Am I really the only person who finds

[Bacchaewiththegoodhair]

That approach at least makes it a question of the individual's history and psychology. And you're not the first NC/R writer who has talked to me recently of that same observation and something of a similar solution - at least in the sense of making it based in individual characters rather than putative innate gendered qualities in relation to NC/R experience.

In many stories, it often comes across as based on The Secret Truth Of All Women.

Now I've got nothing against science fiction per se, but it's like everyone is writing the exact same parallel universe. Like the period where more than half of horror movies were based on virtually identical zombie apocalypses.

Except it's all stories organised around the functionally identical myths about women, which is why I start to think it must reflect shared qualities of the sexual fantasies being invoked by a significant stratum of (very much mostly) guys writing for the NC/R section.

Yeah I would be shocked if authors who write with this framing were women in any significant numbers. If they are, I would say that they were likely young women who have curated their sexual desires solely using those stories.

"The Secret Truth of All Women" made me lol.

Generally, I think it just comes from a fundamental misunderstanding of why women have NC/R fantasies in the first place. Obviously it will vary across different women, but it's never because she was just waiting for The Right Guy to show her what she really needed. I think its easier for that stratum you mentioned to think that all women would like what they want to do to them, rather than grapple with what those fantasies might mean about their own psyche or morality.

 

[AngelaSaxon]

You openly contradicted yourself, now when called on it, you try to backpedal, claiming that you are being ironic or sarcastic.

Claiming sarcasm or irony is like trying to use a get out of jail free card. None of your other posts have indicated that you are anything but serious about your critiques.

Seriously?

That was me being polite - I thought the format of the joke, using the exact same phrases and words in direct contradiction literally immediately following their first use, was so obviously not serious that no-one with anything like conventional reading comprehension skills could possibly miss it.

Is there some reason why an emotional response on your part might be overwhelming your capacity to read and understand the meaning and intent of what is written by someone you've decided is an opponent?

Edit:
The ideas, form and content of erotic literature and erotic fantasy vary significantly between societies and throughout history, and my being struck by the rise of 'hucow' fiction, I'd suggest, and even my making that really-really-obviously-a-joke only seems odd or inflammatory, I'd suggest, from perspective found within fairly small portions of the world.

Unless The Secret Truth Of Men really does involves wanting to treat me as a dairy cow. Sounds a bit Project 2025 if I'm honest.

Did you know that the complimentary comparison of a woman's thighs to the trunks of an elephant was very frequent in Indian erotic literature in certain historical periods, according to E. Müller in the April 1910 issue of The Journal of the Royal Asiatic Society of Great Britain and Ireland?

 

[AngelaSaxon]

Almost fifty years ago, two complete legends, Candice A. Osborn and Robert H. Pollack, published a study of 'The Effects of Two Types of Erotic Literature on Physiological and Verbal Measures of Female Sexual Arousal', in the November 1977 issue of The Journal of Sex Research.

With a dozen female graduate student volunteers as subjects, Osborn and Pollack did what I think we all would have liked to do...

They split the volunteers into two groups and made them look at what the study's authors viewed as either 'realistic erotic literature', or 'hardcore pornographic stories'.

The results involved self-reporting about their personal and physiological responses, but also involved using a vaginal photoplethysmograph, a device that measures blood in the vaginal walls i.e. a measure of arousal response. Specifically measuring both total blood volume in vaginal walls and the vaginal pressure pulse, reflecting pressure change within the blood vessels of the vaginal wall associated with each heartbeat. Which is to say, heart-pounding excitement.

Previous techniques measuring responses couldn't differentiate between arousal and purely horrified disgust, for example - heart beat and blood pressure measurement, for instance.

And of course these researchers also asked the volunteers how the stories made them feel and how they experienced any physiological responses, because why would anyone miss a chance to have a dozen female grad students discuss such things at length and in great detail? I mean, obviously.

Decades earlier Kinsey and others had concluded that women were more aroused by 'romantic' literature, men by more explicitly pornographic writing.

In 1977, this study, with the addition of direct measurement of physiological responses, unambiguously found that, like the men, women found explicit pornographic writing more directly arousing.

