Jumping into the fire ... Should the entire Non-Con category be eliminated?

[Cagivagurl]

You arguments do not back up your stance.

Sexual non-consent is rape. Yes. Agree. So? What does that have to do with rape fiction?

It glorifies sexual abuse. This does not make sense. Rape glorifies rape? I think you mean that rape fiction glorifies rape (so not only is your argument hopelessly flawed, so is your diction). This is not true. Glorification is in the eye of the reader. A non-con story does not glorify rape any more than a war movie glorifies war or a mafia story glorifies crime and contract murder. So if you are not willing to ban Saving Private Ryan and the Godfather you can get off of your rickety soapbox right now.

If you believe that every non-con story is an attempt to paint pretty flowers on rape you are horribly short-sighted. I call bullshit on your bullshit. It's judgmental folks like you who are the biggest threat to free speech.

Your opinion, is simply that...
An opinion... You can call it what you want...
Any story that paints a rosy picture of sexual abuse is glorifying it...
Pretending that it's OK, because it's only fiction is a ridiculous argument, just so you can keep your fetish fresh and clean...
The defenders hide behind shit like freedom of speech... So they can keep their conscience clean...
Non consensual sexual abuse is rape... Pure and simple. Any attempt to make it look like something else is ridiculous...
In my opinion...

Cagivagurl

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

Ahh, the deflectors ... off topic ... whataboutists ....



If you want to discuss something else, start a thread for it.

You brought up promoting criminal behavior.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

In the end, someone might normalise non-com in their heads and eventually rape someone.

So what do you think of The Godfather?
What do you think of Taxi Driver?

How many arsonists were inspired by Bambi? You might think that I'm being facetious but not really. Almost every Hollywood movie ever made has some sort of trangressive act in it. You could ban them all. Where do you draw your line?

 

[Husky_Embrace]

No author/artist is responsible for the behavior of others.

I'd love to see a rapist try that argument in court: The dirty story I read on literotica (that thousands of others read and didn't rape anyone) made me commit rape.

I'm not arguing that it holds up in court. I'm saying it is a contributing factor. A contributing factor can be that someone is drunk and alone so that a rape can happen. Although sone people try to argue that it is then their own fault, we don't drag them to court for it.

Though it has been said in court plenty that access to certain materials has exacerbated the problem, eventually causing certain crimes.

Bullshit.

How eloquently put. However, it is a well documented phenomenon where any behaviour can be normalised or strengthened by having access to it. Bad work environments, toxic communities, crime in certain areas, or extreme things like murder, rape or torture. Denial is just stupid at this point.

 

[Husky_Embrace]

So what do you think of The Godfather?
What do you think of Taxi Driver?

How many arsonists were inspired by Bambi? You might think that I'm being facetious but not really. Almost every Hollywood movie ever made has some sort of trangressive act in it. You could ban them all. Where do you draw your line?

We open up a discussion about where to draw the line. I'm not drawing it myself. I'm just giving reasons why it should be banned. If there's well founded reasons why it should be allowed, I'm all ears.

And again, I have stated very clearly that there are non-con stories that should be allowed.

 

[forgotmyantidepressants]

However, it is a well documented phenomenon where any behaviour can be normalised or strengthened by having access to it.

Direct me to the documentation. I'd love to read it.

I'd argue that people with the desire to commit extreme violence are going to commit it whether they read an NC/R story or not.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Your opinion, is simply that...
An opinion... You can call it what you want...
Any story that paints a rosy picture of sexual abuse is glorifying it...
Pretending that it's OK, because it's only fiction is a ridiculous argument, just so you can keep your fetish fresh and clean...
The defenders hide behind shit like freedom of speech... So they can keep their conscience clean...
Non consensual sexual abuse is rape... Pure and simple. Any attempt to make it look like something else is ridiculous...
In my opinion...

Cagivagurl

You are still blanketing the issue unjustly. Who is to say whether a story paints a rosy picture or a grimdark hell? The reader. One critic loves a movie, the next pans it hard. We just had another thread discussing Basic Instinct. Was it misogynistic/homophobic or a groundbreaking queer thriller? There is no consensus and there never will be. Do we ban this one or not? You tell me.

And this still stands and you still have not addressed it.

A non-con story does not glorify rape any more than a war movie glorifies war or a mafia story glorifies crime and contract murder. So if you are not willing to ban Saving Private Ryan and the Godfather you can get off of your rickety soapbox right now.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

We open up a discussion about where to draw the line. I'm not drawing it myself. I'm just giving reasons why it should be banned.

