Abject Sex: The New & Disgusting Frontier?

[Stella_Omega]

pure: so a conservative person would say, along the lines of doc, "this story tells the lie that one can commit adultery and have great sex and no consequences, for either health or the state of the marriage. in fact we know adultery is generally harmful, if not fatal ,to a marriage; this is the truth, and the writer avoids it."

stella: Not only would they, but they did, from 1928 until 1960. The book is still "Unclassified" in Australlia, and banned in India.


But, when I'm writing my truth, the last thing I worry about is what some conservative person might say.

---
fair enough. enough, you can say to you there is no lie.

but my point was made to address susan's which that just intuitively and by common sense one can see if the book is glorifying or promoting something bad.

if the book was banned for such reasons for decades, this says something about the objectivity of such a determiniation, either about lies. or about 'glorifying' or 'promoting',.

But-- you can still make that determination.

Regardless of what we think about the morals of the times, the people reading in 1928 were perfectly capable of knowing that the book was pro women's sexuality. The fact that we don't think it's a bad thing now, doesn't negate the intuitive sense by which we can discern such things.

Shereads, if she reads "Petey met Yuri" will know that my story's message is that a staged rape is a good thing- to Yuri. She might not agree with me, but she will know what I meant to say.

 

[Pure]

stella But-- you can still make that determination.

Regardless of what we think about the morals of the times, the people reading in 1928 were perfectly capable of knowing that the book was pro women's sexuality. The fact that we don't think it's a bad thing now, doesn't negate the intuitive sense by which we can discern such things.

well, i think inferences about the author --not the book-- are always shaky.

is the book "pro" women's sexuality? yes, i see your point. the sexuality is there, not denied.

in the end, though it's the rather lame reasoning, she did it (got laid, committed adultery) and got away with it, so the author must have been 'pro'.

 

[Stella_Omega]

stella But-- you can still make that determination.

Regardless of what we think about the morals of the times, the people reading in 1928 were perfectly capable of knowing that the book was pro women's sexuality. The fact that we don't think it's a bad thing now, doesn't negate the intuitive sense by which we can discern such things.

well, i think inferences about the author --not the book-- are always shaky.

is the book "pro" women's sexuality? yes, i see your point. the sexuality is there, not denied.

in the end, though it's the rather lame reasoning, she did it (got laid, committed adultery) and got away with it, so the author must have been 'pro'.

The fact that the sexuality is there-- is the whole point of the book.
It "glorifies" adultery etc., because she is happier after she's started fucking the gardener, she's smarter, a more whole person.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Oh, wait-- I understand,-- you are still trying to address Sher's words here;

I still maintain that the intent to deceive - even if only to decieve oneself - is what turns a fiction into a lie. A porn writer lies when he seeks to rationalize his craving for sex with children, or to glorify torture, or to promote the idea that women deserve to be raped.

I can find nothing wrong with that statement. It's true that we might not know if the writer is trying to justify his own desires, but we can certainly tell if the story attempts glorify these things.


And while I'm on your ass--

Califia celebrates kinky sex; ...
None of them purport to convey reality, realistically....

Califia wrote a great number of carefully realistic short stories. Not one of them describes something that is impossible, or even very difficult to achieve-- nor does she allow the action to take place in a blur of perfect moves. Not only that, but the emotions are very realistic as well.

Anything else is labelled "Fantasy/SciFi" by her.

Pat Califia is one of my porn heroes.

 

[Pure]

while you're on my ass,

strap this one on.

stella The fact that the sexuality is there-- is the whole point of the book.

It [LCL] "glorifies" adultery etc., because she is happier after she's started fucking the gardener, she's smarter, a more whole person.


Stella, next posting: Oh, wait-- I understand,-- you are still trying to address Sher's words here;


Sher //I still maintain that the intent to deceive - even if only to decieve oneself - is what turns a fiction into a lie. A porn writer lies when he seeks to rationalize his craving for sex with children, or to glorify torture, or to promote the idea that women deserve to be raped. //

Stella I can find nothing wrong with that statement. It's true that we might not know if the writer is trying to justify his own desires, but we can certainly tell if the story attempts glorify these things.