Both types of erotic literature flooded the vaginal walls, but the 'hardcore', more explicit and strictly pornographic stories scored much higher on the aforementioned heart-pounding excitement.

This was partially replicating and generally confirming a 1965 study which contradicted Kinsey's findings and also found that, despite opposing prior claims by researchers, women in general didn't need an apparatus of 'romance' to find explicit sexual writing exciting.

"Heiman (1975, 1977) found that erotic and erotic-romantic contents were equally effective in producing sexual arousal in females. She concluded that romantic elements per se are not crucial for sexual arousal, as did Schmidt et al. (1973). The findings of the present study add further support to this contention and, moreover, suggest that the crucial element is the explicitness of the sexual material rather than the presence or absence of romantic aspects which affects the level of sexual arousal elicited in women."

There are definitely questions of category slippage between realistic and romantic, and also questions about the socio-historical specificity of how the researchers understood all of these categories, but nonetheless.

So, were previous studies projecting their own gendered assumptions about sexual response, or did female tastes change with general social mores, or a bit of both?

This 1977 study didn't include all of the stories in an appendix and I do think that was scientifically irresponsible and personally disappointing.

Incidentally, a then very recent study had specifically measured arousal responses to look at the question of 'romance' in the responses of women to different forms of erotic literature, but instead of reading had them listening to taped stories while their physiological responses were measured by the same instruments as in this study. The audio section, decades before its time.

 

[alohadave]

I thought the format of the joke, using the exact same phrases and words in direct contradiction literally immediately following their first use, was so obviously not serious that no-one with anything like conventional reading comprehension skills could possibly miss it.

You thought wrong.

 

[AngelaSaxon]

Ok we've scientifically established female sexual response to hardcore erotic literature. But the purpose here is to generate a theory of nonconsent-themed erotic literature, so...

Obviously if you want to examine the historical origins of nonconsent-themed erotic literature, you'll be looking where we all go when we're looking to get off: academic journals dedicated to classical philology.

Let's consider Arthur Leslie Wheeler's 'Erotic Teaching in Roman Elegy and the Greek Sources. Part II', in the January 1911 issue of Classical Philology, a painfully respectable journal.

Here is where we'll learn about the "erotic system of antiquity" and it's relation to violence, specifically in Greek and Roman literature.

Much of this takes the form of supposed sexual principles, or "precepts".

"Indifference begets love", for example. Inspiring jealousy - "arousing jealousy with conscious purpose" - as well as "fear of a rival", in a context where anger was specifically taken as evidence of "passion".

In Greek and Roman literature, "the anger - often violence - of the loved one indicates her (his) passion".

So "indifference" was a "feminine" method of dealing with - indeed "punishing" - a wayward man, later extended for male use, but also connected to an explicit discourse on resultingly abused women, as we shall see - I'm not simply projecting here I promise.

Because as we learn: "Strenuous indeed was love in ancient times."

We're just getting started I promise...

 

[AngelaSaxon]

So, a brief interlude to discuss a couple of dental themes relevant in particular ways to the NC/F fiction we're dedicated to exploring.

So, male on female oral sex.

Women, it turns out, usually have teeth.

Maybe staunchly heterosexual men don't fully grasp this, but blowing a guy, even letting a guy fuck your mouth, involves work, including the not-particularly-comfortable work of keeping your teeth away from his penis.

That's not automatic, though give enough head and it can develop a quasi-muscle-memory quality.

Even if his penis isn't particularly big or especially fat - we can very slowly twist the lids off of those cans of worms at another time - oral sex involves actively keeping your mouth open wider than you otherwise ever hold it open, keeping the bottom and top rows of your teeth further away from each other than you generally have any reason to do.

And the wider you have to keep your mouth this far open, yes, the faster it becomes uncomfortable, and the more uncomfortable it soon becomes when that discomfort begins.

Relaxing the muscles involved, just letting them do whatever they'd do if you aren't actively using muscles to force those rows of teeth apart, guarantees he will shortly discover what an intimate connection between dick and teeth can really feel like.

I've watched a few videos in which a woman is pretending to be asleep, passed out or for some reason unconscious, while a guy or guys takes advantage of the situation to fuck her in any way he or they wish.

