Are stories about kidnapping or any forced play allowed?

[Kriyto]

Do all the stories allowed here have to be about the characters wanting to do ropeplay or are kidnapping/forced bondage allowed?

 

[SimonDoom]

Yes. The key to acceptance is that the victim must enjoy the activity in some way.

 

[Analsexlover]

Do all the stories allowed here have to be about the characters wanting to do ropeplay or are kidnapping/forced bondage allowed?

I really doubt it will be allowed here, which is a shame because non-con is one of my favorite categories

 

[ofbuttons]

The rule for NonConsent is that the victim should appear to enjoy it, whether it's in-fiction fantasy or a depiction of a real crime occurring.

 

[djrip]

I really doubt it will be allowed here, which is a shame because non-con is one of my favorite categories

I guess I haven't submitted any non-con, but, having visited the category, I find it odd that people here are constantly expecting things to be rejected for non-con elements. Why would this proposed story fare any worse than all the others in the category?

 

[SimonDoom]

The rule seems weird at first blush, but it makes sense.

The site does not want to condone or support erotic fiction in which the eroticism derives from the character experiencing death, torture, pain, things like that. So there's no snuff and no real rape. Non-consent is OK as long as the victim enjoys it, because in that case the reader isn't deriving erotic pleasure from reading about women experiencing horrible pain or torture.

 

[djrip]

I wouldn't say there is no real rape. Not even no "forceable" rape, based on what I've seen here. Supposedly the victim must enjoy it by the end, and that is what I usually see, but even that fig leaf is missing from some of what I've seen in non-con.

 

[ofbuttons]

I agree, I don't feel like the category is moderated very well when it comes to its rule and I have to pass on quite a few stories -- although I can imagine there's probably a lot of even worse submissions we don't see.

Regardless, OP's story sounds like it'd be fine, if the victim derives pleasure from the experience.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I wouldn't say there is no real rape. Not even no "forceable" rape, based on what I've seen here. Supposedly the victim must enjoy it by the end, and that is what I usually see, but even that fig leaf is missing from some of what I've seen in non-con.

As I understand it, the requirements have tightened up over the years, but the fundamental element remains - the victim must eventually enjoy it.

 

[lovecraft68]

If the site wanted to make sure there was consent at some point they wouldn't have a category titled non consent, its a joke. You can use the word rape in a title or tag, but...yeah, okay. Know why they allow it? because people search for "rape stories"(not bright by the way to have that kind of stuff in your search, but whatever) and Lit wants them to come here.

I'm glad a couple people here mentioned what's easily found here and how common it is.

I don't know why they just don't admit they allow it instead of playing this stupid game.

Cue suck ups (like the fool above me)who pretend the rule actually exists.

 

[lovecraft68]

I agree, I don't feel like the category is moderated very well when it comes to its rule and I have to pass on quite a few stories -- although I can imagine there's probably a lot of even worse submissions we don't see.

Regardless, OP's story sounds like it'd be fine, if the victim derives pleasure from the experience.

BDSM is even worse these days

 

[Bramblethorn]

I guess I haven't submitted any non-con, but, having visited the category, I find it odd that people here are constantly expecting things to be rejected for non-con elements. Why would this proposed story fare any worse than all the others in the category?

Uh huh. Reading recent stories in a category is one of the best ways to understand what's actually permitted there.

FWIW, Laurel does occasionally seem to make exceptions to the "must enjoy" rule on NC. IIRC one of @RubenR's falls into that category; you'd have to ask Laurel for confirmation, but I think that one got an exception because it's not presenting the rape as a fantasy for titillation.

 

[AlinaX]

I often browse that category. There are some great stories in there, but also a lot that I back out of very quickly.

Do all the stories allowed here have to be about the characters wanting to do ropeplay or are kidnapping/forced bondage allowed?

Half the stories there are kidnapping/forced bondage, so go for it. Just have the victim end up enjoying the experience in some way, even if also thoroughly humliated (or whatever).

Best, imo, to do it from the victim's POV and make it clear to the reader *why* she ends up enjoying the experience. Otherwise the story becomes: "I kidnapped this hot chick that never liked me. I tied her up and fucked her, and I could tell she loved it."

 

[Smuttyandfun]

I wrote a Non-Con story, "Hot Fun With a Stranger" about a woman touring a historical site, who agrees to get locked in an old wooden stock. She and her friend are having some fun getting it on, when the security guard catches them. The tall, hunky guard tells her friend to get lost, and he unzips and takes his place. At first she's a little startled, but gradually as he works his magic on her, she really gets into it.

I think because she was more than happy with what was happening, I didn't have any trouble getting it published.

 

[AlinaX]

For my single foray in Non-Con, I thought it worked best to take some distance and describe it in a more neutral, 3d POV. As usual, it depends on what you're aiming for.

That can work.

The flexibility of the non-con rules is highly problematic. Non-consensual scenarios can be deeply erotic if done well, but can easily become violent and dehumanising if not. Mind Control and timestop stories are particularly effective at reducing people to fuck objects.

~ (stares pointedly at self) ~

 

[SimonDoom]

For my single foray in Non-Con, I thought it worked best to take some distance and describe it in a more neutral, 3d POV. As usual, it depends on what you're aiming for.

Your story was highly unusual for Literotica and an exception to the rule -- an appropriate one, I thought. The non-con was not presented to create arousal or erotic pleasure. It was uncomfortable, which was your point.

