Who agrees with Jessica?

[Kelliezgirl]

I hope you realize that anyone from any civilized culture across the globe who reads this wonders, "The heck is wrong with these people?"

Which is a statement on them being subjects, and Americans being citizens.
It's tragic they can't comprehend citizens behaving in a responsible manner.

 

[stickygirl]

First, can we dispense with the canard that it's "easier to buy a gun than..." that always appears when this topic comes up.
You don't have to fill out a form under penalty of perjury (unless you're Hunter Biden of course, then that law doesn't apply) and pass a Federal background check to own a dog.
My Grandfather walked to middle school with his shotgun over his shoulder, left it sitting in the coat room during class, his jacket hanging next to it with a pocketful of shells, then took the long route home and did some bird hunting along the way.
Strangely, kids weren't shooting up schools back then, despite EASIER access to guns.

and yet Europe and other countries - every other country come to that, has a fraction of the gun deaths you experience. Sheesh - it must be something else then. Maybe the water? Or the canards?

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Normal "subjects" would see mid-school teen strolling with a shotgun, killing birds for fun, anything but "responsible citizenship."

He wasn’t killing birds "for fun".
He was hunting. He took the birds home and had them for dinner. I guess you "civilized" people think food comes from grocery stores.
I'm sorry the idea of a middle school kid being responsible and self reliant is frightening to you.

 

[HordHolm]

@stickygirl, @Kelliezgirl, @Dybbuk - this is straying dangerously into politics board stuff, not what the OP was after, however much I believe that what he is after is fundamentally flawed.

 

[StillStunned]

I'm sorry the idea of a middle school kid being responsible and self reliant is frightening to you.

No, it's the idea of all those who aren't responsible.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

and yet Europe and other countries - every other country come to that, has a fraction of the gun deaths you experience. Sheesh - it must be something else then. Maybe the water? Or the canards?

"Every other country?" Well that isn't accurate at all, plenty of countries have more gun deaths per capita than the US.
And why should we fixate on gun deaths? The incident that sparked this post wasn't gun related, people always find a way to kill other people.

 

[stickygirl]

@stickygirl, @Kelliezgirl, @Dybbuk - this is straying dangerously into politics board stuff, not what the OP was after, however much I believe that what he is after is fundamentally flawed.

Having brushed past I've no interest in posting further in any case, so please steer it back to whence it came!

 

[Kelliezgirl]

No, it's the idea of all those who aren't responsible.

So, should we ban erotica and violent movies because some people can't handle it?
It's the same argument, "some people won't be responsible, so you can't have this."
Let's ban alcohol, lot's of people get killed by drunk drivers, sure YOU drink responsibly but...

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Nothing to be frightened about, just feeling a bit sad for you.

I don't think about you at all.

 

[HordHolm]

I don't think so. The discussion is about violence inspired by fantasy, and literature cannot be separated from the culture that cradles it.

Sticking in American exceptionalism takes it somewhere less general, though.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Sticking in American exceptionalism takes it somewhere less general, though.

Come on, I think it's blindingly obvious that qhen a girl is stabbed to death in a "civilized" country the obvious solution is *checks notes* blaming it on guns in the United States.

 

[ronde]

So, should we ban erotica and violent movies because some people can't handle it?
It's the same argument, "some people won't be responsible, so you can't have this."
Let's ban alcohol, lot's of people get killed by drunk drivers, sure YOU drink responsibly but...

I'm glad you brought this topic back on track.

Banning erotica has already been tried as well as banning alcohol and drugs. None of the bans did anything except drive those things underground and create an opportunity for the criminal element to enter the picture. Porn has been available since the written word, and before that, in art. It just circulated by means not considered to be legal by the general public. The advent of motion pictures ushered in the "stag" films that were advertised in a few men's magazines and since it was illegal to ship even condoms through the US Mail, those stag films and some magazines were sent in "a plain brown envelope" so the postal service couldn't tell what was inside. Many books were banned for "obscene content" as well.

