Categories that you have or always will avoid

[AlinaX]

No one said that.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

You guys are arguing over nothing really, as these are all such arbitrary lines. I myself detest non-con and rape stories, but those are hardly the worst things one can see in today's media. For example, you have plenty of TV shows and movies where murderers and criminals are glorified and presented as cool, even as heroes in some ways. You can see scenes of absolutely brutal torture and malice in some mainstream movies, and that is all fine just because no one apparently gets off on it? Now that is pure BS. That is why your argument seems so misplaced to me. You are arguing if strawberry jam should be allowed or not, whilst all other, potentially more harmful flavors are out there to be savored. Do something else instead. Work on increasing awareness, educate the people and thus slowly reduce the amount of ALL of the jam out there.
Btw I love jam. Real jam. Plum jam especially. Using jam as a metaphor for torture and violence tells me I need to rummage through my fridge a bit

 

[EmilyMiller]

You guys are arguing over nothing really, as these are all such arbitrary lines. I myself detest non-con and rape stories, but those are hardly the worst things one can see in today's media. For example, you have plenty of TV shows and movies where murderers and criminals are glorified and presented as cool, even as heroes in some ways. You can see scenes of absolutely brutal torture and malice in some mainstream movies, and that is all fine just because no one apparently gets off on it? Now that is pure BS. That is why your argument seems so misplaced to me. You are arguing if strawberry jam should be allowed or not, whilst all other, potentially more harmful flavors are out there to be savored. Do something else instead. Work on increasing awareness, educate the people and thus slowly reduce the amount of ALL of the jam out there.
Btw I love jam. Real jam. Plum jam especially. Using jam as a metaphor for torture and violence tells me I need to rummage through my fridge a bit

At the risk of seeming even more argumentative, that’s kinda fallacious.

It’s like saying, because homicide exists, any crime that falls short of homicide is no big deal.

I’m not talking about the general population. I fervently hope there are no murders on AH. I’m not taking about TV or movies. I’m talking about what happens here on Lit. What - if I may be so bold - my peers do.

I don’t see how your point is relevant to that, hun.

Also, maybe not your intent. But you could view what you said as saying rape isn’t so big a deal compared to murder. There is of course the issue of rape induced suicide, but even without that, it’s a fucking awful crime.

Em

 

[SimonDoom]

No one said that.

Emily said this:

"NC is rape. People should be honest about it. If they get off on the idea of raping someone or being raped by someone, say that. Fantasy is a smoke screen. The desire that is being pandered to is a real desire. Even if writer or reader doesn’t act on it."

That's what I'm responding to. I believe this statement to be profoundly and utterly wrong. I think it runs counter to the very essence of artistic and erotic imagination. I don't believe it's based on anything, other than bias and subjective opinion.

I've been participating in this forum for six and a half years, and the whole time I've been doing so I've been reading judgmental statements by people who like non-con stories who are convinced that if you like incest there's something wrong with you, and by people who like incest stories who are convinced that if you like non-con stories there's something wrong with you, and my point is that they're all wrong and nobody has a basis for making universal judgments about anybody else based on their kinks. The fact is, You don't know. Fantasy is NOT necessarily a smoke screen. It may be just that: fantasy, and nothing more.

You're entitled not to like something. Obviously. You're not entitled to judge others for what they like. If you do, your judgment is probably based on bias, ignorance, and lack of imagination.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

At the risk of seeming even more argumentative, that’s kinda fallacious.

It’s like saying, because homicide exists, any crime that falls short of homicide is no big deal.

I’m not talking about the general population. I fervently hope there are no murders on AH. I’m not taking about TV or movies. I’m talking about what happens here on Lit. What - if I may be so bold - my peers do.

I don’t see how your point is relevant to that, hun.

Also, maybe not your intent. But you could view what you said as saying rape isn’t so big a deal compared to murder. There is of course the issue of rape induced suicide, but even without that, it’s a fucking awful crime.

