The Passing of "Extreme"

The passing** seems barely noted. Anyone have any feelings about that? Anyone miss it? I do a bit. Is everyone glad to see those kinds of stories banished or unlinked from the site?

If no one gives a shit, fine. But I thought I'd post this as an obit.

J.

Added 10-27, 10-28:

I know of no evidence that 'extreme' is being fine tuned; nor that its absence is temporary. There are some indications that it's dead as a doornail; the best indication of complete termination is that allextremesex still exists, but is NOT showing stories attributed to any literotica authors; i.e, it appears someone else has taken over. Maybe they bought it.

Here is the only thread with more than a mention of the 'passing'; unfortunately it's mostly tangential bickering and nastiness:

https://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?s=&threadid=202324&perpage=25&pagenumber=1

**Added 10/28
'Extreme' refers to a section or archive of stories, formerly clickable from the 'stories' main page at Literotica (i.e., a linked website, presumably also owned by Laurel and Manu). These were stories that fell outside the range of 'acceptable' at Literotica, main portion. Examples might be great violence, torture, and bestiality. There were, however, no stories there involving children/adolescents, just as at the main site.

Pure,

I'd noticed it was gone, but thought Laurel and Manu might just be tinkering with the format of the page. Judging from the underwhelming response to this post, it appears the Lit world will little note nor long remember, (to paraphrase Mr. Lincoln) the demise of the Extreme story category.

Rumple Foreskin

I'dve posted sooner, but I just logged on

I miss it, although I'll admit I rarely frequented it. It's lack of being updated, as well as being segregated from the other categories, aided its perusal, no doubt.

Hopefully Laurel and Manu are just tinkering with it. I'd feel bummed if it were to vanish completely. It would speak ill for that genre. (Would that mean remarkably offensive stories would be barred from Lit, ala the 18+ rule?)

I regret both its loss and the lack of information regarding its whereabouts. I visited the same site as was originally linked via "Extreme," www.allextremesex.com, but the stories that were brought up were certainly not the same. There was nothing non-human in the non-human, nor non-consent in the non-consent, and they were just terrible. To clarify to any amused by my adjective choice for the LACK of bestiality or rape stories: they were almost universally bland and mediocre. Very disappointed.

It might be mentioned that all the stories at 'allextremesex' are now attributed to one author (whether that's just a ruse, I don't know; I hope they haven't just stolen and appropriated them.)

And he isn't all that gifted.

I think it's now mainly a gateway to many other 'extreme' sites, some pretty damn gross, and all of them, commercial.

J.

I hadn't noticed. But I would only check it once every two months or so, cause the selection was rather limited and updating was essentially non-existent. Sorry to see it go -- it had some cool stories.

Well, even though I only read one story from the site and was disgusted by it, I'm sort of sad that the more extreme stories won't have a place to go.

On the plus side, at least stories that could be made better won't just be passed over into the Extreme category. When I wrote an "extreme" story I was a little discouraged to see it just disapear into that big, black space.

Chicklet

I hadn't noticed that it was gone until Pure said something. When did this happen?

I am sorry to see the extreme category gone. A lot of the stories there were...how to put this delicately...disturbing, but some showed a huge amount of imagination. I feel sorry for the authors, in that it is hard enough to find a place to showcase your work when you write erotica, it is that much more difficult when you write some of what they did.

I think those of us who confine out works to more main line stories are lucky to have lit where you can feel comfortable posting. I really feel more sorry for the authors than I do for the readers.

-Colly

Shoot, I didn't even know that Extreme was gone. I hadn't read it in a while. When you've read one story about someone doing it with a horse, you've read 'em all.

That would be slightly amusing to read a lit version of the goatse.cx thing...

Note,
On the link I cited, Killer Muffin has posted this link:

http://www.nationallawcenter.org/Remarks of Attorney General John Ashcroft.htm

Ashcroft is speaking, not mainly of pornography, but of 'obscenity', which would apply to written matter, including stories. I have not yet seen the applicable portions of the new laws, but even if not in effect, or under legal challenge, the effect is 'chilling'.

PS: SweetnPetite: the termination of 'extreme' may have happened in the last month, but possibly as far back as the beginning of summer, as far as I can tell.

What was extreme?

Vincent E said:

What was extreme?

Click to expand...

LOL. Vincenzo, you're my boy!