Oh aren't we high and mighty. If you want stuff banned but can't draw the line, that is very cowardly.

If there's well founded reasons why it should be allowed, I'm all ears.

No you're not. There are many in this thread already and you're not listening at all.

 

[Dark_Logan_]

As a writer who has a lot of story’s in that particular category (of which only a very few are even r*pe related and none of these are detailed just alluded to) I’d suggest no in my opinion

The tendency of my darker work categories and shapes my decision to list here, I’d rather not be ambiguous in the eyes of anyone.

Individuals will have an opinion, which I will let them hold and they are entitled to.

It wasn’t necessarily a conscious decision to lean towards this sub sector but the dark narrative of storylines edged the chapters towards this category. I fully appreciate I could miss readers but I’d rather be honest and give the inclination of clarity that the content may be perceived as risqué.

Stephen King hasn’t knowingly murdered anyone yet and he’s written enough about that kind of dark material

 

[cw5523729]

How many arsonists were inspired by Bambi? You might think that I'm being facetious but not really.

Good point - Disney has made clear their feelings about mothers and step-mothers.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Deflection is movies, authors, other categories/topics, stuff yadda, yadda, yadda ....


The question relates to the Non-Con category and associated rules on Lit.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

Sexual non consent is rape....
It glorifies the sexual abuse of another human being regardless of their gender.
Taking another human being sexually against their wishes is rape... Non consensual sex is rape....
You can paint pretty flowers on it, but it doesn't change it... Rape... Is Rape...
Any attempts to portray it as anything else, is in my opinion... Bullshit...

So, should Non Con be banned???
In my opinion... Absolutely.

Cagivagurl

I respect where you're coming from.

However, I can imagine stories where sexual activity is not what a character was not consenting to. Anything from an arranged marriage where the relationship itself is non-con, but all parties enjoy the physical aspects, to people reluctantly performing acts that they enjoy in front of an audience not of their chosing.

I don't condone rape or similar acts, but I also don't want to paint any category here with such a broad brush.

 

[cw5523729]

Stephen King hasn’t knowingly murdered anyone yet and he’s written enough about that kind of dark material

So what I'm reading is that King has unknowingly murdered someone... Probably multiple someones.

 

[Dark_Logan_]

So what I'm reading is that King has unknowingly murdered someone... Probably multiple someones.

Until it can be proven otherwise let’s cast aspiration

 

[cw5523729]

Until it can be proven otherwise let’s cast aspiration

Agree 100%. If anyone deserves a "guilty until proven innocent", it's that guy. I mean, have you seen the crazy-ass shit he writes? There's no way he hasn't killed someone yet.

 

[MiaBabe23]

The reference to violent and horror literature is a valid discussion point if the suggestion is that consuming that, or any other type of literature, increases the risk of someone giving themselves permission to commit an act through what they read
It’s misguided to think that ideas and motivations don’t crystallize through what we read; but it’s equally misguided to suggest that what’s read has a causal effect
I personally enjoy some cnc, but I do feel genuinely unsettled by some of what is allowed in the non-consent category, and I think the appropriateness is a question worth considering
What ultimately matters is whether there’s space for intelligent discussion, empowering potential victims, and normalizing respect, safety and consent in the real world. It takes a village to raise an idiot

 

[KittyOfSteele]

No.

Just checked the Guidelines...

• Ravishment/non-consent fantasies in which the “victim” receives no thrill or enjoyment from the acts, or is seriously and/or permanently physically harmed/abused/maimed/killed.
• Sexualized maiming, amputation, and female or male circumcision. We happily accept stories of amputees and their devotees, but do not post stories sexualizing the act of amputation or permanent physical harm.
• Ravishment, nonconsensual, dubiously consensual, or consensual-nonconsensual fantasies involving real-life people, groups/organizations, or copyrighted characters. Literotica does not publish non-con fanfic.

Where are the changes? They still remain the same. What I've just underlined is the thing that clears it up that non-consent is still allowed with an asterisk.

If you think Non-consent shouldn't be allowed, then please nuke Mind Control, Taboo/Incest, Mature, and the scat stories in Fetish, because... I don't know, they might offend someone! Oh my God, stop the presses!

