Blindsided by comments!

[Payne_Hall]

I just had flashbacks to Vector Calculus for engineering, thinking it was just going to be a continuation from Cal I and II, only to realize that it was actually a weird left turn into a LSD fueled Bat Country.

 

[SimonDoom]

By your thinking no one here should post an opinion at all about anything.

These are my opinions, and the more someone like you bitches the more I feel like I must be hitting a nerve.

.

You are way, way off base here. You are perfectly free to have your opinions, as is anyone else. But you should be equally respectful of the rights of others to have their opinions. And you're not.

You routinely berate other contributors to this forum for playing the role of cop about other people's kinks. But whether you want to admit it or not, that's exactly what you do on the subject of nonconsent. You are guilty of what you accuse others of doing.

Nobody is obligated to fess up, or to "owning what the kink is" (your exact words), or to be honest about what they think, or any of that stuff whatsoever, on the subject of nonconsent, or any other erotica subject. No Literotica author or reader should ever, ever be obligated to do that. Others' views of nonconsent as a category of erotica are every bit as valid as yours regardless of your background. Nobody here is required to conform to your standard of what is logical or real-world on the subject of nonconsent. When you insist on that, you are being a kink cop every bit as much as anyone else that you criticize. Literotica readers and authors are entitled to have whatever views they want to on the subject when they read or write stories.

I really, really don't want to get into a pissing match with you. Totally un-worthwhile I've always enjoyed your stories and enjoyed 95% of your contributions to this forum except when you start to rant on the subject of nonconsent. To me, it's just silliness. You're the mirror image of Handsinthedark, who wrote nonconsent stories but couldn't understand how any decent person could write an incest story. I understand you have some personal background on the subject of nonconsent. I respect that. I don't have that background. But it gives you no more ground to fault the way others look at erotica and its categories than anyone else has.

I'm not defensive at all. You haven't struck a nerve. I'm definitely NOT one of the cool kids. But I am -- or try to be -- consistent. I accept that people are weird and what turns them on may not make any sense to me. I'm OK with that. To me, this is just an erotic fantasy space, and we should feel free to have fun with it. I don't understand getting "ticked off" by categories, or the way this Site handles them. I've been reading erotica online for over 20 years and my totally non-expert and non-scientific and half-baked impression is that Literotica's categories do a pretty decent job of capturing how readers -- they're what matters, after all -- look at erotica and carve it up and figure out what stories they want to read. That's what counts. The rest is just lots of noise.

On that note, I'll just say, have a good day and have a drink. That's what I'm going to do.

 

[Payne_Hall]

On that note, I'll just say, have a good day and have a drink. That's what I'm going to do.

Oh, oh, oh!!! Is it whiskey based?

 

[SimonDoom]

Oh, oh, oh!!! Is it whiskey based?

LOL. How'd you know?

 

[NotWise]

I had the reverse of this. Somebody complimented me on using "leant", which they believed was the only correct past tense of "lean", but when I checked I'd used both "leant" and "leaned" in that chapter.

AFAIK they're both acceptable, but if I'd noticed, I would've picked one or the other and stuck with it.

The language has, for a couple centuries anyway, trended to using regular conjugations. So "leant" might be proper to some people, but it's definitely dated.

I had a question not long ago about using "sneaked" or "snuck," and learned that this is a reversal of the trend of regularization. The irregular form "snuck" appeared in the late 19th century, and is now the common form in US English.

Language is fascinating sometimes, and it's usually a mistake to act like an expert.

 

[XerXesXu]

Cultural Values.

Mind control is rape light...Oh, well, she was under someone's control, its different than being forced....says every hypocrite in the category both author and reader.

This to me is similar to step brother vs Brother....step is like non alcoholic beer some of the taste none of the bite and you can say "I'm not an incest perv, its a step brother, mother etc..."

I largely agree with you about confusing categorisations which overlap and are subject to personal interpretations.

