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

[M_K_Babalon]

Nope. That's bullshit Anti mentality and I don't stand for it. I do not believe in literary censorship and bans, anybody who calls themselves a writer and does, are fascist cretins. You don't hafta like non-con, I/T, Huck Finn, Bone, or whatever new banned book there is, you don't. But to think that nobody else can enjoy or write it because of your moral proclivities is balderdash.

I have written some rapey fan fics, but I can seperate reality from fiction, and I'll be in the line to beat the shit out of an actual rapist. They're stories, don't like, don't read. Leave them, the writers, the readers the fuck alone with your pompous "moral high ground" over fantasy. Puritanical righteousness is a slippery slope.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

Do you know where they live? Maybe it's almost midnight there in which case he better get moving.

It's 1pm.

 

[cw5523729]

It's 1pm.

Oh, so you have plenty of time then to start your rampage. Have lunch first, you don't want to do something like that on an empty stomach.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

Any ban of non-con essentially kills 90% of the Mind Control category as someone under mind control isn’t truly consenting. But I can’t recall seeing anyone aiming to ban that category.

Then you haven't been reading.

Yes, it should go too.

 

[M_K_Babalon]

Oh, so you have plenty of time then to start your rampage. Have lunch first, you don't want to do something like that on an empty stomach.

Gotta carb load and do my stretches.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

And of you think these kinds of changes can't/won't/don't happen, look at 'Illustrated Stories'.

 

[MillieDynamite]

Well, a lively discussion. Filled with those who want to ban books, thought, creativity, and emotions that don't conform to their point of view. And the rest of us.

 

[cw5523729]

Gotta carb load and do my stretches.

Good thinking. There's nothing worse than getting a Charlie horse while in the middle of slaughtering a bunch of innocent civilians. Oh, and hookers.

 

[SimonDoom]

Well, a lively discussion. Filled with those who want to ban books, thought, creativity, and emotions that don't conform to their point of view. And the rest of us.

It's a useful, instructive reminder that even at an erotic story website there are people who want to control what other people read and write.

 

[cw5523729]

It's a useful, instructive reminder that even at an erotic story website there are people who want to control what other people read and write.

Yeah, I gotta say that that part came as big shock to me. I struggle to imagine a group that you'd think would be less anti-censorship.

 

[MillieDynamite]

And to whoever said rape is in Mainstream Erotica, it isn't. That gets you banned from every online booksales (except ZBookstore, which is tiny).

 

[al55]

Nope. That's bullshit Anti mentality and I don't stand for it. I do not believe in literary censorship and bans, anybody who calls themselves a writer and does, are fascist cretins. You don't hafta like non-con, I/T, Huck Finn, Bone, or whatever new banned book there is, you don't. But to think that nobody else can enjoy or write it because of your moral proclivities is balderdash.

I have written some rapey fan fics, but I can seperate reality from fiction, and I'll be in the line to beat the shit out of an actual rapist. They're stories, don't like, don't read. Leave them, the writers, the readers the fuck alone with your pompous "moral high ground" over fantasy. Puritanical righteousness is a slippery slope.

Extremely well said, my friend!

 

[Statius]

Good thinking. There's nothing worse than getting a Charlie horse while in the middle of slaughtering a bunch of innocent civilians. Oh, and hookers.

Hookers aren't innocent citizens?

 

[cw5523729]

Hookers aren't innocent citizens?

This is GTA we're talking about. Of course not.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

It's a useful, instructive reminder that even at an erotic story website there are people who want to control what other people read and write.

Yes, but you see those other bad people are "forcing their beliefs on other people", these people are just "doing the right thing, community standards..." something something...

They never stop to ask....

 

[Husky_Embrace]

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

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

You seem to (deliberately?) misunderstand me. If we need to draw a line for Lit it should be a discussion. This is it. I can't draw the line, because it isn't up to me alone. Do you want me to draw the line for you? Then hereby I ban you from NC.