===


Pure response, current: well, first of all, i don't know if *stories* ever do the kinds of things you say, e.g. "glorify", "rationalize, "promote the idea". i don't know if stories "attempt" things either. authors do these things. and we can guess about them, but generally only non textual evidence can decide the case, e.g. the author's public statements, letters, etc.

secondly, while it seems straightforward, and maybe is occasionally, in general it's not. Connie learns her sexuality; she gets off; she commits adultery, falls in love with the guy and leaves her hubby for him;
she doesn't apparently pay any price, seems happier at the end leaving to be with the guy and bear his child. this approach looks at what works for the character-- here, being sexual, committing adultery, leaving hubby-- and says, "the book [or author] glorifies these things."

it seems to work when you do it, with your handpicked example, but it doesn't often in the hands of DA, censors, judges, and even juries.

in what follows i give at least 7 examples. just pick a couple; i'm not asking for responses on all, just putting them on the table.

the approach has a lot of probs with fantasies, e.g. in 'naked lunch,' guys get hanged and ejaculate. the hanger never pays a price. there's lots of shooting up heroin, sometimes with ill effects, but many times with great results for sex.

so burroughs--or the book-- is labelled as promoting erotic hanging and heroin use. of course you know WB went straight, so he did NOT end up promoting heroin use at all.

up here, we had a comic strip in a gay magazine where crazed lesbians went around cutting off dicks and had lots of fun and did not pay any price. it was stopped at the border as obscene.
one might say the book, or author, was promoting cutting off dicks, (violence against men) since the lesbian characters got away with it. bosh.

there are just too many "exceptions" for there to be any rule here; it's just too simple to say "character flourishing" implies glorification or advocacy. "character harmed or killed" implies condemnation of his/her acts.

let's look at the recent case i mentioned: American Psycho, which tells of a psycho killer who kills a number of men, women and children, and is very clever and gets away with it. although the ending has one of those "wake up" scenes, so that it's possible the character was dreaming the whole thing.

is murder glorified? feminist critics, "yes." some others, "no." author say "no." there were demonstrations in front of bookstores, and several hid the book under the counter. now everything is cool, Ellis is admitted to be a serious author.

let us take four current examples in front of us. the first story whose url i posted, "andrea's helper." woman tortures guy.
a) is torture "glorified"? {by story or author}

b) doc's "parking garage". the rapist, iirc, gets away with it, indeed makes her come. is rape glorified?

c) last story i posted url for, "Broken". guy seduces/rapes young man. degrades him. no penalty. young man gets off on it, in some ways.
is homosexual rape and degradation glorified?

in fact, stella, my impression is that character flourishing = 'glorification' of his acts fails more often than not. but in any case, it fails so often as to make the rule useless (25 percent failure would suffice, i'd argue.).

a last example. d) the top 50 'reads' at Literotica are mostlincest, mainly either mother/son or father/daughter. are those acts glorified? the stories show the incest participants flourishing. so that's glorification of the acts? rationalizing them? promoting them? no, i say.

my view is very simple. they're fantasies written to get guys off. the authors cater to that fantasy. most of the authors, and i include myself here, since i wrote one, do NOT wish to glorify or promote incest. so they say. are they lying? according to your approach, maybe they/we are.

sher's position and yours is like the judge who said, "I know pornography when i see it." sounds great, til you realize he may well have been referring to 'lady chatterly's lover.' the intuitive or 'gut' approach here, recommended by sher and doc and apparently you, is, IMHO, bankrupt, as the string of court cases--and later reversals-- attests.

 

[shereads]

the intuitive or 'gut' approach here, recommended by sher and doc and apparently you, is, IMHO, bankrupt, as the string of court cases--and later reversals-- attests.

RECOMMENDED? I haven't recomended that you or anyone else adopt my literary standards. Neither can I recall a post by Stella or Doctor M in which it was suggested that their personal take on abject sex, taste in literature, or opinions on what is or is not morally or artistically sound in porn/erotica ought to become the norm.

You seem to be making a case against censorship, using the most logical defense: attempting to force the would-be censors to concede that their own standards are not universally acceptable or logically applicable. If anyone had advocated censorship, I'd be cheering you on. Since no one has, I keep wondering what point would have to be conceded in order to satisfy your argument. What are you after? A general agreement that there is no such thing as nauseatingly grotesque, dangerously misogynistic porn? Should we denounce our personal standards and agree to read porn indiscriminately? Or do you just want to promote some stories?

The statement, "I know pornography when I see it" is perfectly sound, until it's applied to public policy. I wouldn't attempt it. That doesn't mean I don't think the world would be a better place without torture-sex stories and the boys who salivate over them. Ditto, slasher movies, Texas Chainsaw Massacre, and the song stylings of Celine Dion. But until I'm made Dictator for Life of the U.S. and Canada, you needn't worry that I'll be tempted to rewrite the law.