I recently posted a story in Mind Control because my interpretation of my story was that it was about the voluntary transference of responsibility to another - 'I was only following orders.' A party gets to do what they want to do but feel they oughtn't because the boss was responsible and told me to do it.

Mind games rather than magic or hypnosis.

A devout catholic girl wants a night of promiscuous sex but believes it's wrong - a sin - and refuses when her boyfriend asks. She discuses her dilemma with a friend who advises her that she should have sex on Friday night, go to confession on Saturday - 'I've been impure in thought word and deed' say her 10 Hail Mary's and 10 Our Fathers, take Communion on Sunday - repeat in a weekly cycle.

She sees that this works and gets to abandon herself to sin. She has yielded moral responsibility to another, but who - her boyfriend, her friend, her priest, the Catholic Church, or God himself?

Some women are brought up in cultures which require them to submit to their husbands will. In English common law a wife can't be indicted as a co-defendant with her husband for acts done in his presence because she is presumed to have acted under his coercion. That's the Law. Under cultural pressures alone, those which the woman embraces, would doing whatever deviant behaviour her husband required be consensual or non-consensual?

 

[Payne_Hall]

LOL. How'd you know?

I didn’t! But that’s what’s in mine lol! I’ll write while drinking it and edit in the morning haha. It makes for deeply entertaining editing. Humiliating edit: one time whiskey me had a little too much and wrote the phrase “careful care” and sober me had a laughing fit over it. Care is careful.

 

[Bramblethorn]

In English common law a wife can't be indicted as a co-defendant with her husband for acts done in his presence because she is presumed to have acted under his coercion. That's the Law.

In England? Not for almost a hundred years. Per the Criminal Justice Act, 1925: "Any presumption of law that an offence committed by a wife in the presence of her husband is committed under the coercion of the husband is hereby abolished, but on a charge against a wife for any offence other than treason or murder it shall be a good defence to prove that the offence was committed in the presence of, and under the coercion of, the husband."

That is - while coercion remained available as a defence, it was no longer presumed and didn't automatically prevent an indictment.

There was a well-publicised case in 2013 (R v. Huhne) where a formerly married couple were indicted and the ex-wife tried the coercion defence, unsuccessfully.

The defence was then abolished altogether for England and Wales under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

 

[Bramblethorn]

The language has, for a couple centuries anyway, trended to using regular conjugations. So "leant" might be proper to some people, but it's definitely dated.

"Definitely dated" is my personal brand.

 

[AvroAnsonXIX]

She discuses her dilemma with a friend who advises her that she should have sex on Friday night, go to confession on Saturday - 'I've been impure in thought word and deed' say her 10 Hail Mary's and 10 Our Fathers, take Communion on Sunday - repeat in a weekly cycle.

In Italy, in the Middle Ages, there was a sect of the Church that held that since Christ died to pay for the sins of his flock, it would be very rude indeed for his flock to permit him to suffer without reason. Since his suffering could not be undone, it was only logical to sin in order to give Jesus' sacrifice personal meaning.

* Former Catholic school girl.
* Devout? Does having a lot of consensual sex with a very sweet young priest count?

 

[XerXesXu]

In England? Not for almost a hundred years. Per the Criminal Justice Act, 1925: "Any presumption of law that an offence committed by a wife in the presence of her husband is committed under the coercion of the husband is hereby abolished, but on a charge against a wife for any offence other than treason or murder it shall be a good defence to prove that the offence was committed in the presence of, and under the coercion of, the husband."

That is - while coercion remained available as a defence, it was no longer presumed and didn't automatically prevent an indictment.

There was a well-publicised case in 2013 (R v. Huhne) where a formerly married couple were indicted and the ex-wife tried the coercion defence, unsuccessfully.

The defence was then abolished altogether for England and Wales under the Anti-social Behaviour, Crime and Policing Act 2014.