I have listed the pro NC here for you:
DonaldBelle: It must be popular. (Argument: if it's popular it should exist.)
Levorotatory + OpenMindedMom_MCHL + ICantLeafYou: Less restrictions the better. Don't like, don't read. (Opinions. Deflrction. Argument: if you don't see it it doesn't harm)
Belegon: Less restrictions. (Opinion)
forgotmyantidepressants: Don't like don't read. (Deflection. Argument: if you don't see it it doesn't harm.)
OralAllOver: No reason given.
pink_silk_glove: We're not going to commit crimes if we're exposed to it. (Delection. Argument without base, and clearly false.)
forgotmyantidepressants: I enjoy it. (Opinion)
al55: It is my therapy. Read what you want. People go to other sites. (@al55 if it's your therapy, please get professional help. Self help is rarely the answer if you feel you need therapy for NC) (Opinions. Deflection. Argument: it will always happen, so it shouldn't be banned)
forgotmyantidepressants: No author is responsible for the actions of their readers that resulted from their writings. (Deflection. Argument: we're not responsible.)
alohadave: No reason given.
pink_silk_glove: Not every story glorifies rape. (Deflection. Suggested argument: stories that do not glorify rape are okay)
forgotmyantidepressants: We would need to ban other categories as well. (Deflection. Argument: NC is onay as other categories would be questionable too.)
pink_silk_glove: There's many objectionable things in media. (Deflection. Argument: this is okay because other things are okay.)
forgotmyantidepressants: People would commit heinous acts whether I write it or not. (Deflection. Argument: I have no responsibility for what I write.)
pink_silk_glove: We should ban other things if we ban this thing. (Deflection. Argument: this is okay because other things are okay.)

That's all of them up to that message. A later one I already saw twice is a golden one. "I didn't do it, so it's fine!" As if one person's action can speak for everyone.

I have responded to several of these, but if they were food, I would be starving for actual content. Opinions, deflection and only trying to trip up the ones with actual arguments? Please.

I mean let's take your Hollywood argument. There's agreements on international, country and local level what is acceptable to what for age groups. This is precisely because they can be influential on people. People over those ages aren't suddenly immune. They are simply regarded as being mature enough to not act on it. Research has found that people are more likely to be violent on short term after a violent movie. If it is continuous, it is long term.

I'm asked for documentation. Do we document that kids are happy when they smile? From criminal court cases to frats, it is all over the place. It's about cultures. Streamers, podcasts, news outlets, ads. If you fill someone's world with it, it becomes truth. The Milgram experiment shows that nearly all "normal western people" can commit murder after a short evening. It changes per culture. Conspiracy theories? However outlandish, someone eventually stands with an AR15 in a pizza place. There's a boatload of evidence that if you allow people to create their own culture, someone will act on it.

If you've got some arguments with actual contents, I'll be happy to listen. I've listened to the deflections and even engaged in some. I received empty deflections back. As it stands I think I'm done. My arguments are there. They do not need further defending.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Yeah, I gotta say that that part came as big shock to me. I struggle to imagine a group that you'd think would be less anti-censorship.

Stick around, you will see plenty of people trying to shut down threads because they don't agree with the topic being discussed. Unfortunately for a lot of people "tolerance" means, "you have to let me do what I want" and it doesn't seem to occur to them that it's a reciprocal thing.

 

[Wifetheif]

Nonconsent is often a matter of degree and shading. On the one end, we have Rhett Butler toting Scarlet O'Hara up the staircase for sex she wants but would never admit even to herself. Literary classic and all that. On the other end, we have a divorced mother of three out on a date with a much younger man. She's positive nothing is going to happen. Age gap, etc. BUT he is determined to claim a cougar pelt and applies a bit of pressure. At no point did she consent to the sex they both engaged in. Technically, the young man has committed assault, but the older woman realizes the young man's cock is exactly what she needed. Both of those stories are technically non-consent -- which one, if any, should be banned? Blanket bans serve the ends of no one. Not the offended or the "offendees."

 

[MillieDynamite]

Why should anyone in a free society need to defend anyone's right to read or write what they want?

You seem to (deliberately?) misunderstand me. If we need to draw a line for Lit it should be a discussion. This is it. I can't draw the line, because it isn't up to me alone. Do you want me to draw the line for you? Then hereby I ban you from NC.