 

[ms.read]

umm i havent read the whole thread and i must admit i dont know what "abject sex is... but i was wondering on the Promotion of Rape.... How can it truly be Rape if the "victim" enjoyed it and came? Now, I know guys ejaculate and all that and it doesn't neccassarily mean it was a pleasureable experience but, if you aren't enjoying something, surely the erection deflates unless there has been chemical alterations(viagra) Women on the other hand if truly raped will not "get off" period. So how does this site promote "rape" when in the story both characters come and as a rule the "victim" must enjoy it or the censors will not let it pass.

hmm just a thought.

I still maintain that the intent to deceive - even if only to decieve oneself - is what turns a fiction into a lie. A porn writer lies when he seeks to rationalize his craving for sex with children, or to glorify torture, or to promote the idea that women deserve to be raped.

I can find nothing wrong with that statement. It's true that we might not know if the writer is trying to justify his own desires, but we can certainly tell if the story attempts glorify these things.


Pure response, current: well, first of all, i don't know if *stories* ever do the kinds of things you say, e.g. "glorify", "rationalize, "promote the idea". i don't know if stories "attempt" things either. authors do these things. and we can guess about them, but generally only non textual evidence can decide the case, e.g. the author's public statements, letters, etc.




the approach has a lot of probs with fantasies, e.g. in 'naked lunch,' guys get hanged and ejaculate. the hanger never pays a price. there's lots of shooting up heroin, sometimes with ill effects, but many times with great results for sex.

so burroughs--or the book-- is labelled as promoting erotic hanging and heroin use. of course you know WB went straight, so he did NOT end up promoting heroin use at all.

up here, we had a comic strip in a gay magazine where crazed lesbians went around cutting off dicks and had lots of fun and did not pay any price. it was stopped at the border as obscene.
one might say the book, or author, was promoting cutting off dicks, (violence against men) since the lesbian characters got away with it. bosh.

there are just too many "exceptions" for there to be any rule here; it's just too simple to say "character flourishing" implies glorification or advocacy. "character harmed or killed" implies condemnation of his/her acts.

let's look at the recent case i mentioned: American Psycho, which tells of a psycho killer who kills a number of men, women and children, and is very clever and gets away with it. although the ending has one of those "wake up" scenes, so that it's possible the character was dreaming the whole thing.

is murder glorified? feminist critics, "yes." some others, "no." author say "no." there were demonstrations in front of bookstores, and several hid the book under the counter. now everything is cool, Ellis is admitted to be a serious author.

let us take four current examples in front of us. the first story whose url i posted, "andrea's helper." woman tortures guy.
a) is torture "glorified"? {by story or author}

doc's "parking garage". the rapist, iirc, gets away with it, indeed makes her come. is rape glorified?
c) last story i posted url for, "Broken". guy seduces/rapes young man. degrades him. no penalty. young man gets off on it, in some ways.
is homosexual rape and degradation glorified?


a last example. d) the top 50 'reads' at Literotica are mostlincest, mainly either mother/son or father/daughter. are those acts glorified? the stories show the incest participants flourishing. so that's glorification of the acts? rationalizing them? promoting them? no, i say.

my view is very simple. they're fantasies written to get guys off. the authors cater to that fantasy. most of the authors, and i include myself here, since i wrote one, do NOT wish to glorify or promote incest. so they say. are they lying? according to your approach, maybe they/we are.

QUOTE]

Pure I have to agree with you here. Though we do not want to Promote Incest or Rape why do the readers have a fascination with it? what drives them to click their mouse and read those stories?

 

[Pure]

well, sher, if i've put you in bed with the censors (because of your arguments), and that's unfair, equally unfair are your repeated attempts to say, i'm trying to dictate your reading or tastes.

Should we denounce our personal standards and agree to read porn indiscriminately?

i think offering a couple examples for discussion is hardly an imposition. and i think you should read and get off on whatever you please!

further you're turning the positions topsy turvy: from the beginning doc and you started with something *beyond personal*, as in "i don't see the reason for this" "how could it get you off.?

and no answer was acceptable. (as you stated, on the other side, 'whys' for perversions are silly to get into).

now suddently you and doc are all for personal tastes, subjective standards, etc. (stella's consistent position).

i remind you of your recent statement:

sher A porn writer lies when he seeks to rationalize his craving for sex with children, or to glorify torture, or to promote the idea that women deserve to be raped.

