alohadave
Doing better
- Joined
- Dec 6, 2019
- Posts
- 3,602
But white chocolate IS gross.
Jumping into the fire ... Should the entire Non-Con category be eliminated?
- Thread starter Five_Inch_Heels
- Start date
MillieDynamite
Millie'sVastExpanse
- Joined
- Jun 5, 2021
- Posts
- 10,564
The only sweet coffee I've ever liked was one sweetened with a chunk of white-chocolate.
Baztrachian
Ars est celare artem
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2019
- Posts
- 2,411
And then go look at Tumblr. Seven years back they banned all adult content both visual and written. They purged over half of their active membership in doing so.
https://brandwell.ai/blog/tumblr-statistics-users-revenue-and-growth-statistics/
"Since implementing a ban on adult content in 2018, Tumblr has witnessed a decline in traffic. This decision was made to reshape the platform and create a more inclusive and user-friendly environment.
While the move has notably impacted the platform’s user base, it reflects Tumblr’s commitment to fostering a safe and diverse community.
The table above depicts a clear downward trend in Tumblr’s yearly traffic from 2018 to 2023. Following the implementation of the adult content ban in 2018, user numbers dropped significantly from 521 million to 213 million in 2023.
Although the company deemed the decision necessary to cultivate a safer and more diverse community, it indeed affected the platform’s popularity and user engagement. Despite a slight recovery in 2021, the continued decline in 2022 and 2023 underscores the enduring impact of this policy decision on user activity."
In short: Go woke, Go broke.
If the nice people who host Literotica want to slash views and clicks and active members and revenue to please a bunch of people who shouldn't be here anyway then that's up to them.
Because it worked so well for Tumblr that the new owners put the rules back to where they were before 2018.
That some people would say "yes, absolutely!" and the rest are obviously evil rapists-to-be who just haven't had the opportunity yet.
Yeah, it really is. It's not chocolate, it's not vanilla. WTF is the point of it?
Five_Inch_Heels
Unexpected
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2015
- Posts
- 3,609
Ahhh, the 'w' word adds so much to one's credibility .... not.
Lifestyle66
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2021
- Posts
- 3,276
The thread is about "eliminating" an entire category.
You were listing all of the reasons why others are against the idea of banning a category or further restricting writers.
You were pointing to the extreme opposite of their points at the end of your post, that "here's proof that stories drive behavior, so ..." And that after YOU paraphrased their opinions.
Now you're responding to imply I and others are ignorant for presenting a different opinion by ridiculing the concept that stories drive behavior. You're claiming I deliberately misread your post, and you're insulting those of us who read your list paraphrasing what others posted, and saying people show their ignorance.
You are claiming some superiority with "I have studied ..." so you are obviously the expert that stories "push" people.
My opinion is:
A wacko's brain is wired differently, and criminals don't abide by the laws. And none of them need a push. It's not a matter of what any of them read. It's merely a matter of time until criminals commit a crime, and wackos act on the voice in their head.
Deliberately misreading posts is a true skill. So, I bow to your expertise at it.
Baztrachian
Ars est celare artem
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2019
- Posts
- 2,411
Oh, so it's not woke to call out woke stupidity? And it's not woke to use the word 'woke' anymore when wokesters used to use it with sneering pride until it became a metaphor for self-defeating idiocy like what we saw at Tumblr?
KittyOfSteele
Chevaleresse de Sade
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2020
- Posts
- 678
Page 5 has to be the lowest point in this thread if we're seriously starting to make public hit lists against authors who don't support censorship of content.
Ok, I'll bite this one time before I tell you to send this straight into the cesspool that is PB.
Going woke has nothing to do with it. If you look at this year alone, starting from summer, censorship of NSFW content online has been supported by politicians from both the left, the right, the center, the up, the down, the inside, the outside, the Earth's anus, and your mom's bladder, all in the name of "wOUlD sOMeoNE ThiNK oF tHe cHiLDrEN?!" before they went mask off to show that what they want is to control. I'm telling you: in my country, porn is banned legally speaking. The law is not enforced, but it has been abused by the government in the past to go against the LGBTIQ+ community. Russia also has banned pornography, but plenty cam girls from there have to either rat others, or bribe officials. Both governments are from completely different sides of the spectrum.
This is about freedom of expression vs. censorship. Not left vs. right. Focus.
Ok, I'll bite this one time before I tell you to send this straight into the cesspool that is PB.
