Editor's note?

[SimonDoom]

I was not aware the site did this!

I've never prefaced a story with a disclaimer or warning or anything like that. That might be in part because I haven't mixed up kinks and fetishes in my stories to the point that I ever thought readers ought to be warned. In a life of reading fiction I've never come across an anthology of short stories that contained warnings and disclaimers. The idea seems a bit silly to me, but I suppose that's where we are.

I can just imagine the disclaimers that might be attached to famous novels:

Gone with the Wind:
Warning: This novel contains scenes of underage sensuality and pedophiliac desire, racial stereotyping, white supremacy, and celebration of pro-Confederacy views.

Charlotte's Web:
Warning: This novel contains many scenes with a spider, so people with arachnophobia are warned not to read it. It also contains scenes related to violence against animals and unethical farming practices, and stereotyping and speciesism relating to various animal species, such as pigs, rats, and sheep.

It:
Warning: This novel contains extensive scenes involving a clown. People with fears of clowns are cautioned not to read this novel.

Is there anyone else who thinks the experience of reading might actually be diminished rather than enhanced by the inclusion of warnings about what's to come in the story?

 

[gordo12]

Is there anyone else who thinks the experience of reading might actually be diminished rather than enhanced by the inclusion of warnings about what's to come in the story?

Yes and no. They do it for TV and Movies. And let's face it you have a rabble of readers here who are less than polite when something crosses their imaginary line in the sand. Not that warnings stop them.

I've seen warnings (not from the site) and stopped reading.

I have mixed feelings about it

 

[ElectricBlue]

Is there anyone else who thinks the experience of reading might actually be diminished rather than enhanced by the inclusion of warnings about what's to come in the story?

Agree wholeheartedly. If people aren't adult enough (on an adult porn site, let's face it) to cope with a little bit of the unexpected in what they read, they really shouldn't be here. They're reading stuff written by smut-meisters, FFS, so they can hardly expect Bambi (wouldn't get past Laurel, anyway).

Given that the category system is the number one give-away of plot, it's the "But I don't like pickles with my burger" brigade that need to grow up and learn to cope with it. I write it, I'll have my characters do what I want them to do. If you don't like it, write your own. Pretty simple.

 

[Hypoxia]

generic note

Warning: This text contains words. If you fear or hate words, stop reading NOW.

 

[SimonDoom]

They do it for TV and Movies. )

They do this for children. So adults can shield their children from things children shouldn't see.

There are no children here. At least, there shouldn't be. Not chronological children, anyway.

 

[KeithD]

Agree wholeheartedly. If people aren't adult enough (on an adult porn site, let's face it) to cope with a little bit of the unexpected in what they read, they really shouldn't be here. They're reading stuff written by smut-meisters, FFS, so they can hardly expect Bambi (wouldn't get past Laurel, anyway).

Given that the category system is the number one give-away of plot, it's the "But I don't like pickles with my burger" brigade that need to grow up and learn to cope with it. I write it, I'll have my characters do what I want them to do. If you don't like it, write your own. Pretty simple.

This is my view as well. I use ed notes almost exclusively to assure the reader a chaptered series is completely written, has x number of chapters, and should all post by x date. As far as content, I try my best to have it correctly keyworded. It's not my choice to put the key words at the end of the story rather than up front. Beyond that, I'm writing for adults who take responsibility for themselves and don't need to be babysat.

 

[redzinger]

I agree with most of you.

It's become fashionable to include trigger warnings ("TW") in the preface of a story - I did it for my last on here - but I do think they could be considered overkill, or spoilerific.

I'm not sure if I like them. There are trumps which I think should always be warned about (e.g. Incest cropping up in other categories), but most others aren't a bother.

(I follow the OP so had already seen the TW/EN and it had vaguely registered as unusual.)

 

[ElectricBlue]

I agree with most of you.

It's become fashionable to include trigger warnings ("TW") in the preface of a story - I did it for my last on here - but I do think they could be considered overkill, or spoilerific.