this is an objective statement: it does NOT say, "what to me glorifies rape, may not for you; and indeed i have no problem with your writing and getting off on material that 'to me' glorifies rape."

it does NOT say, "when i read of father young daughter incest and it seems to me, to be rationalizing fucking your daughter, I concede that *to you* it many not "rationalize" anything. and i see nothing objectionable if you write and read father fucking daughter stories just to fantasize while you get off."

there are dozens of statements by you and doc with such import, casting various individuals' taste in these matters are silly, irrational, and so on, as the tedious broomstick and holocaust examples aptly illustrate. (the point of the broomstick being that it's so outrageous and painful that any erotization or seeking of it is insane; and so insane that it's morally objectionable and antisocial even to *write* about a person seeking and accepting such a fate.)
====

sher RECOMMENDED? I haven't recomended that you or anyone else adopt my literary standards.

no, you've just suggested and indicated that standards that differ from yours on your favorite extreme examples are silly, irrational, deranged, morally objectionable and dangerous.

 

[Stella_Omega]

it seems to work when you do it, with your handpicked example, but it doesn't often in the hands of DA, censors, judges, and even juries.

In that handpicked example, it was the DA, censors, judges nd juries, that stated that Lawrence "glorified" etc. Having browsed through the book for the first time since the first time I read it-- I concur. His message was that Women are happy only when they connect with their bodies-- in defiance of the times, but that's really beside the point.

the approach has a lot of probs with fantasies, e.g. in 'naked lunch,' guys get hanged and ejaculate. the hanger never pays a price. there's lots of shooting up heroin, sometimes with ill effects, but many times with great results for sex.

so burroughs--or the book-- is labelled as promoting erotic hanging and heroin use. of course you know WB went straight, so he did NOT end up promoting heroin use at all

.Well, really-- he did glorify heroin, not only in "Naked Lunch" but also in "Nova Express," "Ah Pook Is Here," "The Ticket That Exploded," "The Wild Boys."

Regardless of his going straight towards the end of his life, (and regardless of what Allen Ginsburg said at the trial) while he was writing those books, that was his intent. (And, as it happens, men can indeed ejaculate with a strangulation trigger. Vaughan Bodè killed himself that way, sadly.)

Here are two for you; John MacDonald, who wrote the "Travis McGee" stories. Travis was a cool dude, lived on a housboat, loved women, respected them, was comfortable with strong, handy, butch types as wells as sleek, intelligent business women, and sweet femmies. Truly a liberated man in his day!

But-- Women didn't much survive adventuring with Travis. The death toll was remarkable. That was a rather typical trope of those 007 days, after all. But I had my own epiphany about the writer when I read one book where one woman was tortured, and raped by a guy who could force her to orgasm, over and over. She killed herself-- the second woman this happened to didn't, but was desperately damaged. She healed up, though-- Travis took her aboard the house boat, and let her be, day after day, until she one morning came--no, crawled-- to him and laid her tearful face in his lap... And I understood that, as sweet and kind and Woman-positive as McGee was, his Author had gotten into the habit of torturing and killing women. I do Not mean to imply that he actually advocated doing so, but it was sloppy writing, and a rather disgusting literary habit. I couldn't trust ol' Trav any longer-- his author was lying.

And the other example for you is my adored Robert Heinlein. You ask anyone who has read the Lazarus Long series-- You can SEE him beating his meat at least once per chapter. His character is fucking his daughter, she and the son are fucking, he goes back in time and begets himself on his mother--- one truly happy family, and I say that with no sarcasm. Heinlein really believed that incest could be a joyful, family activity.

my view is very simple. they're fantasies written to get guys off. the authors cater to that fantasy. most of the authors, and i include myself here, since i wrote one, do NOT wish to glorify or promote incest. so they say. are they lying? according to your approach, maybe they/we are.

Dude, If I get off on a non-con story, it has to follow that the story sold me-- if only for a moment-- that non-con is worth going through for the sake of the payoff.

If you write an incest story, and it's sexy, and guys are reading it and getting off, and you do not wish to celebrate incest-- Then you have lied, for the purposes of that story.
And, it's true, that brings up a very valid point, and that there are always exceptions to every rule. I don't mind lying in that same way, although I'm not sure if I ever have, simply because I only write what I want to... On the other hand, Incest does not strike me as particularly immoral, believe it or not, in these days of Birth control. (or maybe it's because of those Heinlein books I read at an impressionable age

there are just too many "exceptions" for there to be any rule here; it's just too simple to say "character flourishing" implies glorification or advocacy. "character harmed or killed" implies condemnation of his/her acts.