Em

You misunderstood my post somewhat. I think all of this argument in this thread is pointless for these intertwining reasons:

1. You are concerned that these Non-Con stories being available on Lit can maybe inspire some real world happening - that they might numb a person towards the deed itself, or maybe create so much fantasy pleasure in his/her head associated with rape and thus increase a chance of someone actually committing the crime in the real world. It is an understandable point of view. Yet, there is torture, murder and even rape out there to be seen in the movies. How do you know somebody doesn't whack off while watching those scenes? I am quite sure there are people who do that. There is so much much more harmful content out there than on Lit. Nevertheless, I understand the core of your argument, but I think it is misplaced as I stated in my previous post, although admittedly I didn't really expand on it properly.

2. Your argument is that you can't do anything about all the crap that is out there, no way to change it and to reduce it, so you would rather do something here, where you think you can actually do something. This is where I agree on principle, but I completely disagree in practice. I don't think you can change anything about it here. We saw ourselves how much Lit's policy creators give a damn about our opinions. Non-Con brings views and as such it is unlikely to get banned or restricted, judging by everything I've witnessed in my time spent on Lit. But let's say it could be possible to make a change, just for the sake of the argument. Why on earth do you argue about it with Simon and some others here? What's the point of bumping heads and getting worked up, getting into a situation where you want to ignore someone over it. Bring the fight to Laurel and Manu if you truly feel this way, if such a thing is even possible on Lit. I don't think it is, but I would gladly support you and would be quite happy to be proven wrong.

 

[ElectricBlue]

This is exactly how I feel. It's fantasy land so it's okay. That's why I don't draw boundaries. People should have fun with their fantasies, boundaries be damned.

It never ceases to amaze me how squickish and squeamish so many Literotica authors are.

You continue to underestimate or disregard the negative power of words, Simon, yet you're quite content to accept the cudos for the positive. I don't think it is as simple as saying, it's only fantasy, go for it. Our writing can move people and arouse them to orgasm, so why do you think words somehow don't work the other way, when they're vile and ugly words?

I've had someone say my writing is a "safe haven" for her, in an obviously troubled life. That made me think about what I write, how it might affect others. I think I'm a better writer because of that one comment because it made me think more about what I write, and not see it as some harmless self gratification.

Words do have an effect on people, which can be for good but equally can be for bad, and it never ceases to amaze me how you don't see that, or don't accept that.

But I do think you would have a line somewhere, and would never cross it.

You should allow other people their lines, and not be so dismissive of them. There's many a memo on mental health, you should read one - not for yourself because you're fine, but for others, who are not so resilient.

 

[gunhilltrain]

I'm troubled that you are amazed. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to police other people's emotions?

wrt to rape and/or incest and other troubling moral topics, there can be no doubt that exposure to it, has a numbing effect on the consumer; porn addiction is a recognised mental illness as much as gambling. OTOH numerous studies have 'proved' that violent video games do not desensitise 'normal' people, resulting in them committing, oh I dunno, maybe a school shooting with a AR15? Normal people can distinguish between a story written for its titillation and reality, but there's no gatekeeping over who reads it. You either ban it all or let the dice fall as they may.

Rape has always happened and will always be a sexual fantasy. The problem doesn't lie in misogynistic attitudes in society that are reinforced by porn, but in the total failure of law enforcement and courts to take the crime seriously. Happily as responsible authors we have the opportunity to look further than five minute video clips with titles like 'She gets reamed by a black bull' or 'Old man tricks first-timer to take it up the ass'.

With some doubts on my mind: it seems that violent video games have inspired school shooters and others. After stumbling into the huge amount of material online about 2018 Parkland shooter Nikolas Cruz, it seems that video games were a factor in his actions. But something else really went wrong with him, and it's hard to figure out what. It's all very politicized: leftists blame in on the excesses of capitalism, rightists on the decline of standards. I won't even try to deal with that here.

