Jungle love?

[Colleen Thomas]

Thank you Colleen. Believe me, I do take great pains to make sure the "animal-creature" is not percieved as just an animal. I am not fighting for the right to post beastiality, however. I just don't see the difference between sexual attraction between a human and a sentient gorilla (gorilla-man or gorilla-dragon-man) than a human with an alien, or Klingon or vulcan (who are not even earthlings) or mythical beasts or were-animals. I'm not arguing with you or anyone about LITS rules. I'm just asking, as a writer, what peoples opions are about it.

The reaction you get is probably influenced by lit's other big no-no, sex before 18. At least once a month a new author will post upset that hi sstory was rejected for violation of that rule.

Authors here, tend to view questions like this in terms of lit's rules, rather than as abstract questions.

Apologies if the perception you get is that you aren't being taken seriously or if the responses seem slightly hostile. We are all conditioned to expect a question about something that is skirting the rules to turn into a triade against the rules. Not you, it just happens a lot and at least some of us are rather defensive when it comes to the site owners. they are top notch, fight people who try to pirate our stories and are in general very very good folks.

 

[Tugari]

Neanderthaul

OK then, what do you think they would say about "human" ancesters like the Neanderthaul? They are scientifically classified as "human" and were real.

 

[Tugari]

The reaction you get is probably influenced by lit's other big no-no, sex before 18. At least once a month a new author will post upset that hi sstory was rejected for violation of that rule.

Authors here, tend to view questions like this in terms of lit's rules, rather than as abstract questions.

Apologies if the perception you get is that you aren't being taken seriously or if the responses seem slightly hostile. We are all conditioned to expect a question about something that is skirting the rules to turn into a triade against the rules. Not you, it just happens a lot and at least some of us are rather defensive when it comes to the site owners. they are top notch, fight people who try to pirate our stories and are in general very very good folks.

I'm sure they are - so far, this site appears to be quite respectable. I've not yet shoved a piece of work before them to be evaluated yet, though. I'm working on novels right now - BUt I was simply trying to get opinions of fellow writers - and, at first I thought I was gettihng some hostile feedback, but I guess thats what comes with the territory. I could easily argue about the offenses on this site - but I don't. I have noticed some animal-sex stories that DID make it - and was just wondering how strict they were before actually submitting. The animal stories I thought would not make it were the Little Red Riding Hood stories which does in fact, depict a wolf (not a mythical creature) a talking wolf, but still . . . a wolf engaged in sexual congress with human characters. I'm not complaining about it. It's a good story. I just think fair is fair. And I believe my subject matter is far less hostile to the rule than a lot of stories I see here. But like you said, It's thier decision in the finality of it. I respect that - after all , it is their site.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

OK then, what do you think they would say about "human" ancesters like the Neanderthaul? They are scientifically classified as "human" and were real.

I don't think there would be any problem there. Neandertals are humanoids and would probably go to the non-human cat without the bat of an eye. take that wioth a grain of salt, it's just my opinion on it.

 

[Colleen Thomas]

I'm sure they are - so far, this site appears to be quite respectable. I've not yet shoved a piece of work before them to be evaluated yet, though. I'm working on novels right now - BUt I was simply trying to get opinions of fellow writers - and, at first I thought I was gettihng some hostile feedback, but I guess thats what comes with the territory. I could easily argue about the offenses on this site - but I don't. I have noticed some animal-sex stories that DID make it - and was just wondering how strict they were before actually submitting. The animal stories I thought would not make it were the Little Red Riding Hood stories which does in fact, depict a wolf (not a mythical creature) a talking wolf, but still . . . a wolf engaged in sexual congress with human characters. I'm not complaining about it. It's a good story. I just think fair is fair. And I believe my subject matter is far less hostile to the rule than a lot of stories I see here. But like you said, It's thier decision in the finality of it. I respect that - after all , it is their site.

I haven't read the stories in question, but I suspect they get their "legitimacy" by being parody of a commonly known fairy tale.

 

[BlackSnake]

OK then, what do you think they would say about "human" ancesters like the Neanderthaul? They are scientifically classified as "human" and were real.

Write you story and see how it turn out. Let an editor help you with the danger spots. It's hard to advise on something that doesn't exist yet.

 

[Tugari]

appreciated

Write you story and see how it turn out. Let an editor help you with the danger spots. It's hard to advise on something that doesn't exist yet.

Thanks for the feedback Blacksnake -Read some of your work - I like it.
Got to go for awhile - thanks everyone.