The problem with banning anything is that there are people who will find a way to supply what the public wants, so banning doesn't help anything. There is merit in preventing young children from being exposed to the things that are banned, but when the logic becomes banning something because some people aren't "responsible", you run into the problem of determining what constitutes "responsibility" in the user with sufficient accuracy that users who are "responsible" aren't banned from use of the thing as well. In general, and of import to the original topic, the only way to determine someone is truly "not responsible" is to wait until they commit the crime. Banning erotic would do nothing more than it did in the past.

 

[HordHolm]

Come on, I think it's blindingly obvious that qhen a girl is stabbed to death in a "civilized" country the obvious solution is *checks notes* blaming it on guns in the United States.

Hey, you're the one who chose to state that Americans are citizens but the rest of us are 'subjects'... However, I suggest parking this here.

 

[SimonDoom]

So:

‘ When you write, do you consider the effect your writing has on others, possibly vulnerable others, or do you believe those who write fictional affirmations of cruelty, violence, torture and rape can have no effect on behaviour in the real world?’

and, 'Do you believe that it’s possible that exposure to such fantasies can initiate a causal chain that leads to such acts?’

I know you don’t write such stuff, but you know there’re those who do. Would you consider it irresponsible to write such stuff?

I'll try to summarize my thoughts on the subject.

1. Yes, it's possible that a story can influence somebody. I offered the example of Taxi Driver, which apparently inspired John Hinkley to try to kill Ronald Reagan.

2. The mere possibility that a story might influence someone to do something bad is not a sufficient reason either to ban or censor the story, or to condemn it as being irresponsible. Virtually any work of art that depicts violence might influence someone. Obviously, we are not going to ban all depictions of violence.

3. I draw some personal lines. I would not write stories that actively promote certain kinds of views, like violence, or racism. I won't write stories about violent pedophilia, because I don't like the idea of attracting the kinds of people who might like those stories. I think nonconsent stories are very different, because I have reason to believe, based on my reading, that many, many perfectly harmless people have nonconsent fantasies and yet are not influenced by them to do bad things in the real world. I wouldn't publish stories about how to create and use weapons of mass destruction, although I might write a work of fiction about people doing that. Tom Clancy wrote a novel, The Sum Of All Fears, that featured rather extensive discussion about terrorists building and using a nuclear bomb. Was that wrong? I don't think so, but I might exercise some caution in how I did that if I were writing a story. I do not object if others draw lines differently from the way I do for their own stories. I don't judge.

4. The reality is that the overall evidentiary record regarding the actual impact of violent and transgressive entertainment on the real world is conflicted and sketchy. The studies, when you examine them closely, tend to be poor to questionable. This is true, for instance, with repeated attempts to try to demonstrate the harms of pornography, or of violent video games.

5. I believe the burden of proof always rests with the person who wants to regulate speech, or wants to make the case that a particular art work is "irresponsible."

6. In my opinion, that burden is almost never met. Arguments tend to fall back on biases and personal experiences rather than real evidence.

7. It's possible that these forms of art and entertainment have a cathartic, "safety valve" effect of letting off steam and thereby reducing violence. If that's so, then it's a fact that should be taken into account, because it's possible that taking a very liberal attitude toward artistic expression actually correlates with a lessening of sexual violence. That's the key point: The net impact on society of the publication of a work is what matters, not the mere possibility that somebody, somewhere, might do something bad in response to the publication of a work.

8. I see no correlation in the world between countries that take a liberal attitude on this material and sexual violence. I'd suggest that a reverse correlation might exist: countries that tightly restrict speech tend to be places where, for example, women are treated very badly.

9. We cannot ignore the value to society of artistic (and erotic) expression. It gives people joy. It enriches our culture. It teaches us things. It reveals the complexity and richness of our lives and our civilization. Lolita was a novel about a middle aged man with a pedophiliac obsession with a prepubescent girl. Is it possible somebody, somewhere acted upon it and hurt someone? I suppose. Does anyone really make a serious argument that the world would be better off if the book had never been published? I cannot imagine trying to make that argument. The book has been enjoyed by millions and is widely regarded as one of the great novels of the 20th century. I think it is. Great literature aside, smut stories at Literotica give joy and pleasure. That joy and pleasure count in the scale when we decide what to allow and what to condemn. As I see it, on the one side we have the very real pleasure people get from stories on the one hand, weighed against the very speculative risk that publication of the stories might pose.