But all of these mass shooters are the amateurs. The real mass killers are the various people who run militaries and it always has been. The Ukrainians and the Russians have probably killed 200,000 of each other so far.

And just so it doesn't end too quickly, the Germans, the Poles, the Americans, the British, the South Koreans, etc. have been pouring every kind of weapon into the conflict, providing training, sharing intelligence, and even supplying "volunteers" to fight. (Not quite the old International Brigades, I'd say.) Interesting to watch Canadian soldiers training Ukrainians to use German tanks at a Polish army base. Never seems to end, and it probably never will.

 

[alohadave]

With some doubts on my mind: it seems that violent video games have inspired school shooters and others. After stumbling into the huge amount of material online about 2018 Parkland shooter Nikolas Cruz, it seems that video games were a factor in his actions. But something else really went wrong with him, and it's hard to figure out what. It's all very politicized: leftists blame in on the excesses of capitalism, rightists on the decline of standards. I won't even try to deal with that here.

The common thread is mental illness. A mentally ill person can be triggered by anything.

A normal, mentally well person will not be driven to shoot people just because they watched a violent movie, played a violet game, or any other manner of things that could trigger.

A mentally unwell person will not necessarily be able to separate fantasy from reality and be able to determine appropriate responses to stressful situations.

And at the risk of dragging this further off course, easy access to guns amplifies the destructive potential of those who decide that revenge is the answer to whatever problem they have.

This is is all my opinion and should not be taken as statements of fact.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

And at the risk of dragging this further off course, easy access to guns amplifies the destructive potential of those who decide that revenge is the answer to whatever problem they have.

I couldn't agree more.

 

[gunhilltrain]

I'm troubled that you are amazed. Maybe you shouldn't be so quick to police other people's emotions?

wrt to rape and/or incest and other troubling moral topics, there can be no doubt that exposure to it, has a numbing effect on the consumer; porn addiction is a recognised mental illness as much as gambling. OTOH numerous studies have 'proved' that violent video games do not desensitise 'normal' people, resulting in them committing, oh I dunno, maybe a school shooting with a AR15? Normal people can distinguish between a story written for its titillation and reality, but there's no gatekeeping over who reads it. You either ban it all or let the dice fall as they may.

Rape has always happened and will always be a sexual fantasy. The problem doesn't lie in misogynistic attitudes in society that are reinforced by porn, but in the total failure of law enforcement and courts to take the crime seriously. Happily as responsible authors we have the opportunity to look further than five minute video clips with titles like 'She gets reamed by a black bull' or 'Old man tricks first-timer to take it up the ass'.

porn addiction is a recognised mental illness as much as gambling.

Literotica? We don't write porn here, we write erotica. Or, at least I do!

 

[EmilyMiller]

You misunderstood my post somewhat. I think all of this argument in this thread is pointless for these intertwining reasons:

1. You are concerned that these Non-Con stories being available on Lit can maybe inspire some real world happening - that they might numb a person towards the deed itself, or maybe create so much fantasy pleasure in his/her head associated with rape and thus increase a chance of someone actually committing the crime in the real world. It is an understandable point of view. Yet, there is torture, murder and even rape out there to be seen in the movies. How do you know somebody doesn't whack off while watching those scenes? I am quite sure there are people who do that. There is so much much more harmful content out there than on Lit. Nevertheless, I understand the core of your argument, but I think it is misplaced as I stated in my previous post, although admittedly I didn't really expand on it properly.

Can you provide quotes supporting the assertion that this is my argument? I sincerely doubt it. But please try, maybe I went into a fugue state and wrote something I don’t now recall.