 

[Guest]

Tugari, I'm impressed with the amount of negative feedback here (and do understand its source). I also read your posts. It all of course depends on the editors (owners) but your notion of a story told within the realm of your native myths and legends sounds very interesting and appealing. Just write it and submit it. If it gets rejected on a technicality perhaps you could 'fix' it. If it's accepted, let me know.

Me? I can't imagine being aroused by an ape in real life, but if there's some mythical element (magic, spirituality, whatever) it could work in fiction.

Best, Perdita

 

[Stella_Omega]

Tugari, I think a great deal of the reception to the story would come from the way you treat your subject.
The example of the bears- if you wrote it in amythic form- yes, it would go up, IMO.

"Planet of the Apes" are fictional apes, not real at all. You could probably put a "Planet of the Apes" fan fiction piece in the Celbrities category without any trouble, Everyone knows those were made up creatures.

Your gorilla story- if you wrote is as a myhic, poetic metaphorical piece, it would possibly be accepted. But I take it, that's not the way you want to go.
I would say- write it, and see what the owners think about it, see if they reject it or not.

And please let me read it! I know exactly what you are talking about- Silverbacks are very sexy males!

 

[gauchecritic]

One of the things that a great number of people take from the legend of Tarzan and the Apes is taken only from hollywood. Edgar Rice Borroughs' Tarzan was actually raised by a science fictional tribe of talking apes. How would he have learned to speak otherwise?

I'm guessing that Tarzan of the apes would not be rejected by Lit. (although I can't recall any ape sex scenes) simply because the apes are not the everyday gorillas you may find at the zoo. If memory serves they were actually more homonid than ape.

One of the better series and truer to the book series was a cartoon wherein there were talking apes as a wholly seperate tribe.

 

[Stella_Omega]

One of the things that a great number of people take from the legend of Tarzan and the Apes is taken only from hollywood. Edgar Rice Borroughs' Tarzan was actually raised by a science fictional tribe of talking apes. How would he have learned to speak otherwise?

I'm guessing that Tarzan of the apes would not be rejected by Lit. (although I can't recall any ape sex scenes) simply because the apes are not the everyday gorillas you may find at the zoo. If memory serves they were actually more homonid than ape.

One of the better series and truer to the book series was a cartoon wherein there were talking apes as a wholly seperate tribe.

Now look what you've done, my inner geek is showing up!
No, Tarzan's apes were apes. they did not speak any human languages. Trazan was a genius (fantasy fiction, remember) that taught himself to read as a child- although he made up his own sounds for the letters, he was able to cipher out the meanings of the words. Pretty good for a feral child, huh?
He "Spoke the languages of all the beasts" which gave Burroughs a convenient handle for plot exposition

But Jane taught him English.

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I think this is a perfectly valid question. I mean, we had to sit through how many godawful Planet of the Apes pictures, and now we have King King. And no one can tell that Alien wasn't all about sex. That thing used t even get a mouthparts hard-on and ejaculate salive.

Lit allows sex with mythological beasts, but not real ones. The difference, I think, isn't so much in the anatomy as it is in the meaning of the act.

Beastiality is basically degrading behavior. No one reads a story about a woman having sex with a donkey because they want a sensitive portrayal of woman-donkey love. They read it because they want to see the woman degraded and treated like an animal.

Personally, I support the ban on bestiality because the practice pretty much disgusts me, but I could see where, in fantasy, cross-species love and sex could be very erotic and even beautiful. I think there's a lot more eroticism in our fascination with animals than we like to admit.

 

[gauchecritic]

Now look what you've done, my inner geek is showing up!
No, Tarzan's apes were apes. they did not speak any human languages. Trazan was a genius (fantasy fiction, remember) that taught himself to read as a child- although he made up his own sounds for the letters, he was able to cipher out the meanings of the words. Pretty good for a feral child, huh?
He "Spoke the languages of all the beasts" which gave Burroughs a convenient handle for plot exposition

But Jane taught him English.

OK, I'm geekless myself and I have absolutely no recall of the genius part of his make up. But I'm still going to insist that they were talking apes and not run of the mill variety.

 

[impressive]

I think this is a perfectly valid question. I mean, we had to sit through how many godawful Planet of the Apes pictures, and now we have King King. And no one can tell that Alien wasn't all about sex. That thing used t even get a mouthparts hard-on and ejaculate salive.

Lit allows sex with mythological beasts, but not real ones. The difference, I think, isn't so much in the anatomy as it is in the meaning of the act.

Beastiality is basically degrading behavior. No one reads a story about a woman having sex with a donkey because they want a sensitive portrayal of woman-donkey love. They read it because they want to see the woman degraded and treated like an animal.