In every case at some point some guy started fucking her mouth.

Obviously she wasn't actively blowing him because she was too busy pretending to be unconscious. But he fucks her face regardless.

In every case, this was easily the least convincing part of the video, especially the moment when he's first trying to stick his penis in her mouth.

Because of the reality that in almost every situation involving actual sleeping, even if the woman for some reason doesn't wake, he'd have to actively hold her face in a way designed to keep her mouth open enough for this to happen. Resting sleep face doesn't usually have your mouth wide open in an ongoing way.

In all three videos, despite an effort to subtly get around the problem, you could very much tell that at the crucial moment she actively used the muscles of her jaw to assist efforts to keep her mouth open enough for his dick to slide inside her mouth. And then anyone who's spent any time actually blowing a guy will recognise that she's working inside her mouth, where the camera can't properly see; she's putting in efforts to keep her teeth as far apart as is necessary, to make things possible, in a way that people who are not conscious rarely do. She's certainly not just lying there doing nothing.

In literary erotica, teeth are also an oral sex problem, though not an insoluble one, and in some ways particularly a problem for much of NC/R fiction.

Some stories construct explanations for why a woman coerced into performing oral sex works to keep her teeth further apart, or at least why she doesn't use that same strength to bring her upper and lower teeth together. Mostly explanations involving imagined or threatened consequences she'd directly experience if she did - other guys there who'd impose vengeance, or being tied up where she can't get free and no-one will find her, etcetera.

But more often it's either the rapist saying "don't bite or I'll be angry!" - a threat that comes across as somewhat unconvincing because of the ways we'd anticipate a guy behaving who is at that moment suddenly screaming while watching himself bleed out from half of a severed dick.

Or if not that... it's like teeth don't exist!

I'm not sure how conscious the male authors are about doing this, but it reminds me of how television has historically treated the existence of abortion.

For decades, mainstream television adhered to very strict rules about what they were permitted to show, and about what audiences were permitted to hear, about the termination of pregnancies.

In an ongoing US series, whether sit-comedy or drama or both or something else, a woman could definitely have an unplanned pregnancy, but could only react within clearly delineated boundaries.

She could react to discovering the pregnancy by being worried, anxious, scared, even at a stretch in her initial response maybe wishing she hadn't become pregnant. But by the end she must have adjusted and be accepting and embracing the pregnancy.

And during any discussions about the pregnancy and what she might want to do, she should never use the word 'abortion' - preferably the entire sequence from discovery to acceptance shouldn't acknowledge that abortion exists as a possibility.

Even years following the end of the formal machinery of censoring-TV-in-advance, you'd have to look pretty far and hard to find a TV show in which a woman gets an abortion as a significant but ultimately normal thing to do. Or at all, really.

Women's teeth are the abortions of NC/R erotic literature.

Actually sometimes abortions are also the abortions of NC/R erotic literature.

 

[AlinaX]

I think, at our core, regardless of gender, we react to sexual imagery because imagination and reality are linked in the mind. One provokes the other.

Everything else is an overlay forged by society. Patriarchy teaches women to know their place in the social hierarchy, to be pure and chaste except in private with their husbands. To accept a lack of agency. There are so many rules to follow to achieve the simple award of respect.

Our romantic and sexual selves are distinct things, although most people do not perceive the distinction. Society with its simple rigidity demands that sexuality is subservient to romance, that who we love is also who we desire. This is not necessarily the case - although certainly it can be.

Romantic fantasies, therefore, act as a permission. To be swept off our feet by a hero who will marry us, etc., or to be carried away by a rogue who will use us as we wish despite our earnest objections. Society says its wrong for women to crave sex and seek out explicit imagery, but romance is harmless. One can indulge in fantasies of sexual passion while maintaining a veneer of social correctness.

Non-con erotica, on the other hand... Let us be clear: There are two fundamentally different types.

One is the fantasy of power. Someone who is too often powerless and sexually rejected in real life writes/reads erotic fantasies of having power over others. Very often there is a sneering contempt for the victims of this lustful power. Regardless of whether there is mutual enjoyment written, these are at their core a celebration of rape.

