excessive violence or abuse. I don't know how Laurel defines "excessive." In the specific case of the Noncon category, she wants the victim to eventually get something out of it.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Nope.

Bestiality
Under 18
Excessive violence or abuse
offsite links
Anything that might become a legal liability for Lit.

Some others that people have reported rejection for:

Disney/Simpsons/Harry Potter (probably falls under "legal liability")
Celebrity non-consent
Claiming "true story" (presumably due to defamation concerns?)

 

[NotWise]

Some others that people have reported rejection for:

Disney/Simpsons/Harry Potter (probably falls under "legal liability")
Celebrity non-consent
Claiming "true story" (presumably due to defamation concerns?)

Legal liability concerns is a catch-all.

 

[LdyHoneybee]

I'm going to basically repeat the rant I recently made in the Enid Blyton thread, which NotWise, whose name suggests he's far too modest, wisely said probably would be wasted because the OP of that thread had dropped his cause.

Before I say this, I'll just say I thoroughly enjoy this Site, and I appreciate how difficult it must be for two people to run it.

Also, my rant has nothing to with what kind of content is regulated. That discussion can be had elsewhere.

My concern is with how opaque the rules are and how difficult it is to find Literotica's content regulations. I don't get it.

Given all the extraordinary amount of discussion and uncertainty and angst this issue causes, seemingly more than any other (except, possibly, anonymous voting and commenting), it seems odd that the Site refuses to address it. Unlike many other possible changes, this one would be extremely easy to do. They're so familiar with the issue after all these years that presumably it would take them less than a few hours to draft a full and complete statement of the content regulation guidelines, put it on the Site, and then clearly link to that location from multiple different places. How hard could that be? It doesn't require significant site redesign or change in the site's functionality. Even a techno-dork like me knows that.

For instance, here are some of the still mind-boggling problems with how this Site deals with this issue:

1. Here's the link to the Frequently Asked Questions: https://www.literotica.com/faq/05235347.shtml.
Nowhere in this list does the question appear: What story content does Literotica prohibit? A new author could read this list and have no clue that there are ANY regulations.

2. Here's a link to the Written Guidelines page. https://www.literotica.com/subguide.shtml. This page also does not contain a complete statement of the content regulations. It refers to the no-bestiality rule, but that's it. It does not contain a clear statement of the no-underage rule, or other rules.

3. Here's the link to the fullest statement to date: https://forum.literotica.com/showthr...hreadid=175666. It's a post in a thread posted in the Editor's Forum, of all places, in 2003, not by Laurel, but by "KillerMuffin." You can navigate to it from the FAQ page IF you click on "My Story Has Been Rejected. What Now?" near the bottom of the page. But that's obviously unhelpful to someone who hasn't submitted a story yet, and, further, it's not linked to on the Guidelines page.

As far as I can tell, you can't find the content regulations directly on the main page, the author's control page, the story submission page, or the stories page. It's not clearly marked in the Author's Hangout forum.

It baffles me that Literotica handles this issue in such an opaque and unhelpful way. It's my biggest complaint with the Site.

So, Simon's recommendations:

1. There should be a standalone page, that is identified as an official statement by the Site, that clearly and fully sets forth all content regulations.

2. That content regulation page should be prominently featured and linked to at multiple pages on the Site, including the Home Page, the FAQ page, the Writer's Guideline Page, the Literotica.com page, and the Stories page, at a minimum. There's no excuse for so much confusion on this issue. Laurel should post a new and clearly marked "sticky" thread to the Author's Hangout entitled something like "Statement of Site Content Regulations" which in turn links back to the complete statement.

3. To the extent Literotica modifies or updates its content regulations, the content statement page should be updated, right away. This can't possibly take much time.

Any other thoughts?

I think those are very helpful suggestions. They would save everyone work, it would seem. In the real world, i have sometimes been part of teams of readers where there is a “head table” to resolve questionable situations. I do not know how they handle approvals, but with so many stories there MUST be a team!

 

[SimonDoom]

I don't understand the non-consensual part. I just searched "Rape" and come up with 603 pages of stories on here?

The whole idea of Rape is surely non-consensual?

While some may be consensual, I bet most of these stories aren't.

I thought the only taboo on here was under 18's

Rape, murder, violence, you name it, are fair game for stories at Literotica. There is no rule against such topics here.