2. Your argument is that you can't do anything about all the crap that is out there, no way to change it and to reduce it, so you would rather do something here, where you think you can actually do something. This is where I agree on principle, but I completely disagree in practice. I don't think you can change anything about it here. We saw ourselves how much Lit's policy creators give a damn about our opinions. Non-Con brings views and as such it is unlikely to get banned or restricted, judging by everything I've witnessed in my time spent on Lit. But let's say it could be possible to make a change, just for the sake of the argument. Why on earth do you argue about it with Simon and some others here? What's the point of bumping heads and getting worked up, getting into a situation where you want to ignore someone over it. Bring the fight to Laurel and Manu if you truly feel this way, if such a thing is even possible on Lit. I don't think it is, but I would gladly support you and would be quite happy to be proven wrong.

Again, you start by saying I misunderstood your post. Well jinx. I have no desire to go on a crusade to get Lit to change a policy. That’s up to them. I’m not going to tilt at windmills.

But…

If I can get one Lit author, just one would be enough, to think twice before lazily assuming it’s fine to make sexual assault titillating, I’d be happy.

If I can get one rape apologist, just one again, to look inside and admit that “it’s fantasy” is a specious argument, that could justify anything, including child porn. I’d be happy.

If I could get one person, just one, to think that “rape survivors write stories as part of therapy” is a pathetic justification for people who have never been raped - men in particular - to do the same. I’m happy.

If I could get one person, just one, to stop thinking that women having fantasies about being raped makes it OK to have fantasies about raping women. I’m happy.

If I could get one Lit guy, just one, to stop mansplaining women about something they have demonstrably no fucking clue about. I’m happy.

TBH - based on multiple PMs yesterday and today, I should, by my own criteria, already be happy.

Words are powerful. Use them responsibly.

Em

 

[Djmac1031]

If I can get one Lit author, just one would be enough, to think twice before lazily assuming it’s fine to make sexual assault titillating, I’d be happy.

You've got ONE.

 

[oneagainst]

No, but you're already way out in front on that one; I doubt I could catch up in time, since my entries in places besides LW are mostly going to be for events/contests.

It's a marathon not a sprint. It's about quality not quantity. It's about saying the one meaningful thing in the midst of all the noise.

(but just saying I'll be up to 15 categories by the end of Geek Pride week I'm branching out)

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Can you provide quotes supporting the assertion that this is my argument? I sincerely doubt it. But please try, maybe I went into a fugue state and wrote something I don’t now recall.

Em

You never wrote that exactly, but I tried to fill in the blanks, possibly in an erroneous way. You did mention actual rape so many times and I don't understand why else you would do that, unless you feared these rape fantasies having an actual effect in the real world. If they didn't have any effect in the real world, then I don't understand what could be wrong with writing them? Sometimes I feel I don't understand what anyone is saying.
So, unless I am understanding something wrong, again, you want to influence individual writers, with some quite fired up arguing if I might add, to stop writing the Non-Con fantasies that are still very much allowed on Lit. That is all fine with me, I just think it is not very likely to bring any results. As much as I dislike those stories myself, they ARE allowed on Lit.

 

[EmilyMiller]

You never wrote that exactly, but I tried to fill in the blanks, possibly in an erroneous way.

You did mention actual rape so many times and I don't understand why else you would do that, unless you feared these rape fantasies having an actual effect in the real world. If they didn't have any effect in the real world, then I don't understand what could be wrong with writing them?

I think rape fantasies devalue the experience of people who have been raped. It has nothing to do with creating actual rapists. I never said that.

Sometimes I feel I don't understand what anyone is saying.

I know English is not your first language. I’m not being patronizing, I can barely get by in French and couldn’t write stories on it. But, maybe if you don’t understand, you know, ask? Or PM the person. Better than making erreous assumptions.

So, unless I am understanding something wrong, again, you want to influence individual writers, with some quite fired up arguing if I might add, to stop writing the Non-Con fantasies that are still very much allowed on Lit. That is all fine with me, I just think it is not very likely to bring any results. As much as I dislike those stories myself, they ARE allowed on Lit.

Again, not what I said. I don’t want to stop anyone writing. I would like people to try to put themselves in the shoes of those many, many women (probably many writers here) who have suffered sexual assault and to at least respect their experience.