Trigger warnings are different to "squick" warnings, though.

I'd argue that the category system has to serve as the fundamental trigger warning system - if someone has been traumatised by rape or family sexual abuse and doesn't want to be triggered, then it's up to them to stay away from Non-Con and Reluctance, Incest and Taboo - to pick the obvious examples.

But someone who is saying, "I'm happy to read about Johnny screwing his sister Suzie, just so long as it's not up her ass," is coming from a different place and just needs to take a long, hard look at themselves.

A trigger for someone who may have mental illness issues isn't the same as someone having a personal dislike to a kink. I personally think that I, as a smut writer, should have some kind of a societal awareness, perhaps even a societal duty of care, to the former (especially if they cannot properly care for themselves); but no obligation at all to the latter.

I do that by not writing in Non-Con and Reluctance, for example (aside from that content not being in the slightest erotic for me), and writing stories that are an affirmation of human sexuality, that celebrate equality.

Somebody commented once that my stories were "a safe haven" for them - which said a lot in just a few words. Erotica can be a powerful thing, and as writers we should keep that in mind, I reckon.

 

[KeithD]

If I'm in the proper category and have given the proper keywords, they can jolly well take responsibility for their "squirk" issues, as well. In fact, to the extent that they melt to "squirk" issues they aren't being adult and probably should be reading stories elsewhere. How much of a pansy world have we become?

 

[Bramblethorn]

Trigger warnings are different to "squick" warnings, though.

I'd argue that the category system has to serve as the fundamental trigger warning system - if someone has been traumatised by rape or family sexual abuse and doesn't want to be triggered, then it's up to them to stay away from Non-Con and Reluctance, Incest and Taboo - to pick the obvious examples.

Anybody who reads in the Non-Con category and then complains that it has non-con content has only themselves to blame.

But as we've discussed many a time, the category system is a very blunt instrument, and there are plenty of stories with non-con themes posted outside that category. If it was feasible for readers to filter by tags that wouldn't be an issue, but as things stand, it's just a courtesy to flag things like NC when they're posted outside the relevant category.

How much of a pansy world have we become?

*shrug*

A couple of weeks back I saw a case where an author was busted using alts to leave rave reviews on their own stories and argue with folk who dared criticise their work. Compared to that level of insecurity, I have a hard time seeing content warnings as the herald of the apocalypse.

 

[SimonDoom]

Anybody who reads in the Non-Con category and then complains that it has non-con content has only themselves to blame.

But as we've discussed many a time, the category system is a very blunt instrument, and there are plenty of stories with non-con themes posted outside that category. If it was feasible for readers to filter by tags that wouldn't be an issue, but as things stand, it's just a courtesy to flag things like NC when they're posted outside the relevant category.



*shrug*

A couple of weeks back I saw a case where an author was busted using alts to leave rave reviews on their own stories and argue with folk who dared criticise their work. Compared to that level of insecurity, I have a hard time seeing content warnings as the herald of the apocalypse.

Nobody said anything about the apocalypse. It's not a matter of ending the world but of providing a satisfying adult reading experience. Flagging everything that might possibly be disturbing in a story spoils the element of suspense and surprise, in my view.

The OP's story is a perfect example. I read it quickly. It's in the Exhibitionist category, but it contains elements of reluctance because the heroine consents with reluctance and trepidation to the exposure of her body. But you know this within three paragraphs of the beginning. No one who starts to read the story possibly can be surprised or triggered by what happens as the story goes along. In fact, I think the editor's note overstates the case and prepares the reader for something that the story isn't. It's not a rape story, or a true non-consent story. It's an exhibitionist story, and the editor's note, in my opinion, does the author a disservice.

I think EB put it quite well. Categories alone provide fair warning in most cases. Neither the author nor the site should be obliged to let the potential reader know right from the start the full catalog of kinks that the story covers. The vast majority of complaints on this site have nothing whatsoever to do with true "triggering" material. Instead, people reading an incest story complain because mom touches her anus. They want to be warned that it's an "anal" story. I mean, come on. Grow up.