I have listed the pro NC here for you:
DonaldBelle: It must be popular. (Argument: if it's popular it should exist.)
Levorotatory + OpenMindedMom_MCHL + ICantLeafYou: Less restrictions the better. Don't like, don't read. (Opinions. Deflrction. Argument: if you don't see it it doesn't harm)
Belegon: Less restrictions. (Opinion)
forgotmyantidepressants: Don't like don't read. (Deflection. Argument: if you don't see it it doesn't harm.)
OralAllOver: No reason given.
pink_silk_glove: We're not going to commit crimes if we're exposed to it. (Delection. Argument without base, and clearly false.)
forgotmyantidepressants: I enjoy it. (Opinion)
al55: It is my therapy. Read what you want. People go to other sites. (@al55 if it's your therapy, please get professional help. Self help is rarely the answer if you feel you need therapy for NC) (Opinions. Deflection. Argument: it will always happen, so it shouldn't be banned)
forgotmyantidepressants: No author is responsible for the actions of their readers that resulted from their writings. (Deflection. Argument: we're not responsible.)
alohadave: No reason given.
pink_silk_glove: Not every story glorifies rape. (Deflection. Suggested argument: stories that do not glorify rape are okay)
forgotmyantidepressants: We would need to ban other categories as well. (Deflection. Argument: NC is onay as other categories would be questionable too.)
pink_silk_glove: There's many objectionable things in media. (Deflection. Argument: this is okay because other things are okay.)
forgotmyantidepressants: People would commit heinous acts whether I write it or not. (Deflection. Argument: I have no responsibility for what I write.)
pink_silk_glove: We should ban other things if we ban this thing. (Deflection. Argument: this is okay because other things are okay.)

That's all of them up to that message. A later one I already saw twice is a golden one. "I didn't do it, so it's fine!" As if one person's action can speak for everyone.

I have responded to several of these, but if they were food, I would be starving for actual content. Opinions, deflection and only trying to trip up the ones with actual arguments? Please.

I mean let's take your Hollywood argument. There's agreements on international, country and local level what is acceptable to what for age groups. This is precisely because they can be influential on people. People over those ages aren't suddenly immune. They are simply regarded as being mature enough to not act on it. Research has found that people are more likely to be violent on short term after a violent movie. If it is continuous, it is long term.

I'm asked for documentation. Do we document that kids are happy when they smile? From criminal court cases to frats, it is all over the place. It's about cultures. Streamers, podcasts, news outlets, ads. If you fill someone's world with it, it becomes truth. The Milgram experiment shows that nearly all "normal western people" can commit murder after a short evening. It changes per culture. Conspiracy theories? However outlandish, someone eventually stands with an AR15 in a pizza place. There's a boatload of evidence that if you allow people to create their own culture, someone will act on it.

If you've got some arguments with actual contents, I'll be happy to listen. I've listened to the deflections and even engaged in some. I received empty deflections back. As it stands I think I'm done. My arguments are there. They do not need further defending.

 

[cw5523729]

You seem to (deliberately?) misunderstand me.

Ok, so since opinions don't matter, and all those "deflections" are irrelevant, can you please share with the class your stance in one or two sentences on why NC should be banned but none of the other categories, or any of the other types of media that you mention?

 

[Wifetheif]

Nonconsent is often a matter of degree and shading. On the one end, we have Rhett Butler toting Scarlet O'Hara up the staircase for sex she wants but would never admit even to herself. Literary classic and all that. On the other end, we have a divorced mother of three out on a date with a much younger man. She's positive nothing is going to happen. Age gap, etc. BUT he is determined to claim a cougar pelt and applies a bit of pressure. At no point did she consent to the sex they both engaged in. Technically, the young man has committed assault, but the older woman realizes the young man's cock is exactly what she needed. Both of those stories are technically non-consent -- which one, if any, should be banned? Blanket bans serve the ends of no one. Not the offended or the "offendees."

 

[Lifestyle66]

You seem to (deliberately?) misunderstand me. If we need to draw a line for Lit it should be a discussion. This is it. I can't draw the line, because it isn't up to me alone. Do you want me to draw the line for you? Then hereby I ban you from NC.