I know. I used the words common law advisedly, they draw the distinction with statute law. For 800 years the common law rule embodied the cultural, religious and moral values of English society. That's the point.

If our current values were to change and the statutes were repealed, unless there was an express provision to the contrary, we would revert to the common law. The common law does not expire.

 

[XerXesXu]

In Italy, in the Middle Ages, there was a sect of the Church that held that since Christ died to pay for the sins of his flock, it would be very rude indeed for his flock to permit him to suffer without reason. Since his suffering could not be undone, it was only logical to sin in order to give Jesus' sacrifice personal meaning.

Thanks for that. I have someone in mind.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I know. I used the words common law advisedly, they draw the distinction with statute law. For 800 years the common law rule embodied the cultural, religious and moral values of English society. That's the point.

Are you arguing that these values, as they pertain to marital relations, haven't changed since 1925?

 

[XerXesXu]

Are you arguing that these values, as they pertain to marital relations, haven't changed since 1925?

No.

Please be courteous and read posts carefully before responding.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

So "leant" might be proper to some people, but it's definitely dated.

Oh, just exacerbate my mid-life crisis, why don't you?

It's possible to talk proper British English without being dated, despite what Americans think. (pet peeve - American tourists coming over and going 'how quaint' at perfectly normal not-oldfashioned things)

Generally we'd use -t for past participles of verbs ending in L and a few other letters, and for adjectival forms (the burnt cakes), but the simple past has a bit more leeway and -ed is also common (I smelled the flowers. I'd smelt ones like them before.) I'd aim for consistency within tenses but each verb would have to be considered separately as a stylistic choice.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

I used the words common law advisedly, they draw the distinction with statute law. For 800 years the common law rule embodied the cultural, religious and moral values of English society. That's the point.

If our current values were to change and the statutes were repealed, unless there was an express provision to the contrary, we would revert to the common law. The common law does not expire.

The fact that common law often embodied the values only of the powerful is why there's been moves to replace it with statute as much as possible (eg current hysteria about 'public nuisance' being moved to statute and dubbed as 'banning the right to protest')

The Chris Huhne case was a total embarrassment all round and helped result in the collapse of the Liberal Democrats - though much of that was being unfairly blamed for everything that happened when they were a very junior coalition partner to the Tories. Many people voted for years to try to create a coalition Government but really didn't like getting one. More recent history has shown up what the LDs managed to delay, so I suspect history will see them more kindly.

 

[XerXesXu]

The fact that common law often embodied the values only of the powerful is why there's been moves to replace it with statute as much as possible.

The big move was in early Victorian times. Prior to that, the everyday work of The High Court of Parliament was to provide remedies to those who could afford it ie: the rich and powerful, by way of Private Act of Parliament. Public and General measures were relatively rare, the state was minimal non-interventionist.

A wealthy person could petition Parliament and an MP would act as his advocate and guide it through the legislative process. This ran the gamut from divorce to compulsory purchase. The railway system was built as a result of private acts.

You often hear the expression 'common law marriage', but you couldn't get married at common law, that was exclusively the jurisdiction of Ecclesiastical Law Courts, which permitted divorce in limited circumstances only. If your petition couldn't be fitted into an Ecclesiastical Law petition the remedy of the rich and powerful was to petition Parliament for a Private Act dissolving the marriage and setting out the terms.

What of the masses? They resorted to local customary laws. They would sell their spouse in market overt as they would sell a cow. The auctions were usually fixed, the purchaser would be the spouses lover, but the spouses would be freed of their mutual obligations; she could not pledge his credit and his conjugal rights were terminated.

Victorian values brought us not only pianos with drapes to protect the refined from an unseemly display of the piano's legs, but the modernising world - courts, laws, parliament, franchise - and the abolition of slavery in the British Empire.

 

[Bramblethorn]

No.

Please be courteous and read posts carefully before responding.

