Laurel Pick for April

[Laurel]

To cause further chaos and confusion - and with Weird Harold's kind permission - twice a month Manu & I will pick a story that we think brings up interesting discussion points and post it here. You can discuss it, or you don't have to - whatever you like. It's like a bonus question, or extra credit, or something.

We'll only do one story this month, and will do two a month starting in May. I'm picking stories that I think would make interesting discussions (whether they do or not, who knows), so please do not be offended if I do or don't pick your story. It's not meant to offend either way.

Off topic: you may have noticed that I haven't done much posting in this forum. I think the idea behind this forum is wonderful, and I appreciate WH and Christo's efforts in thinking up this cool idea and keeping it rolling. However, as the webmaster I feel uncomfortable publicly critiquing stories. I don't want to upset anyone to the point where they stop enjoying the site. Anyway, I do read the comments here every day and think this is a great way to help authors improve their writing, as well as to help us all become better readers.

This month's story is:

Seven Rings
by Dafney Dewitt
http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=9423

This lady is an exceptional writer with a great feel for plot and pacing. I enjoy her other stories as well. The reason I picked this one for discussion is the nature of the topic - Incest - and how it is handled.

A few starter discussion questions:

What is perversion, really? Is it a subjective label, or can it be objectively defined?

Does its definition change when the action is viewed by the spectator or by the participant? Are we as normal, balanced people capable of committing acts without guilt that we would be appalled by if committed by others?

Is morality itself subjective?

Do you agree with her message, or not? Why/why not?

 

[christo]

Throw the first stone

This short, stunning, uncomfortable story poses a tough question-- is thinking about committing a sin (or crime, or immoral act) as bad as doing the deed itself? Fuller engages in phone sex with a girl he thinks is underage, who is pretending to be his daughter, and has an orgasm while imagining that this girl's mother is in the next room oblivously watching TV. Yet, when he realizes that his the girl who called is his roommate's daughter, he is revolted by the thought that Peters' has had sex with his own daughter and resolves to move out rather than live with a pedophile.

So is Fuller justified in his outrage? He happily jerks off thinking about fucking his young daughter (although he doesn't have one) yet when confronted by a man who apparenly has had sex with his underage daughter he is disgusted. Is this hypocrasy on a huge scale? Is the distance between fantasy and action such a huge step? Legally, or morally?

Laurel poses the question, "Is morality subjective?", and we end up on a slippery slope indeed. Ask the question, "Would you ever kill anyone?" and the stock answer you get is, "No.". Well, the Federal Government, elected by us, will kill Timothy McVeigh in about a month, and guess how long the line of folks protesting his execution will be? How often do people think about doing something outside the pale, as society dictates it? Does thinking about it make us deviants? How can we judge those who DO act upon those desires? Or is the line between "I want to" and "I'm going to" not so thin after all?

Is Fuller a pig, or is he justified in his disgust? Good guy or bad guy?

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Throw the first stone

So is Fuller justified in his outrage? He happily jerks off thinking about fucking his young daughter (although he doesn't have one) yet when confronted by a man who apparenly has had sex with his underage daughter he is disgusted. Is this hypocrasy on a huge scale? Is the distance between fantasy and action such a huge step? Legally, or morally?

I think Daffney has captured the confusion many people feel about certain aspects of their sexuality.

I got the impression that Fuller was redirecting disgust at himself for getting caught up in the fantasy the mysterious girl on the phone provided. When he realizes who the girl was, he feels even more disgust at his own perversion and transfers that disgust to Peters as well as his feelings about incest and molestation.

This story is a very well rendered "morality play" that captures Fuller's emotions well -- albeit not blatantly.

This kind of story makes the reader think about the greater import of what is depicted. It is the sort of effect that all authors should strive for. I'm not saying that all authors should impose their moral philosophy on a story, but I do think a story that makes the reader think beyond the actual words presented is much more satisfying than a simple stroke story.

 

[Mickie]

"Never let your sense of morals get in the way of doing what's right."
- Isaac Asimov

...What is perversion, really? Is it a subjective label, or can it be objectively defined? Is morality itself subjective?...


I think the bottom line that everyone here will agree with is that my idea of perversion isn’t and can never be everyone else’s. There might be people out there who will agree with my ideas, but usually they are people with the same background and have been taught the same things. I think perversion and morality both are something that is taught, not inherited like blue eyes.
Our view of perversion is taught by those we love and respect, and our ‘gut feelings’ about things are brought about by experience, not by some all-powerful absolute of right and wrong. (If it were, then all those infants out there who innocently explore the things around them, as well as their own bodies, would automatically feel guilt. They don’t, not until someone slaps their little hands.)

