I've learned my lesson

[KillerMuffin]

*sigh*

I thought it would be cool to post my stuff at ASSTR because it had a pretty good sized readership.

Then I discovered they had stories with pedophilia.

I think I'm going to throw up now.

Never again, It's Lit for me and that's it.

 

[Axeltheswede]

Learned your lesson

Things a little rough for you over on the dark side, eh, Muffie?

In a world where anything goes, anything really does go. Personal tastes aside, I do respect their convictions. All those censorship demons come out and play.

Before you start doing the "cowboy stomp" on my head, let me clarify what I'm saying. I assume you have no problem with the fact that they exist and publish what they want. Free speech includes the right to offend. We are all free to ignore their site and the stories we find offensive.

Let the games begin.

 

[Ray Dario]

KM;

Thanks for the heads up. I was actually looking at that site as a possible "other" site for my stories too. Now I will reconsider.

And Axel, I'm not reconsidering because I feel they shouldn't be allowed to post whatever stories they want. I'm reconsidering because I don't want my stories associated with pedophilia.

Ray

 

[p_p_man]

It's an unfortunate fact that many of the larger sites publish paedeophilia stories..

and other extreme stuff, like sexual torture.

I submit my work to these sites because my own stories get a wide readership and on one particular one I'm allowed to link my story directly to my own site. My visitor total goes up in leaps and bounds when I release a new tale.

Disregarding the issues of freedom to publish and anything goes, I'm quite happy to have my stories published on sites that cater for subject material I'm not happy with.

If those sites bring me traffic then the nastier categories I can ignore.

Whilst we're on the subject I placed my romantic story "The Car" on a site where anything goes and I was more than surprised to see the rating and the readership it has received in one week. It's my top story on that site, and one of the top stories on the site as a whole (rating 9.45 out of 10). And that story contains no sex at all.

Sex isn't being sought all the time obviously...

 

[Couture]

I'm kind of upset about the way you handled things KM. I respect your right to post whatever kinds of stories you want, but you should at least have the consideration to post the story code (Ped) or some other sort of warning on the story that you left up. Especially, if you are posting something so far out from what you normally do.

 

[KillerMuffin]

I don't doubt they'll remove it anyway.

ASSTR supports pedophilia and there's simply no way to rationalize that. Anyone who posts on ASSTR and places like it may not support pedophilia, but they condone it by turning a blind eye to it. Anyone who frequents ASSTR condones pedophilia by turning a blind eye to it. You simply cannot permit that content and not approve of it at the same time.

Freedom of speech and freedom to offend are one thing.

Responsibility for ones actions are another.

I categorically refuse to condone pedophilia and I refuse to be a part of anyone who does.

Like I told Rey this morning, I hope the blanket of the First Amendment helps you sleep at night.

You are correct, Couture. I will insert the appropriate codes as soon as possible. Pedophiles will adore the story and get off to my suffering. Pathetic.

 

[Couture]

BTW, I'm sorry and all that, which I forgot to mention.

I didn't mean to sound obtuse, but it is just not the sort of thing I read and wouldn't have if it was coded properly.

 

[Debbie]

Thanks KM. I didn't know that.

 

[KillerMuffin]

I just went ahead and removed everything. I'm not anyone's conscience and I shouldn't force my way into that. If that's what they want to do, so be it.

Ah well.

 

[abashed-dreamer]

Hi KM,

You said,

KM: ASSTR supports pedophilia and there's simply no way to rationalize that. Anyone who posts on ASSTR and places like it may not support pedophilia, but they condone it by turning a blind eye to it. Anyone who frequents ASSTR condones pedophilia by turning a blind eye to it. You simply cannot permit that content and not approve of it at the same time.
******

US law allows one to write and publish on just about anything-- except lately not about how to pilot jets into office towers. It's called 'freedom of artistic expression.'

Your position bears some thinking out. Suppose you found a site that was devoted to murder mysteries, and the murders were of a brutal kind.

1) Would you say, "The site supports brutal murder"?
2) "Those who post to the site condone murder"?

Couture and several others post there; is it obvious they condone pedophilia? Or is that a bit far fetched?

KM, can we apply your reasoning to you.?? You post at Literotica whose 'extreme' section, available at one click from 'stories' has stories of brutal sex torture, murder and bestiality (have a look); whose incest category has thousands of stories and is in the main part. So may I presume you condone sex torture and incest?