It depends on whether or not the character flourishes because of the acts-- Connie does. Fucking the gardener was GOOD for her.

sher's position and yours is like the judge who said, "I know pornography when i see it." sounds great, til you realize he may well have been referring to 'lady chatterly's lover.' the intuitive or 'gut' approach here, recommended by sher and doc and apparently you, is, IMHO, bankrupt, as the string of court cases--and later reversals-- attests.

THE JUDGE WAS RIGHT! He knew what he was seeing. He judged it according to the standards of the times. These standards have changed-- drastically. But, in his day, LC'sL offered an undesirable message. AND HE KNEW IT.

It might happen, that, in one hundred years, or maybe only ten years from now, child sex will be deemed to be less objectionable. If and when that happens, there will be a new set of standards to take into consideration. That sounds disgusting and shocking and unthinkable, right? It does to me too. But-- our mores would be every bit as disgusting shocking and unthinkable, to that judge back in 1928.

(and don't forget, please-- many places have never reversed the decision.)

 

[Pure]

hi ms.

you said, Women on the other hand if truly raped will not "get off" period. So how does this site promote "rape" when in the story both characters come and as a rule the "victim" must enjoy it or the censors will not let it pass.

P: i partially see your point. the routine "nonconsent" story of assault and then (the woman's) ecstasy does not correspond to rape in the real world. so lit's nonconsent stories are just flights of fancy, like stories of travel to Alpha Centauri, and don't promote anything.

BUT as to the invariable truth of women's 'not getting off' [coming]during a rape, i don't think it's always true, at least in the physiological sense (iow, all the phsiological signs of arousal and orgasm might be there). certain rubbings and lickings, for women as well as men, may do the trick. some posters here in AH have recounted such experiences.

you might be saying, however, that if a man assualts a women who initially resists, *and then gets into it, cooperates, and comes*, then there is no rape. this is a legal gray area, though i agree she might not be inclined to report it, if it was a date she knew.

in courts, the reverse case is not rare, and has been decided: if the woman initially cooperates, then changes her mind and says stop and resists; and the man, forcefully overcoming her resistance, continues. that has generally been held to be rape. (her coming, if it happened, would be irrelevant).

 

[ms.read]

Thank you Pure for being so informative. I appreciate it immensely.

To the others out there reading the incest rape and bestiality stories.... just because it's out there doesn't mean you have to read it or act on it.

And for others reading the material and getting off on the material instead of a real victim, is a price I am willing to pay any day.

And for the bitch and moaners that complain why is it out there blah blah blah... it makes people do that stuff.... you're just so against it because its secretly something you desire whether you admit it or not. (psychology 101)

"What you resists, persists" - Carl Jung.

 

[Pure]

question for stella.

now i haven't read the books, but.

And the other example for you is my adored Robert Heinlein. You ask anyone who has read the Lazarus Long series-- You can SEE him beating his meat at least once per chapter. His character is fucking his daughter, she and the son are fucking, he goes back in time and begets himself on his mother--- one truly happy family, and I say that with no sarcasm. Heinlein really believed that incest could be a joyful, family activity.

i really would like to see the evidence for this. external to the text. to use the text as evidence is prejudging the matter.

secondly, i wiil concede that H may have been able to fantasize a world of time travel, happy and permitted incest, etc.--since one runs into one's mom when she's a hot teen. this would NOT necessarily mean that H, in person, talking about US society of his day, held that incest as it actually occurred was generally a 'joyful family activity.' i would like to see your evidence other than your "vision" of him masturbating while writing the passages.

 

[shereads]

well, sher, if i've put you in bed with the censors (because of your arguments), and that's unfair, equally unfair is your repeated attempt to say, i'm trying to dictate your reading or tastes.

Should we denounce our personal standards and agree to read porn indiscriminately?

i think offering a couple examples for discussion is hardly an imposition. and i think you should read and get off on whatever you please!

further you're turning the positions topsy turvy: from the beginning doc and you started with something *beyond personal*, as in "i don't see the reason for this" "how could it get you off.?

and no answer was acceptable. (as you stated, on the other side, 'whys' for perversions are silly to get into).

now suddently you and doc are all for personal tastes, subjective standards, etc. (stella's consistent position).

i remind you of your recent statement:

sher A porn writer lies when he seeks to rationalize his craving for sex with children, or to glorify torture, or to promote the idea that women deserve to be raped.

this is an objective statement: it does NOT say, "what to me glorifies rape, may not for you; and indeed i have no problem with your writing and getting off on material that 'to me' glorifies rape."