 

[KeithD]

A couple of weeks back I saw a case where an author was busted using alts to leave rave reviews on their own stories and argue with folk who dared criticise their work. Compared to that level of insecurity, I have a hard time seeing content warnings as the herald of the apocalypse.

I see the effect of helicopter parents hovering around everywhere overhead.

Happily, I don't spend a whole lot of time paying attention to what the other authors are doing here.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Nobody said anything about the apocalypse. It's not a matter of ending the world but of providing a satisfying adult reading experience. Flagging everything that might possibly be disturbing in a story spoils the element of suspense and surprise, in my view.

The OP's story is a perfect example. I read it quickly. It's in the Exhibitionist category, but it contains elements of reluctance because the heroine consents with reluctance and trepidation to the exposure of her body. But you know this within three paragraphs of the beginning. No one who starts to read the story possibly can be surprised or triggered by what happens as the story goes along.

Can you elaborate on how these two statements fit together? On the face of it, they seem contradictory.

I think EB put it quite well. Categories alone provide fair warning in most cases. Neither the author nor the site should be obliged to let the potential reader know right from the start the full catalog of kinks that the story covers. The vast majority of complaints on this site have nothing whatsoever to do with true "triggering" material. Instead, people reading an incest story complain because mom touches her anus. They want to be warned that it's an "anal" story. I mean, come on. Grow up.

I don't think anybody in this discussion was suggesting that stories should warn exhaustively for every possible kink, though? I certainly wasn't. Just for a few things that are well known to be common triggers, and only when they appear outside the categories where those particular themes are usually found.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Happily, I don't spend a whole lot of time paying attention to what the other authors are doing here.

Oh, you missed out. The guy was leaving comments on his own stories like "this author could make the phone book sexy and interesting" and "the most imaginative author on this Web site".

 

[ElectricBlue]

Oh, you missed out. The guy was leaving comments on his own stories like "this author could make the phone book sexy and interesting" and "the most imaginative author on this Web site".

He's not the first to use this ploy. I've seen stories where a known alt comments on his master's voice (and it wasn't a gramophone record). Full on fans is one thing, writing comments to yourself is a bit sad.

 

[Hypoxia]

Full on fans is one thing, writing comments to yourself is a bit sad.

'Pathetic' is the word you're looking for. Nothing stops authors from being pathetic. They know who they are. Sad.

 

[rutger5]

I can see both sides. I've put in a note alerting readers that a story contains non con elements if the main category isn't non con. In these cases it is a courtesy so that the reader isn't caught off guard by the subject matter. I doubt there are many times someone is traumatized by a mere reference but we do live in sensitive times. Like most here, I'm guessing, when I started reading a book in the past I had no idea beyond a general idea where the story was going and what mental buttons it might push and I'm fine with that but times change.

I've heard claims that a reason to 'cancel' Michael Jackson's music is that someone who may have been assaulted in the past could be triggered. Seems unlikely that would be the case just because of what he was accused of, unless he was the assaulter in question or his music was playing when said victim was assaulted. I mean one shouldn't listen to his music if one can't reconcile that a possible monster could have made music one likes but the songs themselves shouldn't be a trigger for most.

Also to be triggered in the truest sense should only happen to those that have actually suffered. I'm guessing the majority of people are against sexual assault and because of that many wouldn't want to read a glib account of such conduct; but one would have to be beyond sensitive to claim trauma just from reading a fictional passage that one couldn't personally relate to.

That to me is where most of the conflict comes from in modern times. Because there is a strain of thought that no one should have to hear or be exposed to a discouraging word or idea and the solution is to shout down or censor anything that doesn't conform. In that case adding editor's notes, trigger warnings, and the like is the mildest solution. Sure beats the method so popular among YA titles where self appointed (in many cases) sensitivity readers can actually create such a tempest in a teapot that books are pulled instead of being published.