10. People who advocate the censorship or disapproval of certain kinds of material tend to avoid the issue of where, in principle, one draws the line. What do we accept and not accept? If you condemn nonconsent stories at Literotica, then shouldn't we condemn Game of Thrones and other shows on TV that feature violence? There IS no principled line. Slippery slope arguments can be questionable at times, but not with respect to free speech and artistic expression. They are very real. Once you open the door to censorship, cancellation, and ritual disapproval of certain kinds of artistic expression, you give the enemies of freedom a tool to use to continue expanding the scope of what should be forbidden. When you take seriously the preposterous idea that we should have laws against "blasphemy" of religion, for example, you increase the chance that people who draw comics will be murdered, as they have been. This is probably the main reason why, even though I concede the risk that SOME harm might result from the publication of certain kinds of stories, I take an extremely liberal view of what should be tolerated. We need a bright line rule. The bright line rule is one that protects, and even encourages, freedom of expression, even when it is transgressive or offensive.

11. I have no way of knowing for sure, but I suspect that the risk to society of any of the stories that get published here, including rapey nonconsent stories, is vanishingly small, in part because of the peculiarities of this platform and what I think is an extremely tiny risk that this is a place people come to find inspiration for acting badly in the world. I think it's escapist fantasy. I think people should feel free to indulge in their fantasies within Literotica's rules without feeling guilt or shame that they are being "irresponsible."

 

[Devinter]

'These violent killings turned into a wider discussion in UK government: could the consumption of extremely violent materials be encouraging children to kill each other?

A pretty simple question, I would say. One with a pretty simple answer. In my view, as a psychologist, the answer is a resounding yes.'

Many psychologists would also disagree with you, at least to a large degree, when you make a blanket statement that is difficult to base on empirical evidence. You say it's a pretty simple question but I would disagree; I don't think this is a "Yes or no" situation.

We know the human mind can be, in some ways, not only shaped by our surroundings but also altered even after we reach an adult stage. For instance, some people might make the false assumption that only unintelligent people could end up in an extremist group - say, a religious ordeal that differs from mainstream beliefs, like a cult for instance. This is not the case. According to my research, most people - under the right conditions - can fall prey to some degree of brain washing, and it doesn't necessarily take as great of a push as one might first assume.

But how is this effect achieved? Well, there's many factors but the biggest one is the isolation from outside influences and silencing of opposing views. This can unfortunately create an environment in which it is quite swift that a person begins to break down in some regard. Yes, even their morals can falter because they do not believe that what they are doing is necessarily wrong. And just like in your military service example from earlier, people in these situations may eventually do things that society at large would find deplorable, and not really see the issue - just like you, most likely, felt less guilty being in combat with foreign people rather than fighting your own people.

But studying the criminally insane is generally highly different. Most of those that go on to do the most horrible of deeds have shown signs of troublesome behaviour from an early age. In some cases even when they've grown up in a family home with loving parents and where all of their siblings turned out just fine. Therefore, most would argue that there's a strong biological factor at play as well. Are these people more likely to commit a terrible thing such as senseless killing because of being influenced by violent materials, and also by violent people? Quite likely. But are these same individuals also likely to do the same thing and reach the same point eventually without those external factors? Yes, in my opinion.

And let's think about the issue practically; it's impossible to completely remove all of these external factors entirely. We would have to censor books, tv shows, movies, social media, the internet at large, the news, and most likely even our speech. And even if we managed all of this, there's absolutely no guarantee that we'd reduce the amount of senseless violent crimes occurring. Because there is a noteworthy chance that zero exposure to such matters doesn't imprint how WRONG these things are quite as clearly. Therefore, it's possible such crimes would even go up with less exposure to it. And if we reduce the number of outside influences that can affect a human being by not properly reporting on what happens in the world - by silencing news media - we create a greater sense of isolation in the individuals mind, causing a larger chance of a "us vs them" approach to take root in their minds. And as I've mentioned above, we know for a fact that creating some type of 'bubble' - be it the military, or a cult, or even a countries' culture and way of life at large - these matters definitely can have an impact. We do have a lot of statistical evidence for that. And plenty of historical examples.