...Does its definition change when the action is viewed by the spectator or by the participant? Are we as normal, balanced people capable of committing acts without guilt that we would be appalled by if committed by others? ...

Yes. The basis we use for right and wrong, our moral thermometer, is guilt. If someone else is doing the thing that we believe is wrong, then we don’t feel as guilty as if we had done it ourselves. We can pass the blame to another and remain innocent. Self-righteous, we can then accuse the other person of being perverted (such as in this story) and any pleasure we get from the act can be hidden.

Case in point -- a bar full of people watched a woman get raped repeatedly. It takes a court of law to decide that the watchers who did not participate in the rape but did nothing to stop it are guilty of something. Even those that cheered the rapists on are adamant about their not being accountable for the rape.

...Do you agree with her message, or not? Why/why not?...

It depends on the message each reader received from the story. One person might get the idea that it’s all right to contribute to a crime if one has no knowledge of the crime. Another might get see something in between the lines and come up with the opposite message. Another might not see it as a crime at all, but rage against laws that interfere with the family decision to instruct a child in sex, thus harming the child with public reaction far more than the actual sex act harms her. Personally, I think it’s a tongue in cheek way of showing how self-righteous and self-delusional people can get. The fact that the author chose to tell it from Fuller’s pov shows that we are supposed to identify with Fuller. It’s uncomfortable because most people see the hypocrisy of a man who goes against his own moral standards, while condemning another person for going against those same standards.

...Is thinking about committing a sin (or crime, or immoral act) as bad as doing the deed itself?...

This depends on the amount of guilt that is incorporated into an individual’s moral code. Some people would find the thought of a crime just as morally reprehensive as committing it. Some people find an outlet in thinking and fantasizing, but would be horrified if someone suggested they actually do it. Then there are others who not only fantasize, but commit the crime without guilt at all. I guess the point I’m trying to make is that we can only judge ourselves, not the rest of society.

...Ask the question, "Would you ever kill anyone?" and the stock answer you get is, "No."...

The stock answer isn’t no. Most enlightened people would justify a yes answer. If someone was going to kill me or my family I would kill them without hesitation. It’s this kind of thinking that makes us apathetic to the government killing a criminal. We don’t give a damn if a killer is murdered. After all, an eye for an eye. If there was a doubt that McVeigh was innocent or guilty there would be a line of protestors, that is, if the media put a doubt in the popular mind. And, in defense of those people to whom gun control is such a big issue -- I want to be able to protect the people I love. Hell, yes, I’d kill someone, but not for fun. And I would feel guilty for the pleasure I would feel at murdering someone who was going to take the life or health or happiness of those people I love. But the guilt would not stop the self-satisfaction I would feel. Justification provides a loophole for most ethical choices.

Deviant. The definition of a deviant is someone who goes against the accepted views of society. So, yes, thinking about doing something outside the accepted rules of society makes you a deviant. I don’t think it makes a person good or bad to be a deviant, just different. Pervert is another word with another meaning. It automatically suggests deviation, but adds in the thought of negativity by connotation. Judging other people who act differently than we do is a bad idea all the way around. But, when we do, we judge them by the moral and ethical code we were taught. In this story, I saw a man judging another man. Was he right to judge him, given his own actions? My point is that we have no right to judge another, period. We can only judge ourselves.

...Is Fuller a pig, or is he justified in his disgust? Good guy or bad guy?...

Human guy. The uncomfortable feeling we get from this story is because it is rather realistic. Fuller goes against his own moral code and then turns around and condemns another for going against that code. All of us feel that we need to stand up for what we believe in, but, in the normal course of things, most people will opt for their own pleasure rather than follow a moral code given to them by other people (society). Is Fuller truly disgusted, or is his severe judgement of his roommate merely a way to cover up his disgust with himself?

Mickie

 

[KillerMuffin]

I would say that yes, Fuller is a hypocrite on two levels. He refuses to live with a pedophile who would have sex with his own daughter, yet not moments before he'd just done the same thing over the phone, thinking it may have been his daughter and that she was underage.

The imagery was particularly revolting, to someone who is not a pedophile, the hairless genitals and the young, presumably pubescent body. However, despite Fuller's later consideration that he would never live with a pervert comes the conclusion that he has to, he has to live with himself.

Perversion is subject, take my own perv for example. I have a thing for bi-sexual men. If I had a thing for bi women, it would be normal and well received, at least within the lit community. Bisexuality or homosexuality in a female is considered not perverted, whether anyone thinks it's wrong in mainstream culture as well. However, the reverse is not true. Bisexuality in men is still pretty much considered disgusting, but it's not taboo, just as long as it's done elsewhere. However, outside of the pedophile community, pedophilia is taboo, it's a perversion whose only acceptance is among the practitioners. The "whatever floats your boat" mentality doesn't apply here. The reasoning for that may or may not be how damaging to the child that it may be.