 

[SimonDoom]

Can you elaborate on how these two statements fit together? On the face of it, they seem contradictory.

Sure. I think it should be up to the author to reveal to the reader what is to come at a pace and in a manner the author thinks is necessary for the story. In the case of the OP's story, the reader understands within a few paragraphs that the main character is going to reveal her nude body, with reluctance and fear, for a medical examination. The reader knows it's going to happen before it happens, within minutes of starting the story. I think the idea for a warning in this story is absurd and unnecessary. The warning deprives the author of the ability to foreshadow and disclose what's going to happen at the author's chosen pace.

In other cases, what happens may be more of a surprise. But surprise itself may be an important part of the story. Warnings take away the surprise, taking away the enjoyment of the story.

I don't think anybody in this discussion was suggesting that stories should warn exhaustively for every possible kink, though? I certainly wasn't. Just for a few things that are well known to be common triggers, and only when they appear outside the categories where those particular themes are usually found.

I like to think that I'm open to empirical proof on just about everything, and that I'm willing to change my mind if confronted with sufficient proof. I'm not convinced about the empirical basis for the need for trigger warnings, period. I'm sure that there are some people who react very negatively to certain things, but I do not see empirical support that triggering in response to reading material is such a widespread and significant phenomenon that these warnings are necessary or desireable. There were no trigger warnings of any kind a few decades ago when I was in college. I don't recall ever encountering triggering from anyone I knew and I don't recall ever reading about it being a problem. That this is an issue now, I think, may well be because we have created a culture that sees triggering as normal. I don't know any of this for certain -- it's outside my expertise. But the burden of proof, I think, is on those advocating warnings, and I don't see the burden being met. I also see significant costs to the culture of triggering, not just in incentivizing people to demand such warnings but also in diminishing our ability to appreciate literature as it should be appreciated -- without lots of labels and warnings and disclosures of what one is about to read. There's something to be said for inculcating in young people a sense of courage in approaching new and different works of literature, and trigger warning culture undercuts that courage. I'm inclined to think that net cost outweighs the cost of doing away with such warnings altogether and exposing a small number of people to the risk of being disturbed by what they read.

 

[gordo12]

They do this for children. So adults can shield their children from things children shouldn't see.

There are no children here. At least, there shouldn't be. Not chronological children, anyway.

Sorry, should have mentioned I live in Canada and it's almost bad enough that we get warnings about the warnings; Sorry we're about to warn you. If that offends you please...

How much of a pansy world have we become?

To be sure it's become a "me" generation. How dare you do anything that offends me. I don't care if hundreds or thousands of others do this without complaint it's about ME.

It's a charge being led by lawsuit happy lawyers and the bureaucrats that don't want their pleasant overpaid days to be interrupted by work. Up here they've banned street hockey and skating on local ponds as all being "too dangerous." Oh and you can't jump out of airplanes either.

I know what offends in the category I write in. Fortunately most of it I'm not fussy on either so I can easily write around it. If there's an outlier I will mention it upfront.

 

[rutger5]

I like to think that I'm open to empirical proof on just about everything, and that I'm willing to change my mind if confronted with sufficient proof. I'm not convinced about the empirical basis for the need for trigger warnings, period. I'm sure that there are some people who react very negatively to certain things, but I do not see empirical support that triggering in response to reading material is such a widespread and significant phenomenon that these warnings are necessary or desireable. There were no trigger warnings of any kind a few decades ago when I was in college. I don't recall ever encountering triggering from anyone I knew and I don't recall ever reading about it being a problem. That this is an issue now, I think, may well be because we have created a culture that sees triggering as normal. I don't know any of this for certain -- it's outside my expertise. But the burden of proof, I think, is on those advocating warnings, and I don't see the burden being met. I also see significant costs to the culture of triggering, not just in incentivizing people to demand such warnings but also in diminishing our ability to appreciate literature as it should be appreciated -- without lots of labels and warnings and disclosures of what one is about to read. There's something to be said for inculcating in young people a sense of courage in approaching new and different works of literature, and trigger warning culture undercuts that courage. I'm inclined to think that net cost outweighs the cost of doing away with such warnings altogether and exposing a small number of people to the risk of being disturbed by what they read.