Going woke has nothing to do with it. If you look at this year alone, starting from summer, censorship of NSFW content online has been supported by politicians from both the left, the right, the center, the up, the down, the inside, the outside, the Earth's anus, and your mom's bladder, all in the name of "wOUlD sOMeoNE ThiNK oF tHe cHiLDrEN?!" before they went mask off to show that what they want is to control. I'm telling you: in my country, porn is banned legally speaking. The law is not enforced, but it has been abused by the government in the past to go against the LGBTIQ+ community. Russia also has banned pornography, but plenty cam girls from there have to either rat others, or bribe officials. Both governments are from completely different sides of the spectrum.
This is about freedom of expression vs. censorship. Not left vs. right. Focus.
Five_Inch_Heels
Unexpected
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2015
- Posts
- 3,609
Nawh, Dude shot his wad.
KittyOfSteele
Chevaleresse de Sade
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2020
- Posts
- 678
Read Page 5 again. They claimed that there's a lot of studies that prove their point. The problem is that's a lie. There has been far more studies that tell that there is no such link between people becoming more violent after being exposed to violence. It has been done on the politician's current scapegoat: videogames. Even scientists in the field are saying that this is a waste of time.
https://www.psypost.org/study-finds...games-to-increased-aggression-in-adolescents/
https://www.ox.ac.uk/news/2019-02-1...found-not-be-associated-adolescent-aggression
https://www.apa.org/news/press/releases/2020/03/violent-video-games-behavior
https://www.theguardian.com/games/2...-doesnt-lead-to-violent-behaviour-study-shows
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/...ame-violent-video-games-do-not-cause-violence
https://www.psychologicalscience.or...bsonline/video-game-mechanics-aggression.html
https://www.theesa.com/issues/in-game-violence/
https://www.eurekalert.org/news-releases/933708
https://lovethynerd.com/the-myth-of...-like-among-us-dont-cause-real-life-violence/
https://www.brightcanary.io/do-video-games-cause-violence/
Katie_Mae
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2023
- Posts
- 276
Sure, I'll bite. It's been a while since my stories have been one bombed, I'm sure they could do with being taken down a peg or two.
The TLDR of this post is: When you remove the ability of women like me to easily find the fantasies which turn us on, you also remove the ability for people who don't want to read those fantasies to adequately filter it out.
Maintaining a non-con category supports the rights of people who do want to read it as well as the rights of those who do not.
____
The non-con section that I experience, largely full of women* writing for women (though I have encountered the occasional man). The fantasies I read there there are often what you see in mainstream fiction written by women, for women billed as "romantic" or "dark romance."
eg. there's a lot of power imbalance (boss/employee teacher/student jailer/captive blackmailer etc), arranged marriages etc
*and yes, these are woman I engage with outside lit and have adequate real-world proof they are woman. No, I'm not going to dox anyone, so don't ask.
The non-con I see and read is largely stories of women who do have sexual desires but, for some reason or another, do not consent to them. The non-con is a way of enjoying those sexual desires without actually overcoming sexual repression. Eg instead of a married woman fantasising over fucking her hot best friend, she fantasises he rapes her. This way, she wasn't unfaithful in her imagination.
Is non-con problematic? Absolutely. Non-con authors and readers talk about this. Obviously, in the real world, rape is bad, we don't want to be raped or don't want to be raped again. Having a rape fantasy has nothing to do with actual real-world rape. In the same way, I love Agatha Christie murder stories, but don't want to be murdered.
It's precisely because non-con is problematic that I think it should be off in it's own section. Because it should be signposted with a "this is non-con, it's not healthy romance" and because when non-con doesn't get segregated like this, it creeps into other genres where it might be mistaken for a representation of a healthy relationship.
Take the following plot:
Removing the non-con category will put more non-con in front of people who, right now, would not venture into the non-con category. And who would that serve?
Not the people who do want to read it.
Not the people who don't want to read it.
Only the people who do want to read it, but won't admit that even to themselves.
Well, first of all, you have to define non-con.
I mean, it should be easy to define, right? Non-con is rape, right?
But rape has different definitions between different countries. What is legally classed in my country as rape may not be classed as rape in yours, or vice versa. But, we all know what rape is, right?
But I've been told, here on lit, by AH members who aren't non-con authors/readers and are or are mostly anti non-con fiction that:
- rape isn't rape if you're not also beaten up
- rape isn't rape if you were too drunk to consent
- rape isn't rape if the man is super hot and you desperately want to fuck him, but say no to him and don't consent
- rape isn't rape if you consent, even if you don't want to consent but the situation makes it unsafe for you to say no.