Perdita

If Ashcroft has his way we will all be living in a police state, complete with it's own gestapo, thoght police and probably concentration camps and the only acceptable behavior will be studying your bible (king james 1611 vsr only) by candle light. His fanatisicism is not only chilling, it's frightening and an assault on the very liberties the bill of rights was written to protect.

The only thing to say good about him is he is such a fanatic that he is a tactless buffon and has managed to aggravate everyone from supreme court justices to senators. His Patriot Act is going to be severely curtailed if not struck down and his attempt to use federal bullying to enforce anti medicinal Marijuanna use in states has already been negated.

Still, he is a fanatic with the resources and power of the justice department behind him and if Laurel and Manu felt distancing themselves from the more controversial subject matter was a good idea one can hardly blame them. Until that idiot is back at Landover Baptist where he belongs, the prudent man should feel threatened.

-Colly

yes i miss it!!!!!

i emailed lit quite a while back asking where it had gone, and never got any response. the extreme section was BY FAR my favorite story section. as has been mentioned, it was the only place where you could read nonconsent stories that were REALLY nonconsent, where there was real beastiality, and all that good lovely hardcore stuff that arouses and interests true perverts like myself. it wasn't updated often, but that didn't matter....it had the best stories, and i had no problem reading many of them over and over and over again. i'm extremely upset that it seems to be gone forever without a trace, with no link back to those stories. i'm kicking myself that i didn't save them on disk.

One point that might be made: If the standard for adults becomes 'material' that won't appeal to the prurient interests of minors who happen by, then jettisoning "Extreme" is NOT going to have given Lit a whole lotta protection.

The incest section remaining, to mention one, not to say wives who fuck everyone for hubby's tittilation, women taking pee in their pussies, etc., will be more than enough to get Lit into a heapa trouble.

(It's sort of like that famous saying (roughly), "when they came for the gypsies, I did nothing; when they came for the Jews, I did nothing; when they came for the communists and subversives, ...
Then they came for me.")

Literotica's possible problem with minors--in the view of Ashcroft, et al.-- cannot be dealt with if public (and anonymous) accessibility is maintained. Sorta of like having an 'adult' section of a store, BUT where any teen (or pre-teen!) can wander into it, who pleases.

Further, Lit's being a commercial enterprise--afaik-- makes it fall under a number nasty proposed laws like COPA.

I am also sorry to see the Extreme section is gone. I had noticed it missing a few weeks ago but only just got the pointer to this thread from someone in How-To. Unfortunately not even the Internet Archive has copies of these stories, as allextremesex.com has a robots.txt file that prohibits the archive from archiving the site. (Here's the link if you're interested anyway.)

At least some of the stories have migrated to
www.storiesonline.net

For instance the complete "Linda Jean" series,
"Blackmailed into perversion"

http://www.storiesonline.net/library/st_get.php?id=35544

I'm sure a search would turn up some. Has anyone tried contacting the authors to see what they've done?

Pure said:

At least some of the stories have migrated to
www.storiesonline.net

For instance the complete "Linda Jean" series,
"Blackmailed into perversion"

http://www.storiesonline.net/library/st_get.php?id=35544

I'm sure a search would turn up some. Has anyone tried contacting the authors to see what they've done?

Click to expand...

Check also at http://www.asstr.org/. I know many authors post stories at both StoriesOnline and Asstr that are not posted at Lit, including "extreme" stories it now seems.

If the Republican Right has its way, "material harmful to minors" will be banned (in writing, not just pictures).

Ironically, some of the violent 'extreme' stuff may not be a problem: we _know_ violence doesn't harm, don't we? Just keep the sex out, and let the ole chainsaws rip! ;-)

BUT some of the 'fuck mommy' stories Literotica has kept _would_ definitely be a problem!

----
My story

tail_teller said:

If the Republican Right has its way, "material harmful to minors" will be banned (in writing, not just pictures).

Ironically, some of the violent 'extreme' stuff may not be a problem: we _know_ violence doesn't harm, don't we? Just keep the sex out, and let the ole chainsaws rip! ;-)

BUT some of the 'fuck mommy' stories Literotica has kept _would_ definitely be a problem!

----
My story

Click to expand...

Fortunately, there are already US Supreme Court rulings to protect fictitious literature, including erotica/pornography.

I didn't notice that Extreme was gone?

But I think it's a good sign that there is such a lack of interest in extreme stories that the category has withered away.