The other is the fantasy of being powerless. Sometimes this is just as a permission, a romantic fantasy without the romance. But it can be many other things too.

 

[AngelaSaxon]

One is the fantasy of power. Someone who is too often powerless and sexually rejected in real life writes/reads erotic fantasies of having power over others. Very often there is a sneering contempt for the victims of this lustful power. Regardless of whether there is mutual enjoyment written, these are at their core a celebration of rape.

The sneering contempt is certainly very common (though also far from universal) and the ways such contempt is expressed are so unchanging in such stories that they seem very much ritualised, like misogyny spells being cast by characters, or by authors, take your pick.

The glacial shift from the days when NC erotic fiction had rapists calling their victims "hussies" or "loose women", to the present when bizarrely it still apparently makes sense to someone to call people "sluts" and such...

I'm actually writing a story for the NC/R section at the moment in which the perpetrator briefly considers but doesn't go down the familiar path of calling the woman he attacks a "slut" and a "whore" - following the ritual necessary to cast the misogyny spell, this would have been when her vagina lubricated of course.

He doesn't do this most immediately because he recognises that using such terms in a pejorative way can only be based on an understanding of gender and sexuality so far from how his victim understands and experiences the world that they wouldn't even count as insults, and more generally because, as he puts it, "I'm a rapist, not a bigot".

 

[StillStunned]

The glacial shift from the days when NC erotic fiction had rapists calling their victims "hussies" or "loose women", to the present when bizarrely it still apparently makes sense to someone to call people "sluts" and such...

I always wonder at porn videos with titles like "Slut fucks her husband in their bedroom." Surely that's pretty much the opposite behaviour?

 

[AngelaSaxon]

I always wonder at porn videos with titles like "Slut fucks her husband in their bedroom." Surely that's pretty much the opposite behaviour?

In the NC/R section it's almost compulsory in certain kinds of story for women who are sexually assaulted in the course of everyday life to be called sluts and whores - I think the implication, again, is often that this is their secret shameful nature, often revealed by them 'enjoying' being raped and such, but also quite often it feels as if it's supposed to be The Secret Truth Of All Women, which one might think would take the sting out of an insult but depending on the level of misogyny involved...

Historically, according to authoritative accounts, men really were just so easily influenced by loose women and tempters, so one can certainly understand all those NC/R stories here about women choosing to "tease" men and then, when men understandably get angry about all the "prick-teasing", such women "getting theirs"...

Attached is an excerpt from a summary of a paper William Acton read at the Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society on 14 February 1860, on 'The Rarity and Mildness of Syphilis Amongst the Belgian Troops Quartered at Brussels as Compared With Its Prevalence and Severity Amongst the Foot Guards in London'.

The summary appeared in the 25 February 1860 issue of The British Medical Journal, which still exists and is one of the oldest and most reputable medical journals in the UK.

 

[StillStunned]

Attached is an excerpt from a summary of a paper William Acton read at the Royal Medical and Chirurgical Society on 14 February 1860, on 'The Rarity and Mildness of Syphilis Amongst the Belgian Troops Quartered at Brussels as Compared With Its Prevalence and Severity Amongst the Foot Guards in London'.

"[A] dozen infected prostitutes": but no questions about who infected them in the first place?

It seems to be a very circular argument: women are seductively stronger, but men physically. So men can allow themselves to be seduced - and presumably enjoy it - which justifies them using force on women.

 

[AngelaSaxon]

"[A] dozen infected prostitutes": but no questions about who infected them in the first place?

It seems to be a very circular argument: women are seductively stronger, but men physically. So men can allow themselves to be seduced - and presumably enjoy it - which justifies them using force on women.

In the 24 September 1864 issue of the same publication, The British Medical Journal, it was reported that:

"At Malta venereal disease was reduced more than half, owing to the adoption of a system of police surveillance of the loose women."

No further comment was made or apparently required.

In the longer term these were centrally issues related to the British navy travelling the world contracting and spreading diseases, and with the development of the capacities of the modern state to build more ambitious bureaucratic-medical processes to manage and ameliorate the consequences they most wish to address, via means such as the Contagious Diseases Act. To get some sense of this context over a decade later, another excerpt, this time from the 1 November 1873 issue of The British Medical Journal.