- rape isn't rape if you're married (even if it was an arranged/forced marriage)
So when we ban all non-con, who's definition are we using? The definition of people like me, who'd say a teacher/student relationship is non-con, even though the student said yes? Or the definition of the people I paraphrased above? And while we're at it, do we ban every other illegal and immoral thing which happens in stories?
And what about the non-con stories which lean strong into the non-con kink, but actually don't have any non-consensual sex in their story at all? Because most of the non-con I write is actually consensual sex where the woman 'victim' is in control.
_________
So no, I don't think the non-con category should be scrapped.
Will it? Quite possibly.
It's already been renamed from non-con/reluctance to reluctance/non-consent. Likewise the incest/taboo category has been renamed the taboo/incest. Is that a sign that they're going to try to reduce then eliminate non-con and incest?
Possibly.
I hope not, I despise incest, it grosses me out, but I think adults can choose to read that stuff if they wish, and it being in it's own category means I don't have to read it.
But realistically, the way things are going over in the US and with credit card companies and what have you, we'll be luckily to have any explicit stories.
On the other hand, the R/NC and T/I are very popular categories, and a big drawcard for lit. I think that Laurel would be loath to do away with them like she did away with erotic art.
_____
But ultimately, it doesn't matter what I think. Or what anyone thinks. We can't change the site.
By using lit we agree that we're not offended by the sexual nature of the content here, and that if we we're, we'd leave. At least, that's what we all agreed to when we agreed to the TOS.
The TLDR of this post is: When you remove the ability of women like me to easily find the fantasies which turn us on, you also remove the ability for people who don't want to read those fantasies to adequately filter it out.
Maintaining a non-con category supports the rights of people who do want to read it as well as the rights of those who do not.
____
The non-con section that I experience, largely full of women* writing for women (though I have encountered the occasional man). The fantasies I read there there are often what you see in mainstream fiction written by women, for women billed as "romantic" or "dark romance."
eg. there's a lot of power imbalance (boss/employee teacher/student jailer/captive blackmailer etc), arranged marriages etc
*and yes, these are woman I engage with outside lit and have adequate real-world proof they are woman. No, I'm not going to dox anyone, so don't ask.
The non-con I see and read is largely stories of women who do have sexual desires but, for some reason or another, do not consent to them. The non-con is a way of enjoying those sexual desires without actually overcoming sexual repression. Eg instead of a married woman fantasising over fucking her hot best friend, she fantasises he rapes her. This way, she wasn't unfaithful in her imagination.
Is non-con problematic? Absolutely. Non-con authors and readers talk about this. Obviously, in the real world, rape is bad, we don't want to be raped or don't want to be raped again. Having a rape fantasy has nothing to do with actual real-world rape. In the same way, I love Agatha Christie murder stories, but don't want to be murdered.
It's precisely because non-con is problematic that I think it should be off in it's own section. Because it should be signposted with a "this is non-con, it's not healthy romance" and because when non-con doesn't get segregated like this, it creeps into other genres where it might be mistaken for a representation of a healthy relationship.
Take the following plot:
Right now, that could be posted in non-con. Remove the non-con category and now this would be posted in sci-fi.
Removing the non-con category will put more non-con in front of people who, right now, would not venture into the non-con category. And who would that serve?
Not the people who do want to read it.
Not the people who don't want to read it.
Only the people who do want to read it, but won't admit that even to themselves.
Ah, but you're about to point out this part of your question.
Well, first of all, you have to define non-con.
I mean, it should be easy to define, right? Non-con is rape, right?
But rape has different definitions between different countries. What is legally classed in my country as rape may not be classed as rape in yours, or vice versa. But, we all know what rape is, right?
But I've been told, here on lit, by AH members who aren't non-con authors/readers and are or are mostly anti non-con fiction that:
- rape isn't rape if you're not also beaten up
- rape isn't rape if you were too drunk to consent
- rape isn't rape if the man is super hot and you desperately want to fuck him, but say no to him and don't consent
- rape isn't rape if you consent, even if you don't want to consent but the situation makes it unsafe for you to say no.
- rape isn't rape if you're married (even if it was an arranged/forced marriage)
So when we ban all non-con, who's definition are we using? The definition of people like me, who'd say a teacher/student relationship is non-con, even though the student said yes? Or the definition of the people I paraphrased above? And while we're at it, do we ban every other illegal and immoral thing which happens in stories?
And what about the non-con stories which lean strong into the non-con kink, but actually don't have any non-consensual sex in their story at all? Because most of the non-con I write is actually consensual sex where the woman 'victim' is in control.