Interestingly enough, Dafney touched the human consciousness perfectly. We are all hypocrites in some way, we hate most in others what we dislike about ourselves. And we delude ourselves about it. We think we don't do it, or we gloss over when we do it, but damned if we'll put up with it in others. He hates the perversion in his roommate, to the point where he won't live with it. However, he lives with the same perversion in his self by pretending it isn't there.

 

[LadyDarcy]

I will try my hand at this.

According to Webster, perversion is an aberrant sexual practice especially when habitual and preferred to normal coitus.

Pervert is to cause to turn aside or away from what is good or true or morally right (CORRUPT) or to cause to turn aside or away from what is generally done or accepted (MISDIRECT) or to divert to a wrong end or purpose (MISUSE) or to twist the meaning or sense of (MISINTERPRET).

Laurel asks

What is perversion, really? Is it a subjective label, or can it be objectively defined?

I believe it is subjective. To define a perversion, one must define one's morals; define good. Society defines these things as well, but we are all aware that many times people have differing thoughts as to what is 'good' as do differing societies.

Does its definition change when the action is viewed by the spectator or by the participant?

If the spectator and the participant have different morals, the the definition changes. This seems to be inherent due to the meaning of the word.

Are we as normal, balanced people capable of committing acts without guilt that we would be appalled by if committed by others?

The human mind has a remarkable capacity for rationalization and self-protection. We are capable of this inconsistency and I can find examples of it quite often. Is it right ? - in the universal sense of one spiritual truth, no. Is it human? - very much so.

Is morality itself subjective?

Yes, depending on one's belief system.

Do you agree with her message, or not? Why/why not?

I implied Fuller enjoyed the fantasy of the situation, but could not accept the reality. I think this is rather common. Some women enjoy the fantasy of non-consensual sex because it rids them of the guilt that some background (a 'moral' upbringing?) instills. This does not mean they would enjoy or desire nonconsensual sex in real life. The same could be true for any fantasy situation.

What we would like to do is very often not what we should do. The choice between the two has always been a paradox for me.

 

[CAT~~]

Fuller receives a phone call and hearing a female on the line spouting line after line of sexual innuendo and come ons. He, like some men, went with the flow, figuring it was some woman who dialed the wrong number. Finding out that, it was a young girl and the daughter of his roommater brought the whole fantasy down on his head.

Do I find this whole scenerio preverted. Yes. No one person should have that kind of sexual control over a child that has no say in the matter. We bring children up in this society to obey and seek out authority figures when we have problems or need help. Abusing that authority, no matter what age you are is a preversion of the other person trust.
So just because the victim is a child does it make it worse. Once again, yes, because not only is the child's trust being violated, her innocence has also been violated. First, by her father and now by a man who she assumed was her father. Fuller is no less guilty than the girls father.

The whole story left a rather bad taste in my mouth.

 

[Weird Harold]

The whole story left a rather bad taste in my mouth.

This leads me to the question, "Is that a sign the author accomplished a goal, or that the goal was missed?"

The goal of most author's is to evoke a response in the reader. Daffney has definitely evoked a response, but I wonder if it's the response intended.

 

[Sonia_de_Beaumanoir]

relevance

We have here an imagined story about incest, and we are trying to decide the morality of the character's actions. The majority of individuals would a priori say that incest is morally wrong, but many of us enjoy the erotic fantasy of reading or writing about it.

Is it realistic to try to ascribe some alternate sense of morality to either Fuller or Peters, or to decide if the author's view is correct? For me the question about who is or is not a pervert is irrelevant.

 

[Ulyssa]

Ask Kafka, Poe, or Clive Barker(?)

The whole story left a rather bad taste in my mouth.

This leads me to the question, "Is that a sign the author accomplished a goal, or that the goal was missed?"

Well allright maybe I shouldn't put Clive barker in this group--although he's a better technical writer than EAP.

Thereis something wonderfully Kafka or more recently John Lutz about Daffney's work and it is there to make us want to think twice about the piece.

Yep! That's writing. She did her job really well.

 

[spelbynder]

<<This leads me to the question, "Is that a sign the author accomplished a goal, or that the goal was missed?">>

In my mind, the author definitely accomplshed her goal.
What a thought-provoking story and a fascinating discussion.
Although I'm not suggesting these questions be answered in this forum, it may give us all something else to think about:
I wonder how many of us, whether we feel Fuller was right or wrong, experienced our own twinges of arousal while reading the story. Does that put us in the same boat with Fuller?

 

[KillerMuffin]

Hey, this one still might be worthy of discussion.