So what is your proposed solution? And with some type of censorship in place, how can you be certain that you're creating a better world, and not just causing other potential problems to occur as a result?

 

[ronde]

I don't think so. The discussion is about violence inspired by fantasy, and literature cannot be separated from the culture that cradles it.

I would agree with your statement except for the word "cradles". The fact that certain literature exists is not proof that the culture accepts it a "normal". Literature is not "cradled" by a culture so much as literature is a reflection of that culture. All writers write what they see around them or can imagine seeing around them in the future as based upon what they know of the current time.

What I would not agree with is the converse - that literature creates the culture - and that is basically what some are positing, i.e., if a culture permits erotica, that erotica will cause some people to act out that literature in the form of sexual deviance.

 

[ronde]

So what is your proposed solution? And with some type of censorship in place, how can you be certain that you're creating a better world, and not just causing other potential problems to occur as a result?

And once again, we will see the usually ignored but always present "Law of unintended consequences" in action.

 

[Devinter]

And once again, we will see the usually ignored but always present "Law of unintended consequences" in action.

Well, we do have a lot of information from a lot of the fringe groups that I spoke of. Again, say a cult for instance; these DO ban access to other types of media and we can witness that this is to the great detriment of the person within this type of situation. A human being's mind become easier to mould by a sinister leadership figure. You won't read about violence, sure - but you will have less sources to influence your thinking, and I'm sure you're aware that the chance of things turning dangerous increases significantly within these 'societal bubbles'.

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

Correction: Mrs Justice Yip will pass sentence on 2nd Feb. ‘Girl X has traits of autism and ADHD, the court heard, while Boy Y has been diagnosed as having autism and selective mutism’.

For those of you who fear that there’s almost certain to be hysterical demands from many to ban stuff, your right, but I’m not concerned with that. You might as well complain about the rain.

This passage from ronde #10 resonates with me:

‘I grew up playing cowboys and Indians and since I'm a "boomer" I also played "Americans and Natzis" and "Americans and Japs" with my friends during school recess. It was just that - play. We were acting out what we saw in the movies and on television and what we heard from our veteran dads. At least a couple who played the part of American soldiers were of German descent. I know of none of my classmates who have ever killed a Native American, a German, or a Japanese person. I've had friends who were all three, and my daughter in law is half Cherokee. Even as kids, we could determine reality from play, and we went on to live our lives accordingly. I don't think the people of today are any different. They may play video games where the first person shooter kills hundreds of people, and they may watch rape in movies, but I doubt the vast majority would ever consider acting those experiences out in real life.’

On reflection, that resonates with my story. I’m a boomer. As a kid I read a comic called Commando, about soldiers in the recent war killing Germans and Japs. Gripping tuff. As a teenager I attended an ‘emergency school’, any educational building was pressed into service because there was insufficient infrastructure to school the baby boom. Our teaches were emergency teachers, de-mobed servicemen with some colourable qualification to justify an appointment as a teacher. The school had no facilities for the required extra-curricular activities on Wednesday afternoons and Saturday mornings and was reliant on other organisations to provide those. The staff had connections with the Sea Cadets, who were happy to pick us up and take us away. I joined the Royal Marines cadets. I enjoyed the stories told by our ex-marine instructors about their derring-do, and the recent operations in the tropical jungles of Malaya. I thought I’d like to do that. At 17 I volunteered for the Royal Marine Reserves, within 18 months I was a Royal Marine Commando. I enjoyed the physical training, the difficult part for me was eating 3,500 calories a day. I’m not a foodie. I was a little disappointed that we were now tasked with the defence of the snowy wastes of Northern Europe, but I more that fulfilled my basic commitment because I enjoyed it. Then, one day I was mobilised. I killed foreigners, just like in the comic.

I wasn’t born to kill and I wasn’t born evil, at least, that’s my strongly held belief. I was born with a clean sheet, I could have been anything it’s possible for a human being to be, but I was me. What caused me. Many things. My father and his father and grandfather were servicemen, warrant officers, and had fought in wars. They neither encouraged nor discouraged me, but they were role models. My teachers, all servicemen, were role models. My cadet force instructors were role models. The Warsaw Pact was a looming threat, my school had bomb-shelters, and I truly believed that if you wanted peace you must prepare for war. But I don’t believe that if I hadn’t been thrilled by reading that comic I would ever have killed. I believe it was causal, not the immediate cause, a remote cause, but the primary cause.