You've every right to post wherever and read wherever. You write what you please, including rape. And women and children have a right not to be harmed, that is, by actual acts. Probably almost any site you frequent will have stories that are distasteful and depict illegal acts, unless you go to a romance site. It's worth thinking over these issues, not just exploding.

Incidentally, I've not posted to asstr.

Best,
Jack

 

[Uther_Pendragon]

*sigh*

I thought it would be cool to post my stuff at ASSTR because it had a pretty good sized readership.

Then I discovered they had stories with pedophilia.

I think I'm going to throw up now.

Never again, It's Lit for me and that's it.

:
In fairness to the people who run ASSTR,
they don't run the actual websites. The author
posts his own stories.
You can be kicked off for violating copyright, but
even that is hard to arrange.
One author has pictures which he considers parodies of
other authors on his page on what is *supposed* to be
a story board.

 

[curious2c]

KM, I personally don't condone rape, pedophilia, beastiality, or a few other types of sexual conduct. However, asstr does perform a necessary service that,even though I don't read or like some of the stories posted on their sight, I can't fault them for true freedom! I guess I feel that growing up, some educated people thought that violence in cartoons would surface in general public. I haven't seen a coyote or rabbit get smashed,crashed,shot,blown-up,or even talk (yet anyway), so I don't think that if something you don't like exsist's on a sight you can condem the whole thing. When one starts to censor, who decides, and who chooses what will be censored? Just my humble POV.

 

[karmadog]

I am going to take an enormous ration of shit for this, but, so be it.

Comparing violence and sexuality is like comparing a rock and a horse. They simply are not the same thing, nor are they related. When you begin to discuss parahilia, you discuss a thing that is not fully understood by anyone.

Back in the 80's there were reputable studies done that showed that for most people, being shown images of mutual sexuality, agression decreased, but images of rape or violent sexuality seemed to increase aggression. Now, no study has proven a relationship between violent sex and aggression, but there has been very little research done by anyone who could be trusted.

Less studied is the relationship between kiddie porn and pedophilia. In the absence of any evidence, I cannot condemn (except by my own personal disgust) stories that depict sex between adults and children.

KM, I don't know what story you are talking about that a pedophilie might take pleasure from, but if it is based on personal experience, you have my sympathy and empathy, and I hope that you would not post it anywhere where you might expect a pedophile to feel himself legitimized.

I believe that any website that allows pedophilia to be posted allows a pedophile to feel himself legitimized. I do not care for such a person to feel that way. My hope is that, since we cannot cure such people, we remove them from society and never allow them to feel that their behavior is legitimate.

 

[Guest]

Interesting response, KD
+++++++

Comparing violence and sexuality is like comparing a rock and a horse. They simply are not the same thing, nor are they related. When you begin to discuss parahilia, you discuss a thing that is not fully understood by anyone. [snip]

I believe that any website that allows pedophilia to be posted allows a pedophile to feel himself legitimized. I do not care for such a person to feel that way. My hope is that, since we cannot cure such people, we remove them from society and never allow them to feel that their behavior is legitimate. [/B]

++++++

I'm not sure about the rock and horse thing. Violence and sexuality certainly are related and co-occur in many stories, esp. those in the 'all extreme' category. Yes, some studies have shown evidence that violence or violent sex in reading material may lead one slightly in that direction. Yet gentle sexy reading material leads often to masturbation or couple activity. So there is a similarity. If you read about X, in some circumstances you might be more inclined to do it. On the other hand, there's my granny who reads murder mysteries.... What about her? Hmm Well, grandad did have that fall down the stairs...'bad accident,' she said.

You speak of a site that 'allows pedophilia to be posted' and state that this 'allows a pedophile to feel legitimized.' Do the rape torture stories in 'all extreme' allow rapists to feel legitimized or turn the readers toward violent rape??. That's an open question, but we know the readers generally contain themselves.

What you and KM keep confusing is writings and acts. 'Pedophilia' is a practice. It can't be posted. "Writings depicting pedophilia' are what you are speaking of. Depictions of activities (that occur only in the imagination) are not actual instances of those activities.

So I ask, take two examples. 1) The book "American Psycho" shows an American psychopathic exceptionally brutal killer. Is it objectionable because (you allege) a brutal killer may feel legitimized?

2) The book 'Lolita' depicts a pedophile. Somewhat pathetic, actually. It's in many bookstores and libraries. If KM gets published more, her book may be in the same store. Would you object to bookstores stocking it on grounds that the book (you allege) may make a pedophile feel legitimized.?