Hi Pookie,

I appreciate your thoughtful contributions, here and elsewhere. With all due respect, since we're on the same side, here,


your view of First Amendment coverage is a little bit wider than the Supreme Ct, when you say,

Fortunately, there are already US Supreme Court rulings to protect fictitious literature, including erotica/pornography.

COPA attempted to base itself on the Miller standards of obscenity, as noted in the SC decision in Ashcroft v. ACLU, 2002. The fact that it was clumsy should not lull us, since Miller remains. See the Ashcroft decision:


http://www.facsnet.org/issues/supreme/a_thru_h/a/ashcroft_v_ACLU.php3

====

The Miller standards--never overturned-- given below clearly do not exempt written "fictitious" [fictional]material (see also the earlier Roth decision):


http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/cgi-bin/getcase.pl?navby=case&court=us&vol=413&invol=15

U.S. Supreme Court

MILLER v. CALIFORNIA, 413 U.S. 15 (1973)


This much has been categorically settled by the Court, that obscene material is unprotected by the First Amendment. Kois v. Wisconsin, 408 U.S. 229 (1972); United States v. Reidel, 402 U.S., at 354 ; Roth v. United States, supra, at 485. 5 "The First and Fourteenth Amendments have never been treated as absolutes [footnote omitted]." Breard v. Alexandria, 341 U.S., at 642 , and cases cited. See Times Film Corp. v. Chicago, 365 U.S. 43, 47 -50 (1961); Joseph Burstyn, Inc. v. Wilson, 343 U.S., at 502 . We acknowledge, however, the inherent dangers of undertaking to regulate any form of expression. State statutes designed to regulate obscene materials must be [413 U.S. 15, 24] carefully limited. See Interstate Circuit, Inc. v. Dallas, supra, at 682-685.

As a result, we now confine the permissible scope of such regulation to works which depict or describe sexual conduct. That conduct must be specifically defined by the applicable state law, as written or authoritatively construed. 6 A state offense must also be limited to works which, taken as a whole, appeal to the prurient interest in sex, which portray sexual conduct in a patently offensive way, and which, taken as a whole, do not have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

The basic guidelines for the trier of fact must be: (a) whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards" would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest, Kois v. Wisconsin, supra, at 230, quoting Roth v. United States, supra, at 489; (b) whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct specifically defined by the applicable state law; and (c) whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

We do not adopt as a constitutional standard the "utterly without redeeming social value" test of Memoirs v. Massachusetts, [413 U.S. 15, 25] 383 U.S., at 419 ; that concept has never commanded the adherence of more than three Justices at one time. 7 See supra, at 21. If a state law that regulates obscene material is thus limited, as written or construed, the First Amendment values applicable to the States through the Fourteenth Amendment are adequately protected by the ultimate power of appellate courts to conduct an independent review of constitutional claims when necessary. See Kois v. Wisconsin, supra, at 232; Memoirs v. Massachusetts, supra, at 459-460 (Harlan, J., dissenting); Jacobellis v. Ohio, 378 U.S., at 204 (Harlan, J., dissenting); New York Times Co. v. Sullivan, 376 U.S. 254, 284 -285 (1964); Roth v. United States, supra, at 497-498 (Harlan, J., concurring and dissenting).

We emphasize that it is not our function to propose regulatory schemes for the States. That must await their concrete legislative efforts. It is possible, however, to give a few plain examples of what a state statute could define for regulation under part (b) of the standard announced in this opinion, supra:

a) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated.
(b) Patently offensive representations or descriptions of masturbation, excretory functions, and lewd exhibition of the genitals.

Sex and nudity may not be exploited without limit by films or pictures exhibited or sold in places of public accommodation any more than live sex and nudity can [413 U.S. 15, 26] be exhibited or sold without limit in such public places. 8 At a minimum, prurient, patently offensive depiction or description of sexual conduct must have serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value to merit First Amendment protection. See Kois v. Wisconsin, supra, at 230-232; Roth v. United States, supra, at 487; Thornhill v. Alabama, 310 U.S. 88, 101 -102 (1940).

For example, medical books for the education of physicians and related personnel necessarily use graphic illustrations and descriptions of human anatomy. In resolving the inevitably sensitive questions of fact and law, we must continue to rely on the jury system, accompanied by the safeguards that judges, rules of evidence, presumption of innocence, and other protective features provide, as we do with rape, murder, and a host of other offenses against society and its individual members. 9

[end Miller excerpt]