I don’t believe the vast majority of people who read Commando volunteered, but I did.

I don’t believe the vast majority of people who read this:

Caught in the Crossfire - NonConsent/Reluctance - Literotica.com

with enjoyment will go on to punishment rape women and kill. I know some will do so who haven’t read it. They’re in the news currently. I do believe that some who have read it with enjoyment and who find themselves in uniform, with guns and in control of prey population to which they’re hostile, will punishment rape, torture and kill.

So:

‘ When you write, do you consider the effect your writing has on others, possibly vulnerable others, or do you believe those who write fictional affirmations of cruelty, violence, torture and rape can have no effect on behaviour in the real world?’

and, 'Do you believe that it’s possible that exposure to such fantasies can initiate a causal chain that leads to such acts?’

I know you don’t write such stuff, but you know there’re those who do. Would you consider it irresponsible to write such stuff?

I am a woman who writes and enjoys "non-con" and "dub-con". I have for years and I have no intentions of stopping. I like rough sex. I have for years and I have no intention of stopping. That being said, I will do my best to answer your questions.

I write these stories because I want people who share the same kinks that I do to find them and enjoy them and hopefully feel like they are not alone in this big, scary world. I do not consider what I write irresponsible because I am NOT responsible for the behaviors of other people. I think violent people are attracted to violent media. Those teenagers in the article you linked loved Sweeny Todd. Sweeny Todd was first written as a short story in 1846. Is the author responsible for the murder of Brianna? Absolutely not. I will also use the Bible as an example. Millions of Christians all over the world look to the Bible as a guide for how they should behave in the world and interact with other humans in it. Kind, loving, generous people are attracted to the kind, loving, generous parts. Violent, homophobic, misogynists are attracted to the violent, homophobic, misogynistic parts. Should we ban the Bible (or other holy books) because people with dark tendencies use it to justify heinous acts?

Authors write about cruelty, violence, torture, and rape because those things happen organically every day in the world we live in. Why shouldn't art be used as a medium to talk about the horrific acts human beings subject each other to? In fact, women who have rape fantasies or who enjoy non-con/dub-con content are often the victims of rape/sexual abuse and use this content as a way to cope. Some women (like myself) grew up very sexually repressed and believed (incorrectly) that they could only enjoy/engage in sexual activity if it was forced on them.

I think people who go looking for media with dark themes are already interested in those forms of art and are looking for a place to explore. No. I don't think watching Sweeny Todd or whatever else these kids were looking at made them kill Brianna. I think they wanted to kill someone from the very beginning.

Also, I do not appreciate the tone of your question and your subsequent comments. This is supposed to be a place where people can discuss their sexuality without fear of being shamed or judged. If you want to be the "morality police" take your sneering condescension somewhere else.

 

[AH_Mod]

Please keep this discussion centered on writing and avoid the tangents of pure politics such as gun law. Sustained political discussion will result in a lock or move to the politics board.

 

[SimonDoom]

Please keep this discussion centered on writing and avoid the tangents of pure politics such as gun law. Sustained political discussion will result in a lock or move to the politics board.

I agree. I think the issue here is the responsibility of writers here at Literotica, and guns have nothing to do with that. It's a whole separate issue.

But I would request this of the AH Mod: If most of us are sticking to the guidelines and one person wants to bring up guns, just delete the comment that's in violation rather than moving the thread. We are on notice at this point, so nobody can complain if that happens. This is a worthwhile conversation for this forum and nobody wants to see it moved to Politics. Most of us probably would just bow out at that point.

 

[SimonDoom]

I am a woman who writes and enjoys "non-con" and "dub-con". I have for years and I have no intentions of stopping. I like rough sex. I have for years and I have no intention of stopping. That being said, I will do my best to answer your questions.