The rule is that you cannot tell a story about rape where the reader derives erotic satisfaction from it being real rape. So the Site permits "soft" nonconsensual stories--where the victim in the story enjoys the nonconsensual activity. That's the key to allowing the stories.

 

[RowanWrites]

Gotta admit, it's pretty funny that a top-level category is non-consent, and yet genuine non-consensual sex is a banned topic.

But I totally understand that they are nuancing a very thorny area of genuine kink.

The fact that outside literotica there is a whole category of sex play called Conensual Non-Consent basically marks out the territory of this category, and I think anyone with a bone of sense in their body understands where Lauren and the owners of the site are going with this.

Any explicit line-in-the-sand is going to invite "rules lawyers" to try angle shoot on this one, so it is to literally everyone's advantage that this remains a good-faith judgement call on the part of whatever individual or committee makes the call. And if that's a bit inconsistent over time, or from day to day, then c'est la vie. It's either a reflection of the shifting sands of societal acceptability, or Lauren's mood and level of actual attention.

As per another recent thread, it may also end up being applied more based on customer complaint than editorial intent.

So, for those who get bent out of shape for having their fourth chapter pulled from an eight chapter story because some dickwad complained about a line being crossed... I've been there. But having taken a couple of years to make my peace with reality, I totally understand that Lauren and Manu are doing their best in challenging times, and I defer to their judgement. And the next time my fourth chapter is pulled, I'll do my very, honest best to not huff off into the twilight.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Gotta admit, it's pretty funny that a top-level category is non-consent, and yet genuine non-consensual sex is a banned topic.

It's not, though. There are restrictions around NC stories but there are still lots of stories being posted in that category depicting non-consensual sex.

But I totally understand that they are nuancing a very thorny area of genuine kink.

The fact that outside literotica there is a whole category of sex play called Conensual Non-Consent basically marks out the territory of this category, and I think anyone with a bone of sense in their body understands where Lauren and the owners of the site are going with this.

Not sure what you mean by this. As far as I can see, most of the stories in NC/R are not CNC or anywhere near it. There are a few where "oh it was actually CNC play!" is used as a twist ending, but the typical NC/R story is outright rape.

 

[EarlyMorningLight]

It’s pretty gross that some people are completely obsessed with finding concrete answers to questions like “how close can I get to writing graphic r*pe without getting my story rejected?” and “why can’t I write graphic scenes about minors?”

 

[SimonDoom]

It’s pretty gross that some people are completely obsessed with finding concrete answers to questions like “how close can I get to writing graphic r*pe without getting my story rejected?” and “why can’t I write graphic scenes about minors?”

I'm sure there are a lot of people out there of both those types, but the vast majority of people who ask questions about these topics at Literotica fit into one of two categories:

1. People who genuinely don't understand the Literotica "rape is OK only if she enjoys it" rule, which, admittedly, IS rather weird until you think about the logic that underlies the rule, and

2. People who want to post a story with a pre-18 flashback that has questionable content. I can't recall seeing a post where someone asked why they couldn't write about a graphic sex scene involving a 14 year old. Obviously, there are some out there who do wonder about that, and there are websites that allow that stuff. But I don't see those questions here so much.

 

[dmallord]

If you have clear rules, it is clear to me that people will find ways to circumvent them.

If you try to catch all issues in rules, you'll lose far more than you gain; Laurel will lose flexibility to accept stories that are fine in content, but may 'officially' be in conflict with the rules. According to 'those who know', my story "I'm your Valentine" should not be allowed on Lit, as it is NonCon in which the victim doesn't enjoy it at the end.

'Clear' rules will create much more discussion, as people will claim that stories do or do not follow the rules, according to their own interpretation, and will demand Lit to follow their wishes as they see fit.

There is only one rule that matters: Rule Nr 1. Laurel and Manu own Literotica, and they decide what they allow and what they don't allow on their website. The rest are sub-rules.

I read this twice ... nothing logical that i can follow! So ... what about readers having 'guidelines' call them that and not 'rules' if you like. Still the site owners need just a closing last statement 'guideline entry' to say, 'We reserve the right to reject services to anyone, for any reason, as we deem fit.' Works for restaurants.

 

[shakna]

I read this twice ... nothing logical that i can follow! So ... what about readers having 'guidelines' call them that and not 'rules' if you like. Still the site owners need just a closing last statement 'guideline entry' to say, 'We reserve the right to reject services to anyone, for any reason, as we deem fit.' Works for restaurants.