Personally, I support the ban on bestiality because the practice pretty much disgusts me, but I could see where, in fantasy, cross-species love and sex could be very erotic and even beautiful. I think there's a lot more eroticism in our fascination with animals than we like to admit.

I think a lot of that fascination has to do with the primal nature of it. Non-human animals are not constrained by "proper" behavior. If they feel the urge, they fuck (or fight to fuck) rather than suppress the urge. We humans are taught (implicity or explicitly) to fight those urges except in controlled circumstances.

It is understandable to me that there would be an allure to scenarios which shed those mores -- along the lines of getting "permission" (via D/s or other means) to be "slutty."

 

[alice_underneath]

I think there's a lot more eroticism in our fascination with animals than we like to admit.

Male lions.

Not the ones lounging listlessly at zoo.

The ones in the close-ups on The Nature Channel.

The grace and power in the way they walk. The enormous paws. The manes. Omigod... the roar. How erotic is that? The answer: unbelievably so!

No, I do not want to have sex with a lion. I have never even fantasized about such a thing.

But watching a male lion walk across my TV is very sexually arousing. To me, the sight is quite erotic indeed.

Alice

 

[Guest]

In the text Burroughs labeled the odd apes "anthropoids" and their English "meagre".

Btw, Hollywood dumbed the dude way down (excuse my meagre English ).

Perdita


edited to add: Stellalla, yes he taught himself to read and write, but he learned to speak from the 'poids.

 

[Tugari]

I think this is a perfectly valid question. I mean, we had to sit through how many godawful Planet of the Apes pictures, and now we have King King. And no one can tell that Alien wasn't all about sex. That thing used t even get a mouthparts hard-on and ejaculate salive.

Lit allows sex with mythological beasts, but not real ones. The difference, I think, isn't so much in the anatomy as it is in the meaning of the act.

Beastiality is basically degrading behavior. No one reads a story about a woman having sex with a donkey because they want a sensitive portrayal of woman-donkey love. They read it because they want to see the woman degraded and treated like an animal.

Personally, I support the ban on bestiality because the practice pretty much disgusts me, but I could see where, in fantasy, cross-species love and sex could be very erotic and even beautiful. I think there's a lot more eroticism in our fascination with animals than we like to admit.

THANK YOU VERY MUCH Dr. I was happy to read your comment and found it most helpful. Very good feedback.

 

[Tugari]

Tarzan speech

In the text Burroughs labeled the odd apes "anthropoids" and their English "meagre".

Btw, Hollywood dumbed the dude way down (excuse my meagre English ).

Perdita


edited to add: Stellalla, yes he taught himself to read and write, but he learned to speak from the 'poids.

You are correct. Tarzan spoke "ape" and Burrows simply translated it for us readers. The original Tarzan, however, did not use gorillas - He did use a fictional ape. Sort of a cross between Chimp and gorilla - but the gorilla (unfortunately) was used as a stereotypical menace. Kershak the gorilla (unlike the Disney Kershak) was actually Tarzan's enemy through many stories and was always trying to kill him or take Jane. (Sorry, not fan of This type of Tarzan.) I have to say that the Disney version was much more to my liking in the portrayal of gorillas.

 

[Tugari]

Geek?

Now look what you've done, my inner geek is showing up!
No, Tarzan's apes were apes. they did not speak any human languages. Trazan was a genius (fantasy fiction, remember) that taught himself to read as a child- although he made up his own sounds for the letters, he was able to cipher out the meanings of the words. Pretty good for a feral child, huh?
He "Spoke the languages of all the beasts" which gave Burroughs a convenient handle for plot exposition

But Jane taught him English.

Oh, let your geekiness shine! it sounds great to me

 

[Tugari]

King Kong

THANK YOU VERY MUCH Dr. I was happy to read your comment and found it most helpful. Very good feedback.

About the new King Kong - That was not a sexual attraction thing - that was a lonely gorilla who needed companionship and a friend and the Anne Darrow character happily obliged. Neither Kong nor Anne Darrow revealed any sexual inuendo's toward each other. It was love. Friendship and companionship. (Now the original? that's a different story on this subject. The gorilla in the original was nothing more than a depicted stereotype of an uneducated writer)

 

[dr_mabeuse]

I think a lot of that fascination has to do with the primal nature of it. Non-human animals are not constrained by "proper" behavior. If they feel the urge, they fuck (or fight to fuck) rather than suppress the urge. We humans are taught (implicity or explicitly) to fight those urges except in controlled circumstances.

It is understandable to me that there would be an allure to scenarios which shed those mores -- along the lines of getting "permission" (via D/s or other means) to be "slutty."