I would like people to be more sensitive about the harm that words can do.

I’d basically really like it if we could, you know, just be nicer about other humans. Even fictional ones we made up to then put through hell.

Em

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I think rape fantasies devalue the experience of people who have been raped. It has nothing to do with creating actual rapists. I never said that.

Well, you never said that first thing either, until now. I simply assumed you meant the thing that I mentioned, as it was the thing that made most sense to me. Thanks for clearing that up, even though I can't really see the strength in that argument, but all right, I don't want to keep arguing about it really. My whole point was to stop that argument, not to further it, or to get involved in it.

Again, not what I said. I don’t want to stop anyone writing. I would like people to try to put themselves in the shoes of those many, many women (probably many writers here) who have suffered sexual assault and to at least respect their experience.

I would like people to be more sensitive about the harm that words can do.

You are now the one misquoting my words. I never said that you wanted people to stop writing. I said you wanted people to stop writing Non-Con rape stories.

 

[EmilyMiller]

Well, you never said that first thing either, until now. I simply assumed you meant the thing that I mentioned, as it was the thing that made most sense to me. Thanks for clearing that up, even though I can't really see the strength in that argument, but all right, I don't want to keep arguing about it really. My whole point was to stop that argument, not to further it, or to get involved in it.

Best thing is stop arguing then, I agree.

You are now the one misquoting my words. I never said that you wanted people to stop writing. I said you wanted people to stop writing Non-Con rape stories.

It was kinda implied don’t you think?

Em

 

[SeraphNocturne]

Well, you never said that first thing either, until now. I simply assumed you meant the thing that I mentioned, as it was the thing that made most sense to me. Thanks for clearing that up, even though I can't really see the strength in that argument, but all right, I don't want to keep arguing about it really. My whole point was to stop that argument, not to further it, or to get involved in it.


You are now the one misquoting my words. I never said that you wanted people to stop writing. I said you wanted people to stop writing Non-Con rape stories.

This entire thread seems to have veered off into a nasty tangent regarding mortality, political correctness and personal opinions—entirely off topic from the original subject at that. We’re all comrades here, and we are all adults…

I’ve said it earlier… When faced with such dramatically different opinions it no longer becomes a matter of who is right and wrong, the most graceful way to handle it is to agree to disagree, and let it go.

I don’t really see a need for anyone to continue this heated debate at this point when it’s clearly going to only be back and forth clashing thoughts on the matter. I can only see it getting really ugly from here on out.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Best thing is stop arguing then, I agree.

Wholeheartedly agree

 

[SimonDoom]

You continue to underestimate or disregard the negative power of words, Simon, yet you're quite content to accept the cudos for the positive. I don't think it is as simple as saying, it's only fantasy, go for it. Our writing can move people and arouse them to orgasm, so why do you think words somehow don't work the other way, when they're vile and ugly words?

I've had someone say my writing is a "safe haven" for her, in an obviously troubled life. That made me think about what I write, how it might affect others. I think I'm a better writer because of that one comment because it made me think more about what I write, and not see it as some harmless self gratification.

Words do have an effect on people, which can be for good but equally can be for bad, and it never ceases to amaze me how you don't see that, or don't accept that.

But I do think you would have a line somewhere, and would never cross it.

You should allow other people their lines, and not be so dismissive of them. There's many a memo on mental health, you should read one - not for yourself because you're fine, but for others, who are not so resilient.

I feel like we are two ships passing in the night in this conversation.

I disagree that I underestimate the negative power of words, but I think we have to be very careful what we are talking about and I think it's important that our positions should be empirically based and not just based on personal bias and subjective opinion.

Stories can have negative impacts in two ways. In my opinion, one is important, and one is not very important.