The first I noticed of your existence was when a friend opened up about her experiences of racist abuse bad enough to hospitalise her and drive her from her home - the same stories I'd heard from her husband four years ago - and some asshole claimed she was lying about it all.

You pitched in to back up the gaslighting asshole, and smeared those who saw things differently as "deranged".

And now it's "courtesy" you want?

lol.

 

[XerXesXu]

The first I noticed of your existence was when a friend opened up about her experiences of racist abuse bad enough to hospitalise her and drive her from her home - the same stories I'd heard from her husband four years ago - and some asshole claimed she was lying about it all.

You pitched in to back up the gaslighting asshole, and smeared those who saw things differently as "deranged".

And now it's "courtesy" you want?

lol.

Cite or it didn't happen, remember.

I believe you have the hyperlink to

'bullshit'

already.

I apologise for the sarcasm. Please take it as a gentle tease.

Yes, I expect courtesy and self control from you, just as I would expect it from the person you say was unkind to your friend. It makes for a nicer world for everyone.

 

[jehoram]

Or instead of being mental 12-year-olds they could just grow up ...

Nevermind ... That's not happening ...

What makes you think that they're all just "mental" 12-year-olds?

 

[jehoram]

I had the reverse of this. Somebody complimented me on using "leant", which they believed was the only correct past tense of "lean", but when I checked I'd used both "leant" and "leaned" in that chapter.

AFAIK they're both acceptable, but if I'd noticed, I would've picked one or the other and stuck with it.

I could see it used twice in a story, when one version was used in dialog and the other in narrative:

"When I leant my weight upon the bannister, it gave way," my British friend said, and he leaned against the railing to demonstrate his point.

 

[SimonDoom]

I had the reverse of this. Somebody complimented me on using "leant", which they believed was the only correct past tense of "lean", but when I checked I'd used both "leant" and "leaned" in that chapter.

AFAIK they're both acceptable, but if I'd noticed, I would've picked one or the other and stuck with it.

The American Heritage Dictionary describes "leant" as the "Chiefly British" past and past participle tense of "lean." So it's definitely not wrong even if it's by the far the minority usage for Americans.

To my eye and ear, this is one of those fairly minor American/British English differences. A step up in terms of difference, I think, is the use of the word by Brits of "whilst" instead of the American "while." If I'm reading a passage of English I might not notice the use of "leant" but when I see "whilst" I immediately notice and know I'm reading either a British English author or an American who's consciously affected Britishisms (and there are many of those).

 

[KeithD]

A professionally trained American usage editor would use "leaned," not "leant," by the editing rules of using the recommended dictionary (Webster's New International or Meriam-Webster's Collegiate, per Chicago Manual of Style 2.51). If they were editing in American style, they'd impose "leaned."

That said, for Literotica, yes, either "leaned" or "leant," but consistently only one way in the same story--with a caveat on that. These particular words seem to be pronounced differently, so I guess if you had both an American and British speaker using the same word in quoted context, you would be justified to use different spelling in the quotes.

 

[NotWise]

A professionally trained American usage editor would use "leaned," not "leant," by the editing rules of using the recommended dictionary (Webster's New International or Meriam-Webster's Collegiate, per Chicago Manual of Style 2.51). If they were editing in American style, they'd impose "leaned."

That said, for Literotica, yes, either "leaned" or "leant," but consistently only one way in the same story--with a caveat on that. These particular words seem to be pronounced differently, so I guess if you had both an American and British speaker using the same word in quoted context, you would be justified to use different spelling in the quotes.

I don't know what OED says, but the Cambridge English Dictionary says that "leaned," not "leant," is the past tense of "lean."

That makes it sound like "leant" is wrong even in British English.

 

[SamScribble]

I don't know what OED says, but the Cambridge English Dictionary says that "leaned," not "leant," is the past tense of "lean."

That makes it sound like "leant" is wrong even in British English.

The Oxford Dictionary For Writers and Editors says leaned or leant. So, take your pick.