Well holy christ. Pardon me for stating what I believe without couching it in language that concedes the relative unimportance of my beliefs in the greater scheme of things. I thought it went without saying.

Have I threatened your rights? No. Have I insulted your taste? Apparently. But as you pointed out, the word "disgusting" is in the thread title for a reason. If someone is disgusted, something must be deemed disgusting.

Or - as I am advised to say by the communications lawyer I will now keep on retainer for just this sort of challenge - "If someone, but admittedly not everone, expresses disgust, whether or not with justification, then it might be inferred that the disgust has been triggered, intentionally or inadvertently, by one or more statements, descriptions, expressed preferences..." Etcetera. Who has the time?

For what it's worth - and I concede that it's worth nothing to you, and very little to me - I do have a problem with you getting off on material that glorifies rape - or even material that doesn't glorify rape. And here's the problem: your AV. It's starting to give me the willies.

That said, it's my problem and not yours. I wouldn't presume to make it any other way.

 

[Pure]

Well holy christ. Pardon me for stating what I believe without couching it in language that concedes the relative unimportance of my beliefs in the greater scheme of things. I thought it went without saying.

Have I threatened your rights? No. Have I insulted your taste? Apparently. But as you pointed out, the word "disgusting" is in the thread title for a reason. If someone is disgusted, something must be deemed disgusting.

Or - as I am advised to say by the communications lawyer I will now keep on retainer for just this sort of challenge - "If someone, but admittedly not everone, expresses disgust, whether or not with justification, then it might be inferred that the disgust has been triggered, intentionally or inadvertently, by one or more statements, descriptions, expressed preferences..." Etcetera. Who has the time?

For what it's worth - and I concede that it's worth nothing to you, and very little to me - I do have a problem with you getting off on material that glorifies rape - or even material that doesn't glorify rape. And here's the problem: your AV. It's starting to give me the willies.

That said, it's my problem and not yours. I wouldn't presume to make it any other way.

thank you for confirming and illustrating my point. my tastes, as you construct them, are objectionable to you. of course you have hardly any evidence on my tastes, but that doesn't get in your way.

the issue of which material "glorifies" rape, incest, or whatever, is apparently of less interest that your take on character issues.

and a few others: i wonder what an AV of a gymnast has to do with anything? do feel free to air your beefs here. are my semicolons too frequent?

 

[shereads]

Well holy christ. Pardon me for stating what I believe without couching it in language that concedes the relative unimportance of my beliefs in the greater scheme of things. I thought it went without saying.

Have I threatened your rights? No. Have I insulted your taste? Apparently. But as you pointed out, the word "disgusting" is in the thread title for a reason. If someone is disgusted, something must be deemed disgusting.

Or - as I am advised to say by the communications lawyer I will now keep on retainer for just this sort of challenge - "If someone, but admittedly not everone, expresses disgust, whether or not with justification, then it might be inferred that the disgust has been triggered, intentionally or inadvertently, by one or more statements, descriptions, expressed preferences..." Etcetera. Who has the time?

For what it's worth - and I concede that it's worth nothing to you, and very little to me - I do have a problem with you getting off on material that glorifies rape - or even material that doesn't glorify rape. And here's the problem: your AV. It's starting to give me the willies.

That said, it's my problem and not yours. I wouldn't presume to make it any other way.

thank you for confirming and illustrating my point. my tastes, as you construct them, are objectionable to you. of course you have hardly any evidence on my tastes, but that doesn't get in your way.

the issue of which material "glorifies" rape, incest, or whatever, is apparently of less interest that your take on character issues.

and a few others: i wonder what an AV of a gymnast has to do with anything? do feel free to air your beefs here. are my semicolons too frequent?

Zzzzz...Say goodnight, Gracie.

 

[Stella_Omega]

now i haven't read the books, but.

And the other example for you is my adored Robert Heinlein. You ask anyone who has read the Lazarus Long series-- You can SEE him beating his meat at least once per chapter. His character is fucking his daughter, she and the son are fucking, he goes back in time and begets himself on his mother--- one truly happy family, and I say that with no sarcasm. Heinlein really believed that incest could be a joyful, family activity.

I really would like to see the evidence for this. external to the text. to use the text as evidence is prejudging the matter.