I have listed the pro NC here for you:
DonaldBelle: It must be popular. (Argument: if it's popular it should exist.)
Levorotatory + OpenMindedMom_MCHL + ICantLeafYou: Less restrictions the better. Don't like, don't read. (Opinions. Deflrction. Argument: if you don't see it it doesn't harm)
Belegon: Less restrictions. (Opinion)
forgotmyantidepressants: Don't like don't read. (Deflection. Argument: if you don't see it it doesn't harm.)
OralAllOver: No reason given.
pink_silk_glove: We're not going to commit crimes if we're exposed to it. (Delection. Argument without base, and clearly false.)
forgotmyantidepressants: I enjoy it. (Opinion)
al55: It is my therapy. Read what you want. People go to other sites. (@al55 if it's your therapy, please get professional help. Self help is rarely the answer if you feel you need therapy for NC) (Opinions. Deflection. Argument: it will always happen, so it shouldn't be banned)
forgotmyantidepressants: No author is responsible for the actions of their readers that resulted from their writings. (Deflection. Argument: we're not responsible.)
alohadave: No reason given.
pink_silk_glove: Not every story glorifies rape. (Deflection. Suggested argument: stories that do not glorify rape are okay)
forgotmyantidepressants: We would need to ban other categories as well. (Deflection. Argument: NC is onay as other categories would be questionable too.)
pink_silk_glove: There's many objectionable things in media. (Deflection. Argument: this is okay because other things are okay.)
forgotmyantidepressants: People would commit heinous acts whether I write it or not. (Deflection. Argument: I have no responsibility for what I write.)
pink_silk_glove: We should ban other things if we ban this thing. (Deflection. Argument: this is okay because other things are okay.)

That's all of them up to that message. A later one I already saw twice is a golden one. "I didn't do it, so it's fine!" As if one person's action can speak for everyone.

I have responded to several of these, but if they were food, I would be starving for actual content. Opinions, deflection and only trying to trip up the ones with actual arguments? Please.

I mean let's take your Hollywood argument. There's agreements on international, country and local level what is acceptable to what for age groups. This is precisely because they can be influential on people. People over those ages aren't suddenly immune. They are simply regarded as being mature enough to not act on it. Research has found that people are more likely to be violent on short term after a violent movie. If it is continuous, it is long term.

I'm asked for documentation. Do we document that kids are happy when they smile? From criminal court cases to frats, it is all over the place. It's about cultures. Streamers, podcasts, news outlets, ads. If you fill someone's world with it, it becomes truth. The Milgram experiment shows that nearly all "normal western people" can commit murder after a short evening. It changes per culture. Conspiracy theories? However outlandish, someone eventually stands with an AR15 in a pizza place. There's a boatload of evidence that if you allow people to create their own culture, someone will act on it.

If you've got some arguments with actual contents, I'll be happy to listen. I've listened to the deflections and even engaged in some. I received empty deflections back. As it stands I think I'm done. My arguments are there. They do not need further defending.

Your argument is summarized as: "If we allow the N/C category, we normalize rape" (extremist reaction to a whole group as the worst case)

And your list of the pro-NC missed mine: Lifestyle66: "If it's 'normalizing' deviations', don't cherry-pick!" (Start a fight with EVERYONE who isn't you!)

As for your latest "someone eventually stands with an AR15 in a pizza place." I'd point out that someone will eventually stand with a knife on a train, too.

It's not the weapon or the even stories which make the tiny percent of the human cesspool do what they do. It's the fact that with over EIGHT BILLION people on this planet, it's not a matter of IF someone will do something weird, merely a matter of WHEN one of those minds will snap next.

The stories are not the trigger. They are an excuse.

 

[Off_base]

Sometimes, trying to have conversation with someone is like playing chess with a pigeon.

At some point, the bird just knocks all the pieces over and flies away, preventing the game from going forward.

 

[cw5523729]

I'd point out that someone will eventually stand with a knife on a train, too.

So what are you saying is we need to ban trains? I agree wholeheartedly. All the stupid clackety-clackety and they make you wait at those intersections forever while the thing just lumbers on and on. Fucking trains.

 

[SimonDoom]

Sometimes, trying to have conversation with someone is like playing chess with a pigeon.

At some point, the bird just knocks all the pieces over and flies away, preventing the game from going forward.

Then somebody comes up with the clever idea, "Shoot the pigeon."