Oh, and while we're are it, let's also remove Gay Male, Crossdresser, Lesbian Sex, Transgender, and Anal. Let's get rid of FF/C, E/V, First Time, BDSM, Interracial Love, Loving Wives, and T/M as well. We don't want our good folk to deviate from the norm and start doing all these things, or disgracing the name of our beloved wholesome idols whom we worship the same way as Christ.

Why not just nuke the whole site and be done with it? Arrest Laurel, arrest Manu, arrest every single user in this place, whether they have hundreds of stories, or zero. Let's dig up the graves of the dead authors and put their bones to trial!

This is ridiculous... What is it with these Tipper Gore types flocking to this porn place trying to censor everything they don't like? Is it by any chance that you're the ones who are seeing yourselves in the mirror while reading at those stories?

By the way...

Should people stop treating FICTIONAL characters like they were real people? Absolutely.

The reference to violent and horror literature is a valid discussion point if the suggestion is that consuming that, or any other type of literature, increases the risk of someone giving themselves permission to commit an act through what they read
It’s misguided to think that ideas and motivations don’t crystallize through what we read; but it’s equally misguided to suggest that what’s read has a causal effect
I personally enjoy some cnc, but I do feel genuinely unsettled by some of what is allowed in the non-consent category, and I think the appropriateness is a question worth considering
What ultimately matters is whether there’s space for intelligent discussion, empowering potential victims, and normalizing respect, safety and consent in the real world. It takes a village to raise an idiot

Videogame studies have proved over and over and over again that violent videogames does not equate to the performance of violence in real life. This too happens with any type of media consumed. This discussion should be dead already, but we're still yapping about it because the media keep parroting the words of politicians who want nothing but to control everyone. And I mean every single one.

 

[Lifestyle66]

The idea of banning a category is rather narrow-minded.

It doesn't stop the stories from being written and posted elsewhere.

One story posted to LW (which I pointed out in several threads) was a wife and her Black lover impregnating her in front of her husband forcing him to watch while wearing a cock-cage.

Is that "Non-Con?" The author argued "But she LOVES her husband!" (only because that's what the title said.)

So, having the category allows others who don't want to read those stories to more easily avoid tripping over them in their preferred categories. It doesn't normalize anything when the author is already thinking it and writing it. It doesn't normalize anything when the reader is looking for it and reading it. People who think and read disturbing material are already falling further into their own dark cesspool of a mind, and if anything, letting them read about it is just delaying the inevitable.

Perhaps there's a nascent argument for developing a disturbed wacko AI chatbot which can entertain a psycho and keep them off the streets.

 

[cw5523729]

Let's dig up the graves of the death authors and put their bones to trial!

That sounds like a lot of work. It's bad enough it's Monday, you know.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I'm starting to think that these threads are on some kind of automatic timer. Every X days, a topic about non-con, validity of ratings, or AI, appears again, and again, and again, and again... Ad infinitum.

It's Laurel trolling you, folks. The more you drone about this, the less you write. She clearly needs some respite.

 

[cw5523729]

I'm starting to think that these threads are on some kind of automatic timer. Every X days, a topic about non-con, validity of ratings, or AI, appears again, and again, and again, and again... Ad infinitum.

Hey, that dead horse isn't going to beat itself, you know.

'Cuz it's dead.

And horses don't have hands.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Deflection is movies, authors, other categories/topics, stuff yadda, yadda, yadda ....

The question relates to the Non-Con category and associated rules on Lit.

And all of these things relate to the category. Furthermore all of these things relate DIRECTLY to the arguments made herein FOR banning. If that's deflection, then EVERYTHING in the universe is deflection. If that is the case, the exact argument can be made for ANY argument anytime anywhere including AGAINST banning.

So ... this means that you have ... nothing.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Hey, that dead horse isn't going to beat itself, you know.

'Cuz it's dead.

And horses don't have hands.

That's typical biped chauvinism!

 

[calmlikeabomb]

Would you differentiate between Reluctance and Non Con as two separate categories?

For instance, a breeding story can be categorised into Reluctance ( Here is how my impotent husband's boss impregnated me and 10 things I learned about B2B Marketing in the process ), but not Non con.

 

[calmlikeabomb]

So what do you think of The Godfather?
What do you think of Taxi Driver?

How many arsonists were inspired by Bambi? You might think that I'm being facetious but not really. Almost every Hollywood movie ever made has some sort of trangressive act in it. You could ban them all. Where do you draw your line?

Would your views change if the answer to any of these was definitely proven to be non Zero?