Pathetic

[sr71plt]

Case in point

Or as Stan Lee would say back when he was running marvel

"Nuff said"

http://forum.literotica.com/showthread.php?p=67258059#post67258059

The link appears to have been deleted by the moderator.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

You haven't met Cupcake and Kandi lol

Incest "literotica" style is fun, but when you start hearing the 'fans' start telling their personal stories it gets squicky

 

[Darkniciad]

You know, there might be a reason for that.

Very married, VERY satisfied, and NOT interested in cyber

Having that in your profile would tend to discourage even the most desperate of horndogs.

I can only say, in my personal experience, I have never had a man comment or message me, "I see you are female, I gave your story five stars, let's have cybersex." Or however that awkward conversation might go...

 

[TxRad]

The link appears to have been deleted by the moderator.

I believe the thread he linked was moved to the AH or is deep sixed for over 5K posts.

 

[sr71plt]

I believe the thread he linked was moved to the AH or is deep sixed for over 5K posts.

It was a "today" thread and only had three posts to it when I first saw it. I think it was just completely erased. No reason to have done that under forum rules, though. (Not that the forum rules are followed that much by some of the moderators.)

 

[NaokoSmith]

The alt account is purely for when she is in the mood for fun. It's made like she desperately wants some male attention. Everything from the profile pic, bio description and stories are sex, sex and only sex. She even proudly says on this account that she encourages readers to contact her.

Hey, honey! How're you doing?

The thing with the alt account which has the higher scoring stories, is that she isn't just saying she's 'female'. She's saying she is female and up for it. Fair enough! all sorts of things get circulated in magazines for PR reasons and being willing to pretend to be up for it in order to increase your fan base, or their ... size (of vote ) is perfectly legit, although no point grumbling about undue masculine attention if you do this.

Do women get votes just for being women? that's what FantasyXY seems to be saying. In a way your story shows that they don't, since the female alt who writes more seriously doesn't get such high votes as the female alt who is proud to be a slut.

I'm not saying, trying to say, or even implying that female authors are getting scores they don't deserve. What my premise has been all along is that maybe, just maybe, men subconsciously find stories written from a woman's POV more erotic than those written from a man's POV.

Thus most men are voting as an extension of the Mohs scale. FYI, the Mohs scale is used to measure hardness... Just in case you aren't a mineralogist.

I think I get a better sense of your argument here.

Hypothesis: (Heterosexual) men are more likely to be turned on by women writing. We are writing to turn people on. Writing as a woman/female profile/female PoV will turn men on more. (Hence better votes.)

Nothing to do with writing worse or better, and in fact women are getting scores (in a voting sense!) we deserve, as our stories are going to get stroke fiction fans going quicker.

It's the 'pathetic' that is making most of us cross. If our fans are pathetic then what are we?

Although personally my stories are pretty low scoring! LOL. I must be a total dog of a woman and not a bit sexy Or I'm not that good a writer (I do think I edit and review better than I write), or I write romance which sometimes doesn't have much sex in it, and this is an erotica site so I get scored accordingly.

I think people vote for so many reasons. Some will give a 5 if the story has a glass slipper in it and a 1 if the protagonist is wearing canvas sneakers.

And I really think Bramblethorn has comprehensively shown that women writers don't get significantly higher votes than our male equivalents.

 

[NaokoSmith]

I'm willing to bet that I could establish a new Lit name, list myself as female, post a story to Literotica under the guise of a woman, and write convincingly in the established vein. I have that much faith in my skill as a writer. In short, I can prove that a man can write convincingly from a woman's point of view.

Care to take me up on the challenge?

I think you already showed this. In the FAWCs, people said a couple of times in the threads discussing the stories that we were convinced your stories were written by one of the women contestants.

Pilot's stories were often mistaken for mine, while mine were ascribed to him!

 

[slyc_willie]

I think you already showed this. In the FAWCs, people said a couple of times in the threads discussing the stories that we were convinced your stories were written by one of the women contestants.

Pilot's stories were often mistaken for mine, while mine were ascribed to him!

Well, yes and no. I made no effort to write as a woman in those challenges, and those of us making our guesses as to who wrote what often did so blindly. Not to mention we were a pretty small sample of the reading public.

A few of my earliest stories were written from a female POV. I didn't do that to intentionally mislead anyone into thinking I am a woman, but I did receive some interesting correspondence from (supposedly) male readers who apparently thought those stories were autobiographical.

The point, I think, would be the intent. If I wrote stories from a woman's point of view, and posted them under a profile publicly listed on Lit as being female, would that be convincing? That's the question, and the challenge. BUT . . . as I posted earlier, it may carry more complications than it would be worth. I don't mind, in the least, confounding, annoying, and angering readers who read my stories and expect a certain ending (and don't get it), but it's something else entirely to intentionally deceive them, especially for the sake of, as I said, proving a point.

 

[NaokoSmith]

Well, yes and no. I made no effort to write as a woman in those challenges, and those of us making our guesses as to who wrote what often did so blindly. Not to mention we were a pretty small sample of the reading public.

I think the fact that you weren't even trying to write like a woman, yet people thought you had a woman's touch is better proof that a man can pass as a female writer.

I ought to have added above that I felt much more flattered at having my stories mistaken for Pilot's than he can have done at having been thought to be the author of my work!

If this were to be done, the best thing would be to set up a personality called FAWCkeress. Invite different men to submit stories which they have done their best to write from a female PoV and in a female voice. Invite women to join in too, so it's a bit harder to tell whose is a male story. Put the stories not in Chain Stories but in the categories they belong to. Tell contestants and regular AH readers not to vote or comment on the stories, instead to comment in a thread put up for the purpose here.

Make FAWCkeress's profile simply female, no other comments or biography which could be regarded as a come-on.

That way the stories' votes could be compared to the writers' regular stories posted in those categories and we could all argue about whether there was any other effect at play. Also, the person owning the FAWCkeress profile could post in the thread any lurid offers s/he received via PM.

I don't think it's worth doing, because several people were convinced that some FAWC entry stories written by men were by women and vice versa and that sufficiently proves that point for me, and I find Bramblethorn's statistical evidence very convincing in terms of whether women's scores are boosted by pathetic men wanting to be laid on here.

 

[Handley_Page]

From Wiki:
Mho is an alternative name of the same unit, the reciprocal of one ohm. Mho is derived from spelling ohm backwards and is written with an upside-down capital Greek letter Omega: \mho, Unicode symbol U+2127 (℧).

 

[photoman52]

Not true here

I've been a member on Literotica for close to 14 years and reading stories here a bit longer. There have been times I was fairly active and other times where I barely touched this site. In those years I have noticed two things. One is glaringly obvious, and the other not so obvious.

The most obvious thing I've noticed is that like most any sex oriented site, this place is a sausage fest. Lots of dudes reading, writing commenting posting and voting... And by comparison, not so many women.

The not so obvious thing I have noticed is that the vast majority of these dudes that are reading, voting, and commenting, completely lose their fucking brains when they read a story written by a woman.

What do I mean by losing their brains? Well, since this place is a sausage fest I have to assume that by far most of the readers and voters are