I write these stories because I want people who share the same kinks that I do to find them and enjoy them and hopefully feel like they are not alone in this big, scary world. I do not consider what I write irresponsible because I am NOT responsible for the behaviors of other people. I think violent people are attracted to violent media. Those teenagers in the article you linked loved Sweeny Todd. Sweeny Todd was first written as a short story in 1846. Is the author responsible for the murder of Brianna? Absolutely not. I will also use the Bible as an example. Millions of Christians all over the world look to the Bible as a guide for how they should behave in the world and interact with other humans in it. Kind, loving, generous people are attracted to the kind, loving, generous parts. Violent, homophobic, misogynists are attracted to the violent, homophobic, misogynistic parts. Should we ban the Bible (or other holy books) because people with dark tendencies use it to justify heinous acts?

Authors write about cruelty, violence, torture, and rape because those things happen organically every day in the world we live in. Why shouldn't art be used as a medium to talk about the horrific acts human beings subject each other to? In fact, women who have rape fantasies or who enjoy non-con/dub-con content are often the victims of rape/sexual abuse and use this content as a way to cope. Some women (like myself) grew up very sexually repressed and believed (incorrectly) that they could only enjoy/engage in sexual activity if it was forced on them.

I think people who go looking for media with dark themes are already interested in those forms of art and are looking for a place to explore. No. I don't think watching Sweeny Todd or whatever else these kids were looking at made them kill Brianna. I think they wanted to kill someone from the very beginning.

Also, I do not appreciate the tone of your question and your subsequent comments. This is supposed to be a place where people can discuss their sexuality without fear of being shamed or judged. If you want to be the "morality police" take your sneering condescension somewhere else.

This is very well said, and I appreciate getting a woman's perspective because I think there are some who are under the impression noncon is just a guy thing: men fantasizing about controlling women. It's more complex.

Your point about the Bible is a good one. Probably more violence has been carried out in the name of the Bible and the Quran than in response to all the erotic literature that has ever been written. Where do we draw the line? The reality is we have no principled and evidence-based way to answer that question.

The Sweeny Todd thing occurred to me, too. I can kind of imagine maladjusted teens responding to twisted material on the "Dark Web" -- but Sweeny Todd? Really? I think it just further proves that we have no idea what people will be influenced by and how, and that makes it difficult for us to make judgments about what we can or should responsibly publish and what we can't or shouldn't.

 

[AH_Mod]

I agree. I think the issue here is the responsibility of writers here at Literotica, and guns have nothing to do with that. It's a whole separate issue.

But I would request this of the AH Mod: If most of us are sticking to the guidelines and one person wants to bring up guns, just delete the comment that's in violation rather than moving the thread. We are on notice at this point, so nobody can complain if that happens. This is a worthwhile conversation for this forum and nobody wants to see it moved to Politics. Most of us probably would just bow out at that point.

At this point, there have already been several deviations that would need to be removed. Doing so would make the thread incoherent or require the removal of a large number of response posts that are not overtly political themselves, but make no sense without the posts that would need to be removed.

The opening post crosses the line. It's only the participants transforming it into what is primarily a writing discussion that has allowed it to remain this long.

 

[SimonDoom]

At this point, there have already been several deviations that would need to be removed. Doing so would make the thread incoherent or require the removal of a large number of response posts that are not overtly political themselves, but make no sense without the posts that would need to be removed.

The opening post crosses the line. It's only the participants transforming it into what is primarily a writing discussion that has allowed it to remain this long.

OK. I wouldn't recommend deleting anything said so far, for the reasons you cite. We're on notice. Let's confine the discussion to issues that are appropriate for this forum.

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

This is very well said, and I appreciate getting a woman's perspective because I think there are some who are under the impression noncon is just a guy thing: men fantasizing about controlling women. It's more complex.

Your point about the Bible is a good one. Probably more violence has been carried out in the name of the Bible and the Quran than in response to all the erotic literature that has ever been written. Where do we draw the line? The reality is we have no principled and evidence-based way to answer that question.

The Sweeny Todd thing occurred to me, too. I can kind of imagine maladjusted teens responding to twisted material on the "Dark Web" -- but Sweeny Todd? Really? I think it just further proves that we have no idea what people will be influenced by and how, and that makes it difficult for us to make judgments about what we can or should responsibly publish and what we can't or shouldn't.

It's very complex. I have read tons of non-con stories written by women and the comment sections are fascinating. I think writing about such experiences and sharing them with others really fosters healing.