What I learned from publishing a Loving Wives story

[onehitwanda]

And Pimms - yes I have been . Went to two cricket internationals as well. The longest one and the shortest, 20-20, right?

Em

I was exiled from my homeland for understanding neither Cricket nor Rugby.

If it doesn't have sails or involve the wind, water or sky I'm not your girl.

This is my natural habitat:

https://www.beneteau.com/sites/default/files/styles/wide/public/2022-07/oceanis-usp3.jpg.webp?itok=S9pFRpc7

 

[EmilyMiller]

I was exiled from my homeland for understanding neither Cricket nor Rugby.

If it doesn't have sails or involve the wind, water or sky I'm not your girl.

This is my natural habitat:

https://www.beneteau.com/sites/default/files/styles/wide/public/2022-07/oceanis-usp3.jpg.webp?itok=S9pFRpc7

Marine insurance - mmm…

Em

 

[TheRedChamber]

I was exiled from my homeland for understanding neither Cricket nor Rugby.

That seems rather unfair, old girl. Women are not expected to understand cricket and, indeed, some believe they are biological incapable of doing so.

For myself I understand the rules of cricket but not why anyone would subject themselves to actually watching it. Much like Quidditch it's an fascinating example of how not to design a sport.

 

[EmilyMiller]

That seems rather unfair, old girl. Women are not expected to understand cricket and, indeed, some believe they are biological incapable of doing so.

For myself I understand the rules of cricket but not why anyone would subject themselves to actually watching it. Much like Quidditch it's an fascinating example of how not to design a sport.

Ask me a cricket rules question. I was all excited to learn. I wonder how much I remember.

Em

 

[onehitwanda]

That seems rather unfair, old girl. Women are not expected to understand cricket and, indeed, some believe they are biological incapable of doing so.

For myself I understand the rules of cricket but not why anyone would subject themselves to actually watching it. Much like Quidditch it's an fascinating example of how not to design a sport.

See, in civilized countries like the UK I can safely admit not giving a fuck about bat-ball or crash-into-other-people sports.

In SA or Aus or Kiwi I'd be burned at the stake. but then that's probably why their teams are so much better than the British ones...

 

[TheRedChamber]

Ask me a cricket rules question. I was all excited to learn. I wonder how much I remember.

Em

Ok. If the bowler is called Holding, what's the batsman called?

 

[onehitwanda]

Ok. If the bowler is called Holding, what's the batsman called?

Willy. I know this one, it's repeated every Christmas. :/

The other one that's repeated all the time is when one of the bat-ball-hitter-people was a bit rotund, and the stand-behind-the-sticks-guy was chirping him and asking why he's so fat, and without missing a beat he turned around and said "Because every time I fuck your mother she gives me a biscuit."

 

[EmilyMiller]

Ok. If the bowler is called Holding, what's the batsman called?

That’s not a rule question

 

[EmilyMiller]

Willy. I know this one, it's repeated every Christmas. :/

The other one that's repeated all the time is when one of the bat-ball-hitter-people was a bit rotund, and the stand-behind-the-sticks-guy was chirping him and asking why he's so fat, and without missing a beat he turned around and said "Because every time I fuck your mother she gives me a biscuit."

 

[onehitwanda]

yeah. exactly.

 

[EmilyMiller]

I’m going to ask myself a question - which I will be unable to answer fully, but pretty good IMO for a blonde Yank gal:

How many ways can the batter be out?

No cheating I pinky swear.

1. Bowled
2. Caught
3. Runout
4. Being hit on the body in front of the wicket (which had all sorts of complexities I didn’t get) - LBW, right?
5. When the batter runs out to hit the ball, misses, and the catcher breaks the wicket (can’t recall the name)
6. Er…
7. That’s it - I know there are more

Em

 

[LIDiver]

That had to hurt! I hope she recovered fully.

I couldn’t resist an homage to Monty Python

 

[LIDiver]

I was exiled from my homeland for understanding neither Cricket nor Rugby.

If it doesn't have sails or involve the wind, water or sky I'm not your girl.

This is my natural habitat:

https://www.beneteau.com/sites/default/files/styles/wide/public/2022-07/oceanis-usp3.jpg.webp?itok=S9pFRpc7

Coming about, hard to lee…

 

[LIDiver]

BPO- Boat Person Only

 

[Zach_lost_in_Aus]

I naively put our first story in LW and was shell-shocked when it got a 1.80 rating out of the gate. We really didn’t think it was that bad even for a first effort.