The problem with being overly strict about applying non-con rules is this: whether anyone here likes it or not, many, many people like these stories. Non-con fantasizing is extremely common and popular. It would be foolish for the site to be overly restrictive about it because it would be cutting off a big audience.

 

[lovecraft68]

Its funny how in some conversations people will get upset over 'spreading dangerous misinformation" and honestly, its a good thing. People shouldn't be allowed to push narratives that aren't true and could lead to people getting hurt.

But no one seems to pick up on what Lit's "rule' about non consent really implies and pushes.

If a story is a flat out rape story, well its a story some people like to write and others like to read in the same way people like to read any other kink, albeit a more extreme one. And like in incest and some other fetishes and kinks its written and read in the sense of this is fantasy, and we never want it to be reality because we know better.

Meaning it is fiction and meant to turn on someone with that kink, its pretty straight up

Now, what this whole victim has to enjoy it thing? First off, when discussed many people roll their eyes at the concept someone is being forced into something or flat out assaulted and all of a sudden they go from terrified victim to "Oh, I love it!" so its pretty much ridiculous

But its also dangerous because the moral of the story so to speak?

No never means no. All those bitches really want it. They say no, keep going until they say yes.

A really nice thing to push, don't you think?

 

[lovecraft68]

What lit technically wants-or claims-is dubious consent where there's a choice of a sort and not a complete no from the start.

The victim enjoying it at some point is not dubious consent its just ridiculous 'character is raped for 4,325 words then says "oh, hey, this is kind of fun" the end.

Fact remains if hey didn't want non con stories they wouldn't have a non con category.

That simple logic says it all but the terminally defensive still tries to litsplain their way around it.

 

[NoJo]

Every time this thread comes up (and it comes up a lot), I keep remembering a three part story I published here which was about a woman who was raped, bound and abducted. She certainly didn't enjoy herself in any way, not until right near the end of the story, anyway. It was very explicit, and was published without issue. Perhaps Laurel only skimmed it, or perhaps the rules are a bit more ad-hoc. It got very few views, so maybe it was never flagged by a reader.

 

[SimonDoom]

People shouldn't be allowed to push narratives that aren't true and could lead to people getting hurt.

I think this is the rub. Do you believe this, or don't you? I guess you do. I don't.

This is fiction. It's fantasy. Literotica is a space for people to explore, indulge in, and read expressions of their fantasies. Some of those fantasies may seem dark or twisted or immoral to many people. There are some who get their noses in a twist about that. My response is: yawn.

Is there any reason to believe that people are going to be hurt because of things that are written at Literotica? I don't believe so, at least to any appreciable, meaningful degree. It's possible that some tiny fraction of Literotica readers might be influenced to do something bad. Which leaves open the question: do you want to deprive 99+% of readers of their fantasy fun because of the tiny, impossible-to-know risk that somebody might actually construe this fantasy nonsense as real and do something bad in the real world? Maybe you do. I don't.

The price of living in a free society is that somebody, somewhere, sometime might abuse that freedom. That risk can never be reduced to zero, and a society pledged to freedom doesn't try. This principle is particularly important when it comes to freedom of expression. People should be free to talk about or fantasize about doing things that the law would prevent them from doing in real life.

I don't see what's wrong with people writing non-con stories that they enjoy and that their readers enjoy. The site has its "rule," and perhaps the rule is haphazardly enforced. I don't read enough non-con stories to know if it's true or not. But regardless, my response is, So what?

 

[FifthEstate]

One of my most popular stories is a non-con series titled “Warden’s Wife Pays His Debt” about an escaped serial rapist who abducts the warden and his hot wife. You don’t have to be a rocket scientist to figure out what that premise leads to.

I never had any trouble getting any of the seven existing chapters approved. But while there is some physical violence levied against the warden, the wife is only assaulted by the weapon in the rapist’s pants. I think there should be a distinction made however, between the victim enjoying it vs. gaining arousal and/or orgasming. But regardless, it fulfills LitE’s guidelines for non-con.

And there is a large audience for this type of fantasy. But somewhat surprisingly it’s not all male, I get a lot of amazing feedback about that story from women and couples too.

 

[ofbuttons]

[...]

And there is a large audience for this type of fantasy. But somewhat surprisingly it’s not all male, I get a lot of amazing feedback about that story from women and couples too.

Just to springboard off of this...

Rape fantasies for women are a thing. And there's a market for men, too, who engage with it in the same way (especially in Gay Male content, but you'll find it in heterosexual content as well) -- the fantasy of having control taken away, of experiencing various degrees of humiliation, and this feeding directly into arousal, because it's a kink. As someone who writes in this space, I can say from experience that I can read a story where this enjoyment is highlighted (even if the victim never verbalises it), and read a story that is purely a sadistic tableau of a man or a woman's suffering. The first I can enjoy if it's written well (I am a bit picky), and the second leaves me utterly cold.

I'm not really saying this for the sake of moralising, but I really don't think there's a fine line between these two different narratives. It might be a fine line morally, but viscerally? One of these is for me, and one of these is distinctly not. And on an intuitive level, I think I also split them up where one of them is more clearly a fantasy (I am empathising with the victim, and I know I would never want it to happen to me in reality, maybe not even in role-play), and one of them could also be a fantasy but it's the fantasy of hurting someone.

Not to say that everyone at any time has to agree about these distinctions, but I often see discussion about NonConsent erotica only framing it as harmful or not harmful in the context of a purely male audience about victimising female characters, when there are a lot of overlapping intersections around what women like to read too, whose erotic empathy is with the victim, not the perpetrator.