 

[AngelaSaxon]

In the 24 September 1864 issue of the same publication, The British Medical Journal, it was reported that:

"At Malta venereal disease was reduced more than half, owing to the adoption of a system of police surveillance of the loose women."

No further comment was made or apparently required.

In the longer term these were centrally issues related to the British navy travelling the world contracting and spreading diseases, and with the development of the capacities of the modern state to build more ambitious bureaucratic-medical processes to manage and ameliorate the consequences they most wish to address, via means such as the Contagious Diseases Act. To get some sense of this context over a decade later, another excerpt, this time from the 1 November 1873 issue of The British Medical Journal.

I feel like I could write an almost infinite amount about how attitudes to especially "lower class" women were reflected in and institutionalized by the Contagious Diseases Act in the late 19th century, and about the ways that parallel assumptions and ideas inform erotic literature to this day and NC/R stories in particular ways... but maybe not...

Nonetheless, three years after that 1873 report, one very prominent doctor, Frederick Walter Lowndes, Surgeon to the Liverpool Police, published an influential pamphlet arguing for the extension of the Act to other cities with active seaports, such as, well, Liverpool.

Amongst the benefits the Act had demonstrated, he wrote:

"A considerable number of abandoned women have been reclaimed and restored to respectable life, and in many instances married", and "The number of loose women has been greatly reduced and those who remain have been rendered more decent and decorous in appearance and conduct".

 

[HopefulDaddy]

I'm irritated, in a similar vein, how the male perspective in these stories is far more often in a dominant role. I prefer aggressive sexual partners and I prefer women. That places me a bit outside the obvious norm and I struggle with finding women who fit the bill because I often have to act dominant for then to notice me.
Social norms in the U.S. in particular set us all up for failure, demanding we lie outright until we are in so deep that the truth comes across as a betrayal. How often do we just spell it all out in painful detail and frightened off the interesting party?

 

[AngelaSaxon]

This is an excerpt from a summary of Indian newspaper articles prepared by British colonial authorities covering 12 April 1884.

 

[AngelaSaxon]

The British Medical Journal again, discussing problems with pregnancies, suspicions of abortion, and of course "loose women", in the 3 January 1885 issue.

 

[HopefulDaddy]

Naomi Wolf - Vagina: A New Biography

Wolf discusses a perspective where societies intentionally sexyally assault the women of other societies in order to control and dominate. Good read, though her perspective is a little new agey. She also doesn't cite as well as I'd like. Still, it's thought provoking.

 

[beliefofmine]

I'm going to start by saying I didn't read all 7 pages of comments, but was referred to this post in relation to a post of my own. I think you bring up good points of what not to do. But do you have examples of what to do? It feels like a conundrum writing something that is realistic and within the rules, and doesn't follow the typical tropes.

My personal opinion is not everyone is looking for something realistic. And not everyone is trying to write for everyone.

 

[WCSGarland]

I'm going to start by saying I didn't read all 7 pages of comments, but was referred to this post in relation to a post of my own. I think you bring up good points of what not to do. But do you have examples of what to do? It feels like a conundrum writing something that is realistic and within the rules, and doesn't follow the typical tropes.

My personal opinion is not everyone is looking for something realistic. And not everyone is trying to write for everyone.

Well, you could always just try it and see if it gets published or rejected.

 

[NuclearFairy]

I always wonder at porn videos with titles like "Slut fucks her husband in their bedroom." Surely that's pretty much the opposite behaviour?

Well the definition of slut I'm most familiar with; is simply a woman who really enjoys sex and has no shame in her enjoyment of sex. So a woman could be married, and completely faithful, and still be a slut.

 

[English_guy_bkk]

Am I really the only person who finds all capacity to enjoy a story disappears the moment I get to the bit where someone writes the central female character as thinking:

"Ohmygod I'm being betrayed by my body, I'm getting wet against my will/when my ideas of my own sexuality say I shouldn't, am I a slut who wants to be dominated, who wants to obey this person growling manly instructions at me? I do! I am! I'm joyfully subservient and obedient!" etc...

I'd mention a particular story but in all honesty it feels like hundreds, and not in the BDSM section...