The point is very well stated. +1

 

[yukonnights]

....I know what offends in the category I write in. Fortunately most of it I'm not fussy on either so I can easily write around it. If there's an outlier I will mention it upfront.

This, in my view, is the key point. A second key point is simple empathy and the ability to put oneself in the shoes of a "stranger" who may have actually experienced a sexual trauma. ( I never have, so my opinion on it's after effects is of no value.) I don't buy into the argument that 'the story will be ruined for the readers.' In fact, a 'trigger warning' stating their is "xxx" is just as likely to entice a reader to start the story.

I've mentioned that in one case Laurel added a note of 'non-consent' content. I simply never even thought about the fact it was there since it was so insignificant to me. But, it was a scene of forced homosexual engagement...even if it was done as humor.

In a later story, I felt it was important to the story to portray and actual forced sexual act. There was harshness and brutality associated with it. It was one short scene in an other wise long love story...which I wrote with the lightest of brush strokes. I put the warning in prior to submission because Laurel had opened my eyes to the possibility it might unintentionally harm another person. Not one person has said that warning ruined the story for them.

I think it is important to think about story elements that could harm a fragile soul. Laurel obviously does, and some of that may be driven by the need to avoid some liable claim (I'm not a lawyer, so I can't know about that). I am a caring person though, even to strangers I will never know. And while I like my stories, they are not my 'precious'.

 

[Hypoxia]

Posting as Hypoxia, I put the story's tags in the disclaimer up front, and maybe a warning of bad vibes or whatever. Posting as an alt, I don't -- just let the chips fly as they will. Those stores are MEANT to draw rabid attacks. If Laurel wants to add an Editor's Note, that's fine with me.

I doubt my stories will trigger anyone to power-drill their skulls or explode their genitals. Or fuck their siblings-parents-offspring. But ya never can tell, hey?

 

[ElectricBlue]

I think it is important to think about story elements that could harm a fragile soul. Laurel obviously does, and some of that may be driven by the need to avoid some liable claim (I'm not a lawyer, so I can't know about that). I am a caring person though, even to strangers I will never know. And while I like my stories, they are not my 'precious'.

I'm with you on this point. Erotica, by definition and intention, is dealing with fundamental and deep-seated elements of a person's make-up - their sexuality, their emotions, and in many cases, their hang-ups, their insecurities, their self-esteem.

As writers of erotica, I assume (from my personal sample of one) that one of the reasons we write is, hopefully, to give someone pleasure, up to and including orgasm. So when we're fucking about with what makes folk go "tingle" and "can I have what she's having," we're actually digging into their psyche, they're inviting us into their souls. We should be good house-guests.

I suppose I write with a half-baked notion of socially responsible erotica, because I've seen the impact my stories have had on people, from their comments. I like the idea of being a "safe haven" for someone, because that sits with my philosophy of sexuality as a positive thing, not the dark place it is for many people. You don't need to look far to see fragile and damaged souls reading and writing here, and we shouldn't underestimate the impact our writing might have on them.

That doesn't mean we need to paint alerts all over the front page, but it does mean being sensitive if we write nearer the edges. As an example, I had at first thought of writing one of my Dark Chronicles characters as a woman with anorexia, but I quickly changed that to a less well-defined mental illness; a) because an eating disorder isn't really a suitable subject for gratuitous erotica; and b) I thought, wait, what if that's a trigger? I also wrote a support environment around the character, because it seemed the right thing to do. Like Yukon, I care about people, and it's not hard to be kind.

 

[sr71plt]

No, I don't agree. Part of keeping your head above the water on any personal issue you are struggling with is taking responsibility for yourself. No one forces you to come to Literotica and read.