Yes, pedophiles should be removed from society; so should torturers, wife killers and other murderers, esp. child murderers; also 'gentle' incest offenders against children, such as some parents and some priests.

Yet these folks and their acts are the legitimate content of many novels, short stories, and films. Consider the play, "Othello" and the recent video "O"-- subject, wife murder. Ever seen the 1931 movie of Fritz Lang, "M" (about a notorious child murderer), or Laughton's "Night of the Hunter" ? Fine, scary and troubling films. Aside from warning viewers/readers, what do you propose to do with such material.??

Jack
abashed-dreamer

 

[KillerMuffin]

Because one does it, we must all do it. Because some pedophilia is art, it must all be treated as art. Bullshit.

Nabokov is a master. Nifty et al, are porno hacks.

Nabokov did a lot of things with Lolita, but glorify pedophilia and make it appear to be a wonderful thing and everyone on the outside just doesn't understand is not what what he did. I don't think it should be in the hands of people like Albert Fish, but I don't think it shouldn't be in the library, either. There's inherent societal wide value because there is something about the story itself that makes the self-same society think.

Pedophile porno hacks have one puprose, to get someone off. The only people who get off to pedophile porno are pedophiles. People don't print up passages of Nabokov and hide out in the bathroom for a few hours, do they?

Attempting to justify moral issues with ridiculous comparisons like Lolita to tripe like Mommy Loves to Change Diapers (if such a thing exists) is just as ridiculous as trying to justify banning butterknives because someone used a cannon once.

You should also ask yourself if Nabokov, David, Romeo & Juliet , etc. legitimized pedophilia in a way that would make NAMBLA and their ilk feel like they're right? Didn't think so, because it doesn't.

With the massive amount of porno pedo on the 'Net, it gives people like NAMBLA the idea that their are millions and millions of people just like them and because there are so many, it can't be as wrong as all those stuffed shirt, puritanical censors who want to run everyone's lives for them are saying.

Lolita does not carry an air of legitimacy. It carries controversy. Porno can give the pedo on the street the feeling that they aren't alone. There's a brother/sister hood of child lovers. There's a rightness to it because they are no longer alone.

I could give a rats ass about the rest. I've written it myself and I will probably publish it. Pedophilia is too far for me. I will not feed the fantasies of pedophiles. I will not be a part of a place that feeds the fantasies of pedophiles. I will not condone it, support it, nor will I give it the appearance of legitimacy to its practitioners. I will not be associated with a domain that does the same thing.

Yes, refusing to allow the freedom for pedophiles to express themselves is censorship and it denies pure freedom. I wish we lived in a place with pure freedom. Then there would be less pedophiles because I would be free to exercise my own freedom to express myself with a bullet.

You cannot have pure freedom in any place where there is more than one living thing. Everything we do has consequences to it, good or bad. Everything we do is constrained by those consequences, good or bad. Platitudes about censorship are just that, platitudes. We censor ourselves every day. If we didn't you'd have advertisements all over this board. Like everything else, there is an acceptable level of censorship. Pedophilia falls below that level.

That said, I DO NOT believe in governmental censorship. Censorship belongs with the minimalist sanctions that society itself places. Like my refusal to be a part of ASSTR.

As I said earlier, there are a few things in this world that are unacceptable. Pedophilia is one of them.

 

[karmadog]

KM-- Tell it sister!!

Jack, it is far easier to understand psychologically where violence comes from. Paraphilias are not understood clearly, by anyone. No one, to my knowledge, is suggesting that because some freak gets off on reading kiddie porn, that he or she is a pedophile, nor that the government should censor such things. What KM is doing and advocating is SOCIAL pressure.

When one lives in a society, one is a piece of the picture and as such has the ability to affect that society and its mores. Fifty years ago, cursing in mixed company would have been extremely poor form and anyone who engaged in it would have been made to feel heat for it. I don't give a rat's ass about cursing, but any time that you give even tacit approval to something, you increase societal acceptance.

I choose not to contribute to acceptance of that sort of behavior in any way.