On the contrary. Would you say that a smile on your friend's face cannot be construed as proof that she is happy to see you?. Do you think that I have no idea of any aspect of your personality, because I only speak to you via the written word? I know very little about your real life, but I know a bit about the way you approach the world.

secondly, i wiil concede that H may have been able to fantasize a world of time travel, happy and permitted incest, etc.--since one runs into one's mom when she's a hot teen. this would NOT necessarily mean that H, in person, talking about US society of his day, held that incest as it actually occurred was generally a 'joyful family activity.'...

I said-- he felt that incest COULD BE a possibility. And he makes that very clear in those last books. Heinlein is a rather didactic writer, and he wrote... fuck, I tried to find a number, and i can't; at least fifty novels, and I don't know how many shorts. I've read, ooh.. twenty or so, I think. he exhibits a consistant viewpoint from the beginning to the end; according to the Wikipedia biography;

The first novel that Heinlein wrote, For Us, The Living: A Comedy of Customs (1939), did not see print during his lifetime, but Robert James later tracked down the manuscript and it was published in 2003. Widely regarded as a failure as a novel,[5] being little more than a disguised lecture on Heinlein's social theories, it is intriguing as a window into the development of Heinlein's radical ideas about man as a social animal, including his interest in free love. The root of many themes found in his later stories can be found in this book. It also contained much material that could be considered background for his other novels, including a detailed description of the protagonist's treatment to avoid being forced to enter Coventry.

It appears that Heinlein at least attempted to live in a manner consistent with these ideals, even in the 1930s, and had an open relationship in his marriage to his second wife, Leslyn. He was also a nudist;[3] nudism and body taboos are frequently discussed in his work. At the height of the cold war, he built a bomb shelter under his house, like the one featured in Farnham's Freehold....[3

i would like to see your evidence other than your "vision" of him masturbating while writing the passages.

I'm sorry, I can't do that- some things are confidential. Unless you have enough money.

 

[Stella_Omega]

thank you for confirming and illustrating my point. my tastes, as you construct them, are objectionable to you. of course you have hardly any evidence on my tastes, but that doesn't get in your way.

Offer some evidence of your tastes, then. All anyone can go on, is what we see. You have not been forthcoming in this discussion; I have offered very specific and personal examples, that could, possibly be embarrassing to me (although I am not bothered by such) that's fine. But you can't hide your preferences and then get upset because no one knows them-- or that they make wrong guesses.

the issue of which material "glorifies" rape, incest, or whatever, is apparently of less interest that your take on character issues.

She-- and I-- seem to share an opinion, which is that the material can often shed light on the character of its writer. If the writer finds that his character is being misread-- he or she might wish to take steps to correct the misapprehension. Well-known writers do this by means of interviews-- amateurs such as us, talk to each other on forums.

 

[Pure]

stella,
thanks for digging a bit on heinlein. it appears he may have believed in or practiced 'free love'

as to your statement
SOHeinlein really believed that incest could be a joyful, family activity.

P: and your clarification,


SO I said-- he felt that incest COULD BE a possibility.

P: it appears that may not be different from what i said, that he could fantasize a setting where incest would be great; possibly a US far in the future.

it appears there is a lot of non-fiction material attesting to heinlein's beliefs and social theories.

my position would be that you could not be very certain about them from the fiction books alone. as i've stated, 'fantasy' stories may well leave the author's position unclear, and examining who thrives and who's 'offed' may offer clues, but, IMO, that's about it.

as i've said, the numerous incest stories at Lit do not, for me, indicate very well that the authors or readers 'glorify' incest, i.e. think it's a fine thing they and others should try. this, despite how well the fucked sons and daughters seem to do, in the stories.

perhaps this topic is exhausted.

 

[shereads]

To the others out there reading the incest rape and bestiality stories.... just because it's out there doesn't mean you have to read it or act on it.

We don't?

< !!! >

Who'd like to buy a trained horse? I'll throw in a cattle prod, some leg irons and twin boys.

 

[Stella_Omega]

my position would be that you could not be very certain about them from the fiction books alone. as i've stated, 'fantasy' stories may well leave the author's position unclear, and examining who thrives and who's 'offed' may offer clues, but, IMO, that's about it.

My position is that a reader has no choice but to take a book's message at face value; and that a successful writer-- not in the monetary sense-- will offer exactly the message he or she wants the reader to have.
It's all very well for the writer to say; "I know my murderer enjoyed killing, and thrived and lived happily on the proceeds of his murders, but I do not intend to glorify or celebrate murder." but-- that has to be a lie, for all practical purposes, as far as that book is concerned.
Furthermore, I don't think I can possibly read any work without seeing the writer within it. I can't help but evaluate skill level, his skill strengths, and the prejudices and beliefs that often show in the most basic assumptions of the story. And I know that a really good writer can assume basic assumptions for the story-- One would take that into account.