An author who has posted to an available category and used accepted keywords that are honest does NOT have the responsibility to babysit for any and all personal issues/problems for the hundreds of thousands of people who come here to read. They chose to come here. It's their responsibility to back out of something that's getting too much for them.

That doesn't mean everything should go here--and it doesn't. The Web site has standards. If you write within them, it's the reader's responsibility for being here. This "Your responsibility is to babysit me a cater to my every wish and dislike and squeamishness" just highlights the effect of a helicopter parent generation and people being coddled for decades because they have been faced with a minimum of adversity to deal with as adults. The result is the dysfunctional society we can clearly see has already set in and permeates our lives.

Ths is a pornographic story site. If you can't take that, go somewhere else to read. If you doubt it, go to a hotel or café or library and see what most of them have defined this site as.

 

[Bramblethorn]

In other cases, what happens may be more of a surprise. But surprise itself may be an important part of the story. Warnings take away the surprise, taking away the enjoyment of the story.

I agree that surprise can be powerful. It surprises me that people who are so willing to recognise the positive side of that power are so reluctant to accept that surprise might also be powerful in the context of "surprising sexual assault survivors with content about sexual assault", or that this might be a harmful surprise.

I like to think that I'm open to empirical proof on just about everything, and that I'm willing to change my mind if confronted with sufficient proof. I'm not convinced about the empirical basis for the need for trigger warnings, period. I'm sure that there are some people who react very negatively to certain things, but I do not see empirical support that triggering in response to reading material is such a widespread and significant phenomenon that these warnings are necessary or desireable.

Let's turn that around a moment: what empirical evidence do you have that they're bad? If you can show me the standard of evidence that you're willing and able to provide for that point of view, I'll see if I can rustle up something for the other side of the argument.

There were no trigger warnings of any kind a few decades ago when I was in college. I don't recall ever encountering triggering from anyone I knew and I don't recall ever reading about it being a problem. That this is an issue now, I think, may well be because we have created a culture that sees triggering as normal. I don't know any of this for certain -- it's outside my expertise.

You probably wouldn't have encountered the term "trigger warning", no. As far as I know, that's quite recent. Medical understanding of PTSD has evolved quite a bit in the last few decades, and terminology along with it.

But I would be astonished if anybody born after 1950-ish made it through college without encountering the basic concept. The trope of the Vietnam vet triggered into wartime flashbacks was well known in popular culture at least as early as David Morrell's 1972 novel "First Blood", and it's been used very heavily since.

I remember going to a stage performance in the 1980s where the theatre had a big sign up to warn patrons that "the discharge of a firearm in Act III will be accompanied by a loud noise", or something along those lines, which is about as literal a "trigger warning" as one could ask for. So this really isn't a new idea.

What has changed in the last ten-twenty years is increased acknowledgement that soldiers aren't the only ones to experience PTSD, and increased willingness to talk about sexual assault. If you never heard about this in college, well... how many people did you know at the time who had been sexually assaulted and were willing to talk openly about it to you?

It's not a millennial thing. Back in the 1990s I went to a performance of "A Streetcar Named Desire" with a friend of mine, born around 1950, who wasn't aware that there's a rape scene in the story and was very upset by that surprise because it took her back to her own experience of rape twenty-odd years earlier. Those reactions have been around forever, just that finally people are a little more willing to talk about them.

Pardon me if I generalise, but a lot of the discussion in this thread seems to be men who have never experienced sexual assault confidently explaining how it ought to affect those who have experienced it, and lamenting the good old days when those survivors had the decency to keep quiet about it and a man could enjoy wanking to a rape fantasy without having to acknowledge that it's a thing that happens to real people.

Of course, I don't know y'all that closely, and it's quite possible that I'm mistaken in some of that assessment, but as long as we're applying the standard of "what I didn't hear about didn't happen"...

(To be clear, I have no intention of denigrating men who wank to rape fantasy, as long as they don't prioritise that ahead of the actual issues of rape survivors.)