 

[curious2c]

Karmadog, Social pressure? Isn't that another way of saying Politically Correct? What if the social pressure were to go farther? How about all the way to erotic literature in general being a labeled as "not for good people to read"? I do not in any way think that sexual acts with children is right or moral, just as I do not believe that murder, rape, necrophillia, or a host of other types of acts or sexual acts are morally right or legal! I have to, however say that to use social pressure to bring change has always been a part of history. right or wrong social pressure makes people change to the status quo. I for one think that you lose certain freedoms every time a Politically Correct Person gains! I choose what to read, what I watch on TV,movies, etc.. I choose where to post my stories, spend my money, etc. I think that killermuffin has the right to post where she wants to or to also not post where she doesn't want! Self-respect is something that it seems more and more people are losing or never had! The fact is, self-respect is what will bring things like pediophillia, rape, torture, beastiality, necrophillia, and all of the other things to a halt. However, that is an idealistic and impossible change that even social pressure can not bring! Whew! This hits a chord!

 

[KillerMuffin]

Er, actually K-dog, if some freak does get off to kiddie porn, he or she is a pedophile. All you have to do to be a pedophile is have a preference for that kind of sex. You don't have to practice it.

I object to not only practicing pedophiles, but the entire notion of pedophilia. In other words, I not only care if people molest children, I care if they get off to fictional kiddie porn.

I do not object to people who are into all that other nasty stuff, but I do object to when they do it. In other words, I care if people do objectional things to other people, but I don't care if they get off to fictional porn on that subject.

It's odd, it's hypocritical, but it's the way I'm wired and I'm not going to change.

 

[abashed-dreamer]

Hi KM,

Interesting points, if a bit lengthy. My ex was molested as a child, so I am quite aware of that danger and am in favor of sequestering such dangerous people, just as rapists and murderers. I, however, have as many qualms about American Psycho, as I do about the "Nifty" hack pedo porn (you mention), which I haven't read, by the way.

[snipped]
I object to not only practicing pedophiles, but the entire notion of pedophilia. In other words, I not only care if people molest children, I care if they get off to fictional kiddie porn.

I do not object to people who are into all that other nasty stuff, but I do object to when they do it. In other words, I care if people do objectional things to other people, but I don't care if they get off to fictional porn on that subject.

It's odd, it's hypocritical, but it's the way I'm wired and I'm not going to change. [/B]

++++++

Yes, it's odd, KM, and 'wiring' explanations don't help anyone understand. But you have a right sound off and to post wherever. Your postings are always interesting. Keep it up!!


The oddity is that you and KD (I think) have no problem with sex torture and cannibalism at 'extreme'--which is not great lit., by the way. Nor (I think) with psycho killer books that are pretty engaging. Correct me if I'm wrong, but you further admit some or many will get off on such violent stuff. But you are NOT going to say that violent stuff encourages or legitimizes violence, in the way that a pedo story legitimizes or condones pedophilia.

There seems to be a mystery why an arousing (to the deviant) pedophile story causes you to be incensed; on the other hand, for a good arousing (to the sadist) slice and dice, or woman-cut-up and pieces-roasted-over-a-fire story, you simply say, 'let them imagine' (but not do it). [That is an actual example from 'Extreme, that I had the misfortune to read.]

Both good literature and bad often deals with evil people, sometime 'glorifying' them (Bonnie and Clyde). It's out there, legally in the US, on a 'consumer be aware' basis. One had just better choose wisely in his or her and one's own kids' reading material, and protect loved ones from all harmful persons, pedophile or otherwise.

Jack.

PS. As far as possible effects, it's said that one of Canada's most notorious serial killers (P.B) had a copy of American Psycho in his bedroom....

 

[SweetSexyLady]

I don't condone rape, incest, beastiality, or peds...however, I do have stories with rape, incest, and maybe I'll write one with beastiality in it....But I write to please the reader mostly..turn them on...get them off. I have kids, so peds is totally nasty, plus I was molested when I was kid and I tend to veer away from that sort of thing.

 

[karmadog]

You're right a reader of kiddie porn is a pedophile. I wrote unclearly. I should have said child abuser.

Curious2C: No. Social pressure and political correctness are NOT the same thing. In my own life, I choose not to associate with bigots. If someone uses the N word around me, I quickly make it clear that I don't find that acceptable. If someone starts describing the great Zionist conspiracy, I laugh in their face. That is social pressure. Political correctness seeks to impose the cultural values of a minority on the whole. In addition, they seek to make laws to require agreement with their views. I am speaking simply of living my beliefs. Am I always right? Of course not.

Jack, I actually do have a problem with all of the stories you describe. The difference between depicting violence and sexuality is that usually, the killer is depicted as "bad". Murderers usually are not glorified. In that case, the reader who misreads the point of the story cannot be coinsidered the norm. If someone produces kiddie porn, there is no doubt that he is trying to show that as pleasurable. Frequently, I am told the child is depicted as enjoying it, asking for it, or desiring it. Rarely is the murder victim enjoying their murder.