I know some women write broadly similar things, but I feel like the massive misinterpretation of the meaning of a vagina lubricating has to be a manifestation of something guys think or pretend to believe, surely?

I don't know, maybe it's a convenient short-hand in erotic writing, like implicitly pretending people don't have teeth whenever writing a blowjob scene.

But it feels closer to the ones that aren't just convenient for writing but convenient for fitting into particular... views.

Like some guy read that some women orgasm while being raped and ever since that's been a shorthand for whatever they wish - she loves being treated that way/discovers she's a sub, or proving a woman is a 'slut' (a creature more fictional than a futa) - and of course the orgasm forced upon a woman is always the most mind-blowing and sexuality-changing of her life. (Comparison with the actual experience of women who have had this happen would distinctly suggest otherwise but comparison would also be in bad taste. Like comparing superheroes getting powers from radiation to the actual experiences of people living around Hiroshima at the end of WW2...)

Anyway, like I say I didn't want to name a particular story for including that initial paragraph, but...am I the only one who is wrenched out of a story every time that paragraph appears?

Probably yes but bare with for a while to read

 

[WCSGarland]

Well the definition of slut I'm most familiar with; is simply a woman who really enjoys sex and has no shame in her enjoyment of sex. So a woman could be married, and completely faithful, and still be a slut.

That's not the dictionary definition of slut, a definition pretty much standardized since the 15th century to indicate a promiscuous person; someone with many sexual partners. Being married and completely faithful is the antithesis of slut.

 

[NuclearFairy]

That's not the dictionary definition of slut, a definition pretty much standardized since the 15th century to indicate a promiscuous person; someone with many sexual partners. Being married and completely faithful is the antithesis of slut.

Definitions change over time though, so it might be time for the dictionary to update.

For instance I was quite shocked to read an article recently about raw dogging to find out that it had nothing to do with having sex with out a condom.

 

[WCSGarland]

Raw dogging hasn't even made it's way into any of the standardized dictionaries, so it's no surprise that the slang meaning is rather fluid. That's not a great argument for changing the definition of slut in the dictionary.

 

[mirafrida]

So, a brief interlude to discuss a couple of dental themes relevant in particular ways to the NC/F fiction we're dedicated to exploring.

...

Some stories construct explanations for why a woman coerced into performing oral sex works to keep her teeth further apart, or at least why she doesn't use that same strength to bring her upper and lower teeth together. Mostly explanations involving imagined or threatened consequences she'd directly experience if she did - other guys there who'd impose vengeance, or being tied up where she can't get free and no-one will find her, etcetera.

But more often it's either the rapist saying "don't bite or I'll be angry!" - a threat that comes across as somewhat unconvincing because of the ways we'd anticipate a guy behaving who is at that moment suddenly screaming while watching himself bleed out from half of a severed dick.

Or if not that... it's like teeth don't exist!

To me this is somewhat on the same plane as the 'woman made into a slut' trope - there may be other issues at play, but at a minimum it's simply bad craftsmanship.

Like, when it comes to the characters, write them well, make them dimensional, respect them.

And similarly, in terms of plot and situation, take the circumstances seriously, be aware of them, edit your story to resolve problems, implausibilities, and inconsistencies. You may want a blowjob at a certain spot, but it's just not viable. Or else, you need to address the elephant in the room and create reasons why she would go along. That's writing 101.

For decades, mainstream television adhered to very strict rules about what they were permitted to show, and about what audiences were permitted to hear, about the termination of pregnancies.

In an ongoing US series, whether sit-comedy or drama or both or something else, a woman could definitely have an unplanned pregnancy, but could only react within clearly delineated boundaries.

She could react to discovering the pregnancy by being worried, anxious, scared, even at a stretch in her initial response maybe wishing she hadn't become pregnant. But by the end she must have adjusted and be accepting and embracing the pregnancy.

And during any discussions about the pregnancy and what she might want to do, she should never use the word 'abortion' - preferably the entire sequence from discovery to acceptance shouldn't acknowledge that abortion exists as a possibility.

If the writers didn't want the pregnancy, they would simply invoke a very convenient miscarriage. These were ubiquitous