However, several extraordinary people contacted us privately and explained about the creeper-trolls residing in LW and not to let them get us down because our story actually “doesn’t suck”. One great soul even did the math to show us that the story was averaging 4.8 since the creepers moved on after a month or so.

It’s a good story. Well written. Engaging. Definitely worth more than 1.8

 

[LIDiver]

It’s a good story. Well written. Engaging. Definitely worth more than 1.8

Cheers Zach, I appreciate you.

 

[Rustyoznail]

I’m going to ask myself a question - which I will be unable to answer fully, but pretty good IMO for a blonde Yank gal:

How many ways can the batter be out?

No cheating I pinky swear.

1. Bowled
2. Caught
3. Runout
4. Being hit on the body in front of the wicket (which had all sorts of complexities I didn’t get) - LBW, right? Correct, one mark.
5. When the batter runs out to hit the ball, misses, and the catcher breaks the wicket (can’t recall the name) (wicket keeper - but full marks)
6. Er…
7. That’s it - I know there are more

Em

Em, 50% - not bad, but you forgot the most important one. No handling the ball. The batter cannot touch, pick up, fondle or caress the ball while it's in play.

Technically, it's now part of the "obstructing the field" way of getting out.

Absolutely nothing to add about learning from LW...

 

[onehitwanda]

The batter cannot touch, pick up, fondle or caress the ball while it's in play.

 

[Andrew1968]

To gordo12:

Your lack of quality in relation to this matter is quite striking. I’m well aware of the many stories in Loving Wives which don’t match the category description. That’s my point and my complaint. Thanks for pointing out this obvious fact. I couldn’t care less about Todd172, your stories, or how long you have posted in Loving Wives.

Your argument that cheating stories are perfectly welcome because the category description includes the wording “& more” is weak sauce. Again, the category description is this: ‘Married extra-marital fun: swinging, sharing & more.’ Note the use and inclusion of the colon in this category description. The conclusion is obvious: the “& more” are stories which feature married extra-marital fun themes, besides swinging and sharing. How can stories featuring cheating, painful separations and divorce, revenge, BTB, violence, adversity, and survival be characterized as married extra-marital FUN? Clearly, they can’t be. Your “argument” here is weak sauce. It’s fucking ridiculous.

But which way do you want it: on the one hand you state this: ‘I can tell you it's become a catchall for a lot of stories that DON"T fit the description,’ but on the other hand you state this: ‘And the inclusion of the word MORE at the end makes cheating stories perfectly welcome…’ You’re not really making much sense here - if you respect the category description and try to justify the inclusion of stories by reference to the category description then cheating and BTB shouldn’t be included at all. If Loving Wives is a catchall for a lot of stories that don’t fit the category description, then how can they be called Loving Wives stories in the first place?

The problem is twofold in my view: 1. the category has grown beyond its legitimate boundaries and essential meaning and the owners of this website won’t amend the category or break into pieces for whatever reason. 2. An outspoken and active group of people in Loving Wives with an agenda have been pushing the boundaries and trying to undermine the essential meaning of the category to further their agenda.

If you enjoy white knighting for those BTB clowns, then do so. I wouldn’t wish to deny you the opportunity to indulge in that which pleases you, but don’t try and be disingenuous with me because you yourself have an agenda. Your mission: save those whiny little monogamous bitches, gordo. Bring them justice, gordo. You be one of the leaders, one of their healers in that cry baby, men’s support group, which is your Loving Wives.

 

[Lifestyle66]

To gordo12:

Your lack of quality in relation to this matter is quite striking. I’m well aware of the many stories in Loving Wives which don’t match the category description. That’s my point and my complaint. Thanks for pointing out this obvious fact. I couldn’t care less about Todd172, your stories, or how long you have posted in Loving Wives.

Your argument that cheating stories are perfectly welcome because the category description includes the wording “& more” is weak sauce. Again, the category description is this: ‘Married extra-marital fun: swinging, sharing & more.’ Note the use and inclusion of the colon in this category description. The conclusion is obvious the “& more” are stories which feature married extra-marital fun themes, besides swinging and sharing. How can stories featuring cheating, painful separations and divorce, revenge, BTB, violence, adversity, and survival be characterized as married extra-marital FUN? Clearly, they can’t be. Your “argument” here is weak sauce. It’s fucking ridiculous.