_________
So no, I don't think the non-con category should be scrapped.
Will it? Quite possibly.
It's already been renamed from non-con/reluctance to reluctance/non-consent. Likewise the incest/taboo category has been renamed the taboo/incest. Is that a sign that they're going to try to reduce then eliminate non-con and incest?
Possibly.
I hope not, I despise incest, it grosses me out, but I think adults can choose to read that stuff if they wish, and it being in it's own category means I don't have to read it.
But realistically, the way things are going over in the US and with credit card companies and what have you, we'll be luckily to have any explicit stories.
On the other hand, the R/NC and T/I are very popular categories, and a big drawcard for lit. I think that Laurel would be loath to do away with them like she did away with erotic art.
_____
But ultimately, it doesn't matter what I think. Or what anyone thinks. We can't change the site.
By using lit we agree that we're not offended by the sexual nature of the content here, and that if we we're, we'd leave. At least, that's what we all agreed to when we agreed to the TOS.
Katie_Mae
Really Experienced
- Joined
- Apr 11, 2023
- Posts
- 276
Agree. I'd also say a large portion of taboo/incest is non-con.
Take incest. Can parent/child incest between a parent and a child who've had a parent/child relationship be consensual? Surely not. Even when displayed as consensual, I don't believe the 18+ child is really able to give free consent to their parent.
It's my belief that BOTH incest and non-con are in danger of being axed and, if they are, they'll go together. I believe this because the category names were changed together.
Lifestyle66
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2021
- Posts
- 3,276
I agree.
The problem with studies showing those exterior influences is that "studies" are often done by starting with a theory then gather data to prove that point. Many are not done with the goal of accepting that their premise was wrong. They skew the questions and data with the goal of proving they are right!
Having raised my own kids, seeing and listening to them on a daily, weekly, monthly basis over the years, I have realized people are who they are from a very early age. My kids began showing their ultimate personalities by the age of THREE! We might strive to teach them right from wrong with daily interactions and lessons. But without those very personal interactions to give them role models and guidance, they will be who they are destined to be. (Fortunately, I kept mine out of trouble, sometimes needing to resort to harsh lessons!)
And if someone is reading N/C stories of rape, it's not the story which will make them do it. They've had no other personal interactions and role models to show them why they shouldn't give in to their base desires! Even without reading those stories, they'll still have the voice in their head saying: "Just do it!"
Last edited:
Cagivagurl
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 16, 2019
- Posts
- 1,431
Personally, I don't critique movies I haven't seen... Not something I'm interested in...
I detest sexual abuse and I am prepared to voice my opinions and concerns...
People will always have conflicting views and opinions. That as they say is our right...
Cagivagurl
Kelliezgirl
Debauched Dilettante
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2023
- Posts
- 3,110
And then go look at Tumblr. Seven years back they banned all adult content both visual and written. They purged over half of their active membership in doing so.
https://brandwell.ai/blog/tumblr-statistics-users-revenue-and-growth-statistics/
"Since implementing a ban on adult content in 2018, Tumblr has witnessed a decline in traffic. This decision was made to reshape the platform and create a more inclusive and user-friendly environment.
While the move has notably impacted the platform’s user base, it reflects Tumblr’s commitment to fostering a safe and diverse community.
The table above depicts a clear downward trend in Tumblr’s yearly traffic from 2018 to 2023. Following the implementation of the adult content ban in 2018, user numbers dropped significantly from 521 million to 213 million in 2023.
Although the company deemed the decision necessary to cultivate a safer and more diverse community, it indeed affected the platform’s popularity and user engagement. Despite a slight recovery in 2021, the continued decline in 2022 and 2023 underscores the enduring impact of this policy decision on user activity."
In short: Go woke, Go broke.
If the nice people who host Literotica want to slash views and clicks and active members and revenue to please a bunch of people who shouldn't be here anyway then that's up to them.
Because it worked so well for Tumblr that the new owners put the rules back to where they were before 2018.
It's a measure of how distorted the words "diverse and inclusive" have become that people will ban things in the name of them.
M_K_Babalon
Harbinger of smut
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2023
- Posts
- 1,784
Ah yes, more inclusive by excluding a large user base. Ironic.And then go look at Tumblr. Seven years back they banned all adult content both visual and written. They purged over half of their active membership in doing so.
https://brandwell.ai/blog/tumblr-statistics-users-revenue-and-growth-statistics/
"Since implementing a ban on adult content in 2018, Tumblr has witnessed a decline in traffic. This decision was made to reshape the platform and create a more inclusive and user-friendly environment.