David Seadaris is a popular author right now. I doo not like him-- and the reason I don't like him is that he consistently belittles his characters, puts them into situations where they are both helpless and too stupid to know that they are helpless. I mean-- literally too stupid. and it's a class thing, for him. I noticed it in "The Santa Clause Diaries" where the only people that he speaks of in any human way-- are the upper- middle- class parents of the children that visit Macy's. When, in his stories, he himself is broke, or low on money, he speaks of himself with loathing.

as i've said, the numerous incest stories at Lit do not, for me, indicate very well that the authors or readers 'glorify' incest, i.e. think it's a fine thing they and others should try. this, despite how well the fucked sons and daughters seem to do, in the stories.

perhaps this topic is exhausted.

What else does "Glorify" mean to you? Is there a different word we can use here? How can a story where a daughter is happier than she's ever been in her life-- mean anything else? Yes, it is probably only in a fantasy setting-- but the message isn't any different for that reason.


This is why-- as I said-- I find, for my own sake, for my own conscience-- that I cannot write a story that looks like non-con and then turns out to be negotiated-- afterwards. I start with the negotiation. That's my message. I glorify sexual communication.

 

[shereads]

What else does "Glorify" mean to you? Is there a different word we can use here?

Pandering.



And I agree about Seadaris. That makes you and me an army of two.

 

[Pure]

stella: What else does "Glorify" mean to you? Is there a different word we can use here?




Sher: Pandering.

Not a bad word, and perhaps more accurate. Applied to the Lit incest stories, we say the authors pander to a fantasy.

From which it follows that the authors do not necessarily approve of the fantasy, view it as healthy, or promote its enactment. They simply "cash in."

 

[Stella_Omega]

"pandering," excellent word, yes. But I want to address this;

my position would be that you could not be very certain about them from the fiction books alone. as i've stated, 'fantasy' stories may well leave the author's position unclear, and examining who thrives and who's 'offed' may offer clues, but, IMO, that's about it.

My position is that a reader has no choice but to take a book's message at face value; and that a successful writer-- not in the monetary sense-- will offer exactly the message he or she wants the reader to have.
It's all very well for the writer to say; "I know my murderer enjoyed killing, and thrived and lived happily on the proceeds of his murders, but I do not intend to glorify or celebrate murder." but-- that has to be a lie, for all practical purposes, as far as that book is concerned.
Furthermore, I don't think I can possibly read any work without seeing the writer within it. I can't help but evaluate skill level, his skill strengths, and the prejudices and beliefs that often show in the most basic assumptions of the story. And I know that a really good writer can assume basic assumptions for the story-- One would take that into account.

 

[shereads]

Furthermore, I don't think I can possibly read any work without seeing the writer within it. I can't help but evaluate skill level, his skill strengths, and the prejudices and beliefs that often show in the most basic assumptions of the story. .

That's one of the reasons I can't read or watch brutality-based entertainment, even if it's well written - or maybe especially if it's well written. Writing a "Silence of the Lambs" entails thinking through those tortures, envisioning them in detail, even embracing them. My visceral reaction has less to do with the acts themselves, which I recognize aren't real - at least in that instance - than with the act of creation: someone chose to create this horror and live in it, long enough to put it into words. There's an almost gleeful fascination with the macabre, on behalf of some artists and their audiences, that has turned my stomach since I got my first glimpse of "House of Wax." Tongue in cheek? Didn't matter. That's the thing with a visceral response.

I may admire an author's ability to manipulate an audience and sell his work, but I can't help being repulsed by what he invited into his mind in order to do it. It's not like reading a non-fiction account of something equally gruesome, like "Under the Banner of Heaven." When a journalist like Krakauer explores horror, he doesn't create horror. He's a guide to what already exists in the darkness.

When it comes to non-empathetic sex scenes in porn: can a writer pander to his readers' fascination with sex acts in which he has no personal interest? Can he immerse a character in feces without getting his mental gloves dirty? Probably, if his readers don't demand credibility. The more believable the sex scene, the more difficult it becomes to think the author wasn't immersed in it, body and soul.

At a free story site like Literotica, why pander at all? It would be like pimping for free.

 

[NoJo]

Shereads loves this thread. She can't get enough of it