But which way do you want it: on the one hand you state this: ‘I can tell you it's become a catchall for a lot of stories that DON"T fit the description,’ but on the other hand you state this: ‘And the inclusion of the word MORE at the end makes cheating stories perfectly welcome…’ You’re not really making much sense here - if you respect the category description and try to justify the inclusion of stories by reference to the category description then cheating and BTB shouldn’t be included at all. If Loving Wives is a catchall for a lot of stories that don’t fit the category description, then how can they be called Loving Wives stories in the first place?

The problem is twofold in my view: 1, the category has grown beyond its legitimate boundaries and essential meaning and the owners of this website won’t amend the category or break into pieces for whatever reason. 2. An outspoken and active group of people in Loving Wives with an agenda have been pushing the boundaries and trying to undermine the essential meaning of the category to further their agenda.

If you enjoy white knighting for those BTB clowns, then do so. I wouldn’t wish to deny you the opportunity to indulge in that which pleases you, but don’t try and be disingenuous with me because you yourself have an agenda. Your mission: save those whiny little monogamous bitches, gordo. Bring them justice, gordo. You be one of the leaders, one of their healers in that cry baby, men’s support group, which is your Loving Wives.

Exactly!

It should be stories about the FUN of sex, and not focused on insecurity, deception, lying, cheating, exploitation, rape, and divorce. Those negatives are the sole food for the insecure narcissists who 1-bomb others having fun.

 

[Lifestyle66]

Indeed, the owners, who likely possess greater knowledge about website management than you do, have deliberately allowed this category to evolve into its current state. And perhaps that's precisely why it stands as the most active and widely discussed category on the site and within this forum. If it were not as it is, I, along with numerous others, would likely not remain so actively engaged. Therefore, instead of attempting to alter or dismantle our "home," why not embark on the journey of building your own website?


Are we now suggesting that monogamy is exclusively for clowns and whiners? Who truly harbors an agenda here?

And by the way, most of the BTB witches and bastards do deserve to be burned, given the malevolent manner in which they are often depicted. It's the excessive prevalence, lack of diversity, and originality within the genre that contribute to its overall blandness.

The owners of the website don't amend the category, because they are not the judges of the category tags in stories past. Unless they find a story during review which is OBVIOUSLY being placed in the wrong category (ie. a gangbang N/C story in "Romance"), they allow the author to select it.

For the Admins to create a new "BTB" category would require someone to go back through thousands of stories already posted to decide which to change to the new category. And there's nothing in it for the Admins to do that.

IMO, people can write those Cheating Wife/BTB stories, because they are also views into human nature. The depressing aspect of the LW readership is the intolerance displayed by the excessive numbers of 1-bombing haters of fun. When I post a story with a description saying: "The husband and wife are having FUN fucking others!" it takes a special kind of stupid ignorance and hate for a reader to open it just to click a 1-star and leave a shitty comment.

 

[Andrew1968]

Yes Teflon, I harbor an agenda here. Surely that's obvious to you. I think the Loving Wives category should contain stories which feature 'Married extra-marital fun: swinging, sharing & more' themes. Of course, I have an agenda. I do think monogamy is exclusively for clowns and whiners when they turn the Loving Wives category into a men's support group, so they can advocate for monogamy, in a Literotica category designed for 'Married extra-marital fun: swinging, sharing & more' themed stories. Whether people support monogamy or not, in general, outside of the Loving Wives category, has nothing to do with the discussion at hand. Please don't build a goddamned strawman, Teflon. Get the plot, hey...

'Indeed, the owners, who likely possess greater knowledge about website management than you do, have deliberately allowed this category to evolve into its current state." you have no real evidence to support any of these aforementioned claims.

'Therefore, instead of attempting to alter or dismantle our "home," why not embark on the journey of building your own website?' Oh, I'll continue to stick around, Teflon. And you make sure you continue to protect those crybabies. There are a lot of chapped asses there.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Are you guys fucking serious?

 

[SimonDoom]

Are you guys fucking serious?

 

[ElectricBlue]

If there's one thing this blessed platform has taught me, it's that the real whiners and clowns are remarkably swift to resort to an ad hominem attack whenever their juvenile arguments are effortlessly refuted. They bring to mind a lamb recklessly venturing into the lions' den to taunt its masters, inevitably meeting the same outcome every time...

We're just bystanders. This has been "educational" - I use the word loosely - watching you guys self-implode.