While the move has notably impacted the platform’s user base, it reflects Tumblr’s commitment to fostering a safe and diverse community.
The table above depicts a clear downward trend in Tumblr’s yearly traffic from 2018 to 2023. Following the implementation of the adult content ban in 2018, user numbers dropped significantly from 521 million to 213 million in 2023.
Although the company deemed the decision necessary to cultivate a safer and more diverse community, it indeed affected the platform’s popularity and user engagement. Despite a slight recovery in 2021, the continued decline in 2022 and 2023 underscores the enduring impact of this policy decision on user activity."
In short: Go woke, Go broke.
If the nice people who host Literotica want to slash views and clicks and active members and revenue to please a bunch of people who shouldn't be here anyway then that's up to them.
Because it worked so well for Tumblr that the new owners put the rules back to where they were before 2018.
M_K_Babalon
Harbinger of smut
- Joined
- Nov 2, 2023
- Posts
- 1,784
Most white chocolate isn't white chocolate, but white chocolate does exist.
Baztrachian
Ars est celare artem
- Joined
- Oct 5, 2019
- Posts
- 2,411
"This decision was made to reshape the platform and create a more inclusive and user-friendly environment."
"Tumblr’s commitment to fostering a safe and diverse community."
KittyOfSteele
Chevaleresse de Sade
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2020
- Posts
- 678
"This decision was made to reshape the platform and create a more inclusive and user-friendly environment."
"Tumblr’s commitment to fostering a safe and diverse community."
Ok, I'll mention this once because it seems you think those buzzwords mean something here.
That's just what Tumblr says to keep face. The reality is different: Apple was the one behind the NSFW ban on Tumblr. They removed Tumblr from their app store because Tumblr didn't comply with Apple's guidelines. If you want to point fingers at someone, look into the bitten apple instead of the buzzwords.
Now, would you kindly GO BACK TO POLITICS BOARD?!
pink_silk_glove
Literate Smutress
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2018
- Posts
- 3,951
The difference between me and you is that I can actually draw that line. I draw it at no censorship. You want censorship but can't decide what is okay and what is not. In fact, you refuse to. You think the line should be a discussion and this is it? Well we are nowhere near anything remotely resembling a consensus, so it's not working - like at all. Epic fail. Unless you take a look at the anti-censorship side (which is the majority if that matters), who all seem to agree that there should be no censorship. Why? Because we take responsibility for our own reading and writing and our actions in society. You want someone else to do that for you, yet you don't know how they should go about doing it. I suggest that you go back to work on your ideals before you engage this debate any further.
This one has a solid base because it's clearly true. I've already stated and you have conveniently ignored (to suit your weak stance) that millions of people read/watch transgressive media without copy-catting the content. We do this daily all around the world. Was there a vigilante killing spree when Taxi Driver came out? No. Were millions of people lining up to join the mafia when The Godfather came out? No. Both of these movies were staggeringly popular, won multiple awards and were lauded by critics. Was there a massive uptake in serial killers nationwide when Jason Voorhees and Freddy Krueger were at the height of popularity? No. There was not. And there are countless other examples. This proves that society is perfectly capable of handling transgressive art.
Yet you would like to ban a movie like The Accused.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Accused_(1988_film)
You don't want to draw the line because you can't, yet your very first post in this thread adamantly stated that you wish to ban the non-con category outright. If you don;t know where your own line is, you shouldn't be robust in banning anything.
No, this is because we respect that parenting is up to individual parents.
So someone goes postal and we blame movies .. okay. So then again we are right back at nealr 100% of movies have some sort of transgressive act in them. Which ones do we ban? Hell, we could ban the fucking evening news! (it has more lies than Hollywood anyways) Where is your line? You don't have one. Who the hell do you think you are?
SmilingLez
Word Arranger
- Joined
- Jul 8, 2025
- Posts
- 674
Getting rid of any current category goes against literotica's mission statement - "...a sex-positive pro-free speech story publishing website..."
pink_silk_glove
Literate Smutress
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2018
- Posts
- 3,951
When you go to 7-11 to get a slushie and have to wait 10 mins because they're filling Skip orders. You know how far society has fallen when people are TOO FUCKING LAZY TO GO TO 7-11!
pink_silk_glove
Literate Smutress
- Joined
- Feb 6, 2018
- Posts
- 3,951
But you HAVE seen transgressive art. It's impossible to not have. Has it increased your desire to commit crime or other transgressive acts?