They do call them guidelines:

What are the guidelines for publishing a story on Literotica?

And they also reserve the right to reject anything:

• we also reserve the right to reject or remove any content or work that the community finds disruptive (or that causes harm to the community or any member of the community) for any or no reason.

You can see it on the FAQ.

 

[KeithD]

You can see it on the FAQ.

Which is the universal conundrum on the Internet. No one reads the FAQs before trying to redecorate the Web site to their personal preferences.

 

[dmallord]

Which is the universal conundrum on the Internet. No one reads the FAQs before trying to redecorate the Web site to their personal preferences.

Lit's FAQ is a sinkhole. It is a confusing esoteric mixture of unstructured ramblings, and certainly is a globulous goop to gargle.

I've spent time there, eons worth of it. Didn't find diddly ... about what i was seeking. At my age, it cost me the equivalent of a decade of living time down the drain.

As for redecorating the Web site to one's personal preferences, i've seen some good suggestions on how to 'redecorate' it that showed some great insight - and some that were just lame, too. No harm in suggestions. Lit doesn't seem to take many of those under advisement, including organizing the FAQ to some since of cogency.

Mind you, this is just my off-cuff-observation. I do believe it rings true. It's an old timer's grumbling; take it with two aspirins and one or two grains of salt. It may go down, with my blood pressure, later this afternoon.

 

[Blind_Justice]

It should not be too hard to set up a list of things that are not okay and close the list with

"The owners of this site reserve the right to be the final arbiter of what is allowed on this site."

End of discussion.

Post the list everywhere it might be of use - User Control Panel, FAQ, Writing Guidelines. That's not hard to do.

 

[SimonDoom]

It should not be too hard to set up a list of things that are not okay and close the list with

"The owners of this site reserve the right to be the final arbiter of what is allowed on this site."

End of discussion.

Post the list everywhere it might be of use - User Control Panel, FAQ, Writing Guidelines. That's not hard to do.

I've recommended something like this before--a comprehensive set of content guidelines that give the site owners some leeway AND are accessible to link to from numerous locations on the site, making it easy for everyone to know exactly what the rules are.

 

[Blind_Justice]

I've recommended something like this before--a comprehensive set of content guidelines that give the site owners some leeway AND are accessible to link to from numerous locations on the site, making it easy for everyone to know exactly what the rules are.

I've read the initial thrust of this thread and your recommendation. My addition was the bit about the site owners having the final say, which should be enough to deter rules lawyers and people trying to complain about the case-by-case enforcement of the rules. I'm totally in agreement that the content guidelines should be obvious and everywhere - I mean, most other publication platforms have them in easy view.

 

[windar]

Yes, this is a private web site. I'm not a lawyer, but I believe legally, the owners can do whatever they like.

However, ethically and practically, it should be recognized that authors put considerable time into writing a story. They deserve to have the rules stated clearly, all in one place, clearly labelled, not "Well, this one is in a message board post from 2005 and this one is in the FAQs and this one is unwritten". That is simply devaluing the hard work that the authors put in with the goal of having their story appear here. And the excuse that it's a Mom and Pop operation holds no weight. It would take a minimal investment to set up a section clearly labelled "Story Guidelines" and cut and paste things from the various places they are currently.

Neither is the fact that the rules cannot cover every conceivable situation and that enforcement will always be imperfect an excuse. That is understood, but you do the best you can so that writers don't waste time. And frankly, imagine the savings of Laurel's time if the rules were clear and if she clearly marked the offending passgaes when returning the story. We've had many posters here who have submitted and re-submitted multiple times, trying to guess what needed modifying. Why not have the management just highlight the offending text in red and save themselves, the author and the members of this board a whole lot of fruitless effeorts that do nothing to enhance the site?

Personally, I am not posting any more stories to this site, because I honestly do not feel that the management cares about writers and I have many alternate sites, both free and pay, where they do.

 

[tenyari]

However, ethically and practically, it should be recognized that authors put considerable time into writing a story. They deserve to have the rules stated clearly,

The problem with clearly stating the "exact" rules is that a large number of people will slam themselves right up against that wall and make it not the 'limit' but the 'norm'.

And then a constant tension will start to develop to slide that wall even further out.

Ambiguity allows a moderator to exercise judgement and look at the whole picture to see what it all adds up to. That lets the rule evolve to fit a norm more naturally - rather than being 'edge pushed'.