Lately I've been thinking a lot about Beauty and the Beast as a story archetype. I've come to believe it must be one of the most common themes there is in erotic/romantic literature. Everytime a heroine tames a wild and unruly male with love, it's basically harking back to the story of Beauty &the Beast.

Vampire stories, werewolves, Bad Boys, even BDSM, all reprise the basic B&tB archetype of the tension between the loving and the bestial. It seems to be the basic archetype of most "women's" romantic fantasy--the theme of taming the wild male through love and beauty.

The male counterpart is the Sleeping Beauty story archetype, in which the man brings the woman to life through a sexual act. This seems to be the basis for most "men's" porn, and you see it in all those stories where women just turn nymphomaniac in the guy's presence or have a near-religious experience by having sex with him.

What does this have to do with the topic? I don't know. But I have a story I don't want to work on, so I'm blathering away.

 

[Tugari]

ape world

I think a lot of that fascination has to do with the primal nature of it. Non-human animals are not constrained by "proper" behavior. If they feel the urge, they fuck (or fight to fuck) rather than suppress the urge. We humans are taught (implicity or explicitly) to fight those urges except in controlled circumstances.

It is understandable to me that there would be an allure to scenarios which shed those mores -- along the lines of getting "permission" (via D/s or other means) to be "slutty."

Actually in the ape world - that is - the non "human" apes - they have rules and regulations about their sexuality, just like we 'humans." The gorilla, for instance has a harem and he is chiefly in charge of his mates, however he does not seduce them, for it is their job to seduce him, giving him his crown or dominance. (Basically the males become president but only the females are allowed to vote) There is a heirachy among the females as well. Other males in the family or troop can not mate with them until the silverback does, if ever, and they know this - so do it in secret or respectfully out of his view. Some family units share each other openly and others have rigid rules. It all comes down to the personalities of the individuals within the family units. Bonobo Chimps, on the other hand, are extraordinary in their sex life, as they procreate as a form of communication with each other.

 

[Tugari]

Great!

Lately I've been thinking a lot about Beauty and the Beast as a story archetype. I've come to believe it must be one of the most common themes there is in erotic/romantic literature. Everytime a heroine tames a wild and unruly male with love, it's basically harking back to the story of Beauty &the Beast.

Vampire stories, werewolves, Bad Boys, even BDSM, all reprise the basic B&tB archetype of the tension between the loving and the bestial. It seems to be the basic archetype of most "women's" romantic fantasy--the theme of taming the wild male through love and beauty.

The male counterpart is the Sleeping Beauty story archetype, in which the man brings the woman to life through a sexual act. This seems to be the basis for most "men's" porn, and you see it in all those stories where women just turn nymphomaniac in the guy's presence or have a near-religious experience by having sex with him.

What does this have to do with the topic? I don't know. But I have a story I don't want to work on, so I'm blathering away.

No, it's great - it has a lot to do with it. I agree 100% I'm fascinated by the B&B thing. it's in a revival of sorts in modern media, as if we didn't already know.

 

[Stella_Omega]

OK, I'm geekless myself and I have absolutely no recall of the genius part of his make up. But I'm still going to insist that they were talking apes and not run of the mill variety.

Oh yeah? sez you!

Actually, it's been so long since I read them that I don't really remember anymore.
But, did they talk to anyone else besides Tarzan? I think Jane learned the language later, but she was never as fluent....

My saying Tarzan was a genius is my extrapolation. He learned anything Burroughs needed him to know, in short order

 

[alice_underneath]

Lately I've been thinking a lot about Beauty and the Beast as a story archetype. I've come to believe it must be one of the most common themes there is in erotic/romantic literature. Everytime a heroine tames a wild and unruly male with love, it's basically harking back to the story of Beauty &the Beast.

Vampire stories, werewolves, Bad Boys, even BDSM, all reprise the basic B&tB archetype of the tension between the loving and the bestial. It seems to be the basic archetype of most "women's" romantic fantasy--the theme of taming the wild male through love and beauty.

I'm not sure this theory applies in my case. Of course, I'm not sure how typical I am, either!

Though I have no experience with it, the concept of a D/s relationship has tremendous appeal to me. But the appeal does not stem from a desire to tame the guy. On the contrary, I would want him to "un-tame" me.

Take away my responsibility for what is happening and, in doing so, set me free from the bounds of propriety. Release me from the expectation of respectability and lady-like behavior that society imposes on me and I impose upon myself. Take me away from the strictures of "decent" or civilized behavior.... to a place where I can be wild, passionate, and unrestrained in expressing my sexuality.

Alice