But the burden of proof, I think, is on those advocating warnings, and I don't see the burden being met.

Okay then. How many rape survivors saying "I appreciate trigger warnings" do you think would be enough to justify the use of warnings?

I also see significant costs to the culture of triggering, not just in incentivizing people to demand such warnings but also in diminishing our ability to appreciate literature as it should be appreciated -- without lots of labels and warnings and disclosures of what one is about to read.

Stop me if you've heard this one:

Two households, both alike in dignity,
In fair Verona, where we lay our scene,
From ancient grudge break to new mutiny,
Where civil blood makes civil hands unclean.
From forth the fatal loins of these two foes
A pair of star-cross'd lovers take their life;
Whose misadventured piteous overthrows
Do with their death bury their parents' strife.
The fearful passage of their death-mark'd love,
And the continuance of their parents' rage,
Which, but their children's end, nought could remove,
Is now the two hours' traffic of our stage;
The which if you with patient ears attend,
What here shall miss, our toil shall strive to mend.

That's the Prologue from "Romeo and Juliet". Shakespeare gives away the ending even before Act 1 Scene 1.

A hundred years later, Defoe published two famous novels still in print today: "The Life and Strange Surprizing Adventures of Robinson Crusoe, Of York, Mariner: Who lived Eight and Twenty Years, all alone in an un-inhabited Island on the Coast of America, near the Mouth of the Great River of Oroonoque; Having been cast on Shore by Shipwreck, wherein all the Men perished but himself. With An Account how he was at last as strangely deliver'd by Pyrates" & "The Fortunes and Misfortunes of the Famous Moll Flanders Who was born in Newgate, and during a life of continu'd Variety for Threescore Years, besides her Childhood, was Twelve Years a Whore, five times a Wife (whereof once to her brother) Twelve Years a Thief, Eight Years a Transported Felon in Virginia, at last grew Rich, liv'd Honest and died a Penitent". Those aren't the back-cover blurbs, they're the TITLES.

All of those are hugely important and popular standards of English literature, even 300-400 years after they were written, and a little reading will turn up many more examples along those lines.

So, no, I don't accept the blanket assertion that "literature ... should be appreciated without lots of labels and warnings and disclosures". Like most received wisdom about writing, it's sometimes right and sometimes wrong, depending on both the story and the reader. But as a rule of thumb, surprising a rape survivor with a rape scene is generally a bad idea.

In modern times, mainstream publishing delivers that info in different ways. If I buy a book published by Tor, I can expect it to be sci-fi or fantasy. If I buy one from Mills and Boon with a hunky man and an attractive woman on the cover, I can expect heterosexual romance with a Happy Ever After where nobody gets raped or tortured. All in all, just from the material on the front and back cover, we get a lot of information about what kind of story to expect - and for those who need more, there will be reviews available online. Content warnings become more important when those other sources of information aren't available... like on Literotica.

There's something to be said for inculcating in young people a sense of courage in approaching new and different works of literature, and trigger warning culture undercuts that courage.

Does it, though?

I'm not aware of any research which suggests that pushing people's PTSD triggers by surprise is helpful in developing "courage". If anything, my understanding is that it's more likely to exacerbate the problem, and people experiencing PTSD flashbacks are very unlikely to learn anything edifying from their reading.

Also, you seem to be assuming that the point of trigger warnings is so that readers with sensitivities around such things can avoid reading challenging material. That's not necessarily true. Quite often trigger warnings are a tool that helps people to read such material, because they can be mentally prepared for what they're going to encounter.

I'm inclined to think that net cost outweighs the cost of doing away with such warnings altogether and exposing a small number of people to the risk of being disturbed by what they read.

..."a small number"?

Incidence of PTSD in rape survivors is about 30%. Multiply that by the number of rape survivors out there, and we're talking millions in the USA alone. Just because they don't feel like sharing their experiences with you doesn't mean they don't exist.