It's pretty much why the landmark US Supreme Court case on obscenity was "I know it when I see it" rather than a detailed descriptive list of anatomy parts interacting at various angles and velocities.


Lets pretend a site bans the word 'fuck'. 5 minutes later, someone will almost certainly post 'f*ck'... and now that has to be added, so 5 more minutes and someone posts 'fu3k', and on and on you go in an endless cycle. But if you just say 'no foul mouthing' you can look at what's typed and made a reasonable judgement.

 

[Bramblethorn]

The problem with clearly stating the "exact" rules is that a large number of people will slam themselves right up against that wall and make it not the 'limit' but the 'norm'.

And then a constant tension will start to develop to slide that wall even further out.

Ambiguity allows a moderator to exercise judgement and look at the whole picture to see what it all adds up to. That lets the rule evolve to fit a norm more naturally - rather than being 'edge pushed'.

All this.

I understand the frustration of not always being able to know whether a given story concept will pass moderation, and I think there are practical improvements Literotica could make on that front - yes there's a problem with people reading the FAQs but there's also a problem with some rules not being collected in the FAQs.

But with the best management in the world... you can have rules that are so simple they can be assessed with no subjective value judgements whatsoever ("stories cannot contain any mention of under-18 characters") or you can have rules that are nuanced enough to strike a reasonable balance between creative freedom and turning this site into a pedo cesspit/law enforcement target, but you probably can't have both. The more you try to spell things out, the more people will try to game them.

 

[TheRedChamber]

All this.

I understand the frustration of not always being able to know whether a given story concept will pass moderation, and I think there are practical improvements Literotica could make on that front - yes there's a problem with people reading the FAQs but there's also a problem with some rules not being collected in the FAQs.

But with the best management in the world... you can have rules that are so simple they can be assessed with no subjective value judgements whatsoever ("stories cannot contain any mention of under-18 characters") or you can have rules that are nuanced enough to strike a reasonable balance between creative freedom and turning this site into a pedo cesspit/law enforcement target, but you probably can't have both. The more you try to spell things out, the more people will try to game them.

As a teacher, we have standard marking descriptors for student essays, every few years they get rewritten and a key thing I've learnt is that taking a one page descriptor and expanding it to two pages doesn't reduce the number of questions or ambiguities, as there are now twice as many things to ask questions about. Clear and careful wording helps, but you can't never capture everything and, as you say, the more that is set in stone the more people will try to work around the rules.

Take the underage rule for example. If Sleeping Beauty falls asleep at the age of thirteen and wakes up a hundred years later, is she thirteen or a hundred and thirteen? (even though she has none of the experiences of an adult) On the other hand, if a forty year old woman takes a magic potion and her body changes back to that of a thirteen year-old (and she retains her life experience memories) is that acceptable?. Well, both of these feel pretty creepy and shouldn't (IMHO) be allowed - and you could write pages and pages about how age actually works in universes with magic or advanced technology, but 'No under-18 year olds or characters that give the impression of being under-18 year olds' will pretty much cover it.

 

[neuroparenthetical]

When Diogenes plucks a chicken and shouts "behold! A man!" imagine feeling sympathy towards Plato, getting pissed at Diogenes, and then giving Plato permission to modify the definition of man to "kinda like this maybe, except actually whatever I say it is." Cap it off with an emotional blowjob for Plato for having done such a great job.

 

[Bramblethorn]

When Diogenes plucks a chicken and shouts "behold! A man!" imagine feeling sympathy towards Plato, getting pissed at Diogenes, and then giving Plato permission to modify the definition of man to "kinda like this maybe, except actually whatever I say it is." Cap it off with an emotional blowjob for Plato for having done such a great job.

Now you have me envisioning Plato as the exasperated owner of a Humans Only erotic website where Diogenes keeps trying to sneak his chicken fetish porn through moderation.

 

[TheRedChamber]

Now you have me envisioning Plato as the exasperated owner of a Humans Only erotic website where Diogenes keeps trying to sneak his chicken fetish porn through moderation.

Oh Bramblethorn, you're such a Cynic.