As far as the stories you describe on Extreme, I would not read such a thing, but I find that as disgusting as kiddie porn.

What I think KM"s original point had to do with was ethics rather than government. I think the world would be a better place if people worried more about whether their behavior was ethical rather than moral.

 

[Quasimodem]

Jack, I actually do have a problem with all of the stories you describe. The difference between depicting violence and sexuality is that usually, the killer is depicted as "bad". Murderers usually are not glorified. In that case, the reader who misreads the point of the story cannot be coinsidered the norm

Funny.

The only Ian Fleming book I can recall that follows that pattern, is "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang!"

I better lean harder on that "usually".


Quasi.

 

[Ray Dario]

Funny.

The only Ian Fleming book I can recall that follows that pattern, is "Chitty Chitty Bang Bang!"
Quasi.

Just a note here, but in the "James Bond" books, unlike the movies, James Bond was not really glorified. He was depicted as a drunken, egotist. Aside from that, he rarely committed what would be called by sane people as murder. I think it happend maybe four times in over twenty books. Usually he killed in self defense or as part of a military action. In several of the books he didn't kill anyone at all. In the four instances where he did commit murder the act was not glorified and he suffered terribly from it.

Ray

 

[karmadog]

Ray is right about the Bond books. But aside from that, he kills because he is licensed by government. Yet I freely admit that murder v. "legitimate" killing is a blurry line.

My point stands though: what we are discussing is ethics. Admittedly, ethics have fallen from favor, but do any of you have them? Are ethics useless? If you do, how often do you circimvent them for personal gain, or social ease? Explain.

 

[abashed-dreamer]

Killer Muffin opined:
Er, actually K-dog, if some freak does get off to kiddie porn, he or she is a pedophile.

Karmadog agreed:
You're right a reader of kiddie porn is a pedophile. I wrote unclearly. I should have said child abuser.
++++


Well, you two, there certainly is such an abhorrent preference/practice called 'pedophilia'. However you don't get to define it, Red Queen style, as you please.

The _DSM IV_, the official diagnostic manual of the American Psychiatric Association (1994) has a full catalog of sexual deviations (paraphilias), and its criteria would be used by psychiatrists in court cases involving these matters. It states:

"Diagnostic criteria for 302.2 pedophilia
"A. Over a period of at least 6 months, recurrent intense sexually arousing fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors involving sexual activity with a prepubescent child or children (generally 13 years of age or younger).

"B. The fantasies, sexual urges, or behaviors cause clinically significant distress or impairment in social occupation or other important areas of functioning." (p.528)

There is this important note on a previous page (525), since all the paraphilias have similar definitions, mentioning impairment, in point B.

"A paraphilia must be distinguished from the non pathological use of sexual fantasies, behaviors, or objects as a stimulus for sexual excitement in individuals without a Paraphilia. Fantasies, behaviors, or object are paraphiliac only when they lead to clinically significant distress or impairment (e.g., are obligatory, result in sexual dysfunction, require participation of non consenting individuals, lead to legal complications, interfere with social relationships)."

So while KM is vaguely in the ball park, KD is not even close, unless he were to specify that the 'reader' was selectively and habitually so, in a way that impaired his sexual or social functioning or would likely get him in trouble with the law (as would the acting out with any child, who, by legal prescription, is incapable of consent.) To 'read' a deviant story does not make a pervert (paraphilic), any more than reading Madame Bovary makes one an adulterer. This is not to say that collecting hundreds of stories of some particular deviation and habitually whacking off to them instead of having any normal relationship is not a disorder.

Karmadog continued:
Jack, I actually do have a problem with all of the stories you describe. The difference between depicting violence and sexuality is that usually, the killer is depicted as "bad". Murderers usually are not glorified. In that case, the reader who misreads the point of the story cannot be coinsidered the norm.
++++

I'm glad there is an area of agreement around violent stories.
But I think you underestimate the number of such stories where the killer is depicted either neutrally or possibly in a glamourous light. That was the case with _American Psycho_.
There are a number of movies of such description: Unforgiven (Eastwood) and a number of his earlier movies (High Plains Drifter, Sudden Impact). Scarface (1983), with Al Pacino might be another example, and in fact the earlier Hawks version 1931 had problems with the censors.

It's been thought provoking to hear your input, Ms. Muffin and Mr. Dog.

Jack