Stories may disturb or offend people. My view on that is that one person's offense is no more important than another's enjoyment. The remedy to a story you find offensive is not to read it. That way everyone who enjoys it can have fun, and everyone who doesn't can avoid it altogether. The category/title/tag/tagline system at Literotica should be sufficient to enable a person who dislikes or is offended by certain kinds of stories to avoid those stories. I don't necessarily want to offend people, but sometimes I DO want readers to be uncomfortable, and I also don't feel any particular compulsion to avoid writing stories that offend people. Offending people is, and always has been, an important and even vital part of art. It's a feature, not a bug, of artistic expression.

The more important way that a story can have an impact is to influence people to do bad things in the real world. That is worth considering. I have certain limits. I wouldn't write stories or articles about how to create weapons of mass destruction or how to prey on little children. I would be concerned about the impact such stories might have. But I have no evidence that this happens (unlike the substantial evidence I have that people like and don't like stories) here, and it seems implausible to me that it happens to any significant degree in response to reading stories at Literotica.

So, for example, are stories about consenting adults having incestuous sex likely to increase the incidence of pedophilia? I think that's preposterous. Obviously, I have no evidence, but I think it's so silly that the burden of proof lies with the person with that concern, and I see little likelihood that they will meet that burden.

Nonconsent stories are a bit more problematic. If Lit provides a source for stories that are arguably "rape," is there likely to be more rape in the real world because people are reading rape stories at Literotica? Will men treat women worse? I see no reason or evidence to believe that. My kids and all their friends grew up with horrendously violent video games and I see no correlation between that and increased violence. In fact, violence in the USA has decreased over the last 30 years while the Internet has made violent and sexual entertainment far easier to obtain. There might be a cathartic effect that outweighs the incentivizing or copycat effects. I don't know. But nobody else here knows either. But I believe this, too: the manifest benefits of free speech and of maximum freedom of artistic expression are so great that the burden of proof should always lie with the person who says, "You shouldn't say that." My response is always going to be, "Why?" and "Prove it."

I do not deny, and have never denied, that words have impacts. Obviously, they do. But I think we understand those impacts far less than we think we do and 95% of our opinions on the subject are based on innate biases rather than real information.

 

[John_Vandermeer]

I feel like we are two ships passing in the night in this conversation.

I disagree that I underestimate the negative power of words, but I think we have to be very careful what we are talking about and I think it's important that our positions should be empirically based and not just based on personal bias and subjective opinion.

Stories can have negative impacts in two ways. In my opinion, one is important, and one is not very important.

Stories may disturb or offend people. My view on that is that one person's offense is no more important than another's enjoyment. The remedy to a story you find offensive is not to read it. That way everyone who enjoys it can have fun, and everyone who doesn't can avoid it altogether. The category/title/tag/tagline system at Literotica should be sufficient to enable a person who dislikes or is offended by certain kinds of stories to avoid those stories. I don't necessarily want to offend people, but sometimes I DO want readers to be uncomfortable, and I also don't feel any particular compulsion to avoid writing stories that offend people. Offending people is, and always has been, an important and even vital part of art. It's a feature, not a bug, of artistic expression.

The more important way that a story can have an impact is to influence people to do bad things in the real world. That is worth considering. I have certain limits. I wouldn't write stories or articles about how to create weapons of mass destruction or how to prey on little children. I would be concerned about the impact such stories might have. But I have no evidence that this happens (unlike the substantial evidence I have that people like and don't like stories) here, and it seems implausible to me that it happens to any significant degree in response to reading stories at Literotica.

So, for example, are stories about consenting adults having incestuous sex likely to increase the incidence of pedophilia? I think that's preposterous. Obviously, I have no evidence, but I think it's so silly that the burden of proof lies with the person with that concern, and I see little likelihood that they will meet that burden.