Definitions are even harder in fiction than in real life. Your club can have a sign on the door that says 'No Chickens', but what about a man that has been turned into a chicken by a witch? What about a chicken that has been turned into a man by a incompetent genie? What about about a man who has his cock turned into a cock by a nymph who was pissed at him throwing a shopping trolley into her pool of radiance? What about a man whose been shrunk down to the size of a mouse and is now operating an ultra-realistic chicken mech? What about a man who has two heads - one human and one chicken? The possibilities are endless.

(I'm not arguing that the websites rules couldn't be clearer or more easily accessible - just that a perfect set of rules is a tall ask)

 

[pink_silk_glove]

If it is the second Ruben posted a good argument for why it is that way. There will always be those who try to get around or push the edge of a rule. Whether I like it or not this is Laurel and Manu's house and as such they have the authority to do what they want. That doesn't mean I can't bitch about it or petition them to change it if i don''t like it.

My experience with people (not just websites) who like to operate with hazy/sketchy rules is that they simply could not be bothered with procedure and usually more importantly, they like the CONVENIENCE of not being held accountable for their decisions. They love to be able to shoot from the hip and run things on a whim. I'm not saying that this is the case here on literotica, but in general in this world this is terribly true. People love their power and couldn't be bothered with any of the responsibility that goes with it, and it's a horribly cowardly and disrespectful way to go about things.

I know we're discussing where the rules are posted, not what they are, but they need to take a serious look at the policy on non-consent. IMO, you either allow it or you don't. This "It's OK if the victim decides to enjoy it at the end" is simply and unelegantly put, BULLSHIT. It's frankly offensive. A woman kicking and screaming and fighting her assailant off and then loving it and orgasming? Come, on!

And as for the enjoyment rule in non con, I wish it would be scrapped entirely, but nobody asked for my opinion

This rule I believe actually does a great disservice. If you want to depict a rape scene, then you have to nudge-wink that it's not actually rape. It's total bullshit and actually glorifies rape. Now I have no problem if someone wants to write a glorifying rape scene, but to actually enforce this as a rule paints a horribly inaccurate picture of reality. Certainly there are those out there who fantasize being taken against their will (as there is a certain coveting in that), but this whole pseudo-rape crap is nothing but a huge fucking lie. How many rape victims in the real world actually enjoyed the experience - 1% of 1% of one-millionth? Yet ALL non-con stories on this site MUST reflect that microscopic shred of reality? Pfft.

The problem with clearly stating the "exact" rules is that a large number of people will slam themselves right up against that wall and make it not the 'limit' but the 'norm'.

Then if a clear limit is drawn, then those submissions that cross it would get rejected, and therefore, at least theoretically, be unable to establish any 'norm'.

There is only one rule that matters: Rule Nr 1. Laurel and Manu own Literotica, and they decide what they allow and what they don't allow on their website. The rest are sub-rules.

Certainly, it is a privately owned site and they can make whatever rules that they wish, there it is, but as comshaw stated off the top, that doesn't mean that the membership shouldn't voice their concerns or give their feedback.

 

[neuroparenthetical]

Now you have me envisioning Plato as the exasperated owner of a Humans Only erotic website where Diogenes keeps trying to sneak his chicken fetish porn through moderation.

Precisely my point though! Like... Plato's the good guy in that situation? He should be thanking Diogenes for giving him such a hard time, because that kind of robust challenge to shitty rules is what makes the rules better, and heads off another one hundred technically-legal submissions that Plato actually wants to reject at the pass! Even the people who don't agree with Plato's preferences should grant the free-standing idea that clearer rules are better than unclear rules. The opposite of that is authoritarianism.

'No Chickens', but what about a man that has been turned into a chicken by a witch?

I guess that's the great dividing line. When you begin with the premise that fiction is fiction (conclusion: get the fuck over both it and yourself,) a lot of these rules seem doubly or triply silly and futile.

It really boils down to this: "there are people out there whose sexual quirks are so fucking gross that I just don't want to provide them with any material, even fictional material, that caters to them."

Most of this debate is just trying to slap a veneer of high-minded intellectualism and moralizing onto that unarguable stance: "it's gross, dun wanna."

There's a million sites out there whose line for "it's gross, dun wanna" is so far to the right that all of you would harumph about it. You wouldn't necessarily say that those sites shouldn't be allowed to draw that line, but you certainly wouldn't let them bury you in a mountain of bullshit, trying to convince you it was anything else besides that. You'd certainly needle them in theory, at least, for being unable to construct a clear, coherent, internally-consistent rubric for why the line is where it is.