Nonconsent stories are a bit more problematic. If Lit provides a source for stories that are arguably "rape," is there likely to be more rape in the real world because people are reading rape stories at Literotica? Will men treat women worse? I see no reason or evidence to believe that. My kids and all their friends grew up with horrendously violent video games and I see no correlation between that and increased violence. In fact, violence in the USA has decreased over the last 30 years while the Internet has made violent and sexual entertainment far easier to obtain. There might be a cathartic effect that outweighs the incentivizing or copycat effects. I don't know. But nobody else here knows either. But I believe this, too: the manifest benefits of free speech and of maximum freedom of artistic expression are so great that the burden of proof should always lie with the person who says, "You shouldn't say that." My response is always going to be, "Why?" and "Prove it."

I do not deny, and have never denied, that words have impacts. Obviously, they do. But I think we understand those impacts far less than we think we do and 95% of our opinions on the subject are based on innate biases rather than real information.

I agree with all this, but it seems we have reached the point where it is clear the topic is too touchy for such a line of reasoning to convince the other side. So I am just going to agree to disagree with them.

 

[XerXesXu]

I think we understand those impacts far less than we think we do and 95% of our opinions on the subject are based on innate biases rather than real information.

Tell us where your 95% 'innate bias' in favour of incest and rapist fantasists comes from.

How many real-life rapists have you dealt with? How many women who've 'really' been raped have you had to deal with?

You come across as someone who can't choose his own company so he'll accept anybody's company.

 

[gunhilltrain]

The common thread is mental illness. A mentally ill person can be triggered by anything.

A normal, mentally well person will not be driven to shoot people just because they watched a violent movie, played a violet game, or any other manner of things that could trigger.

A mentally unwell person will not necessarily be able to separate fantasy from reality and be able to determine appropriate responses to stressful situations.

And at the risk of dragging this further off course, easy access to guns amplifies the destructive potential of those who decide that revenge is the answer to whatever problem they have.

This is is all my opinion and should not be taken as statements of fact.

Since I went off on that military rant: didn't Kubrick suggest in Dr. Strangelove that the people running nuclear warfare, if they weren't actually mentally, ill, were still twisted in some way? The ones at the top (Turgidson, Ripper, Stangelove himself, the Russian premier) might have been the worst, but Major Kong on the plane itself went off the deep end. No video games or movies set them on their course, so what did? I'm not sure, but only General Ripper would have been a candidate for involuntary incarceration. The others were to some degree considered normal.

Kubrick pulled his punches a bit more in Paths of Glory, where the top leadership is corrupt but the ordinary soldiers are mostly decent but hapless. Interesting that it took four years before the Germans finally collapsed, although the Russians went out a year earlier. What if they gave a war and nobody showed up? Somehow they always do.

There were some mutinies in the French Amy - by 1917! - but it hardly took France out of the war. There were still attacks going on in the last hour of the war, when everybody knew that the armistice had been signed already. "Let's take it easy now." In many locations, it was, "Nope."

 

[gunhilltrain]

I’m a fan of the octopus mind control sub-genre

Em

Do you wish to control the mind of the octopus or do you want it to control yours? To be really fair, you should both take turns. It's just a game anyway, right?

 

[tenyari]

There is one I kinda object to being a category:

1. Interracial Sex - that just sex, right?

Sadly no.

It's a special call out for not inter racial sexual relations, but racist tropes. Historically the "interracial" category is all about bestial 'mandingo' black men abusing naughty but innocent white women - and related themes. And this goes beyond this website.

Of course, DNA now proves what people having been saying for 500 years - the facts are the reverse. Almost all Black people in the USA are about 25% English-Ancestry, coming from male descended DNA - English-Ancestry men on Black women. Almost all Caucasians in the USA are 1% African, coming from female descended DNA - again Black women who's children were light skinned enough to be able to 'pass'. A similar pattern likely exists in regards to Native Americans - though the DNA there hasn't been traced to my knowledge.

That category is about as "toxic" as you can get. It's hard to even mention what the category is about without going into some very negative space...

Some people I suspect might write multiracial stories and put them in "on accident". But if you're not making a racist fetish, then there's not even a point to... making a point of... erotic action across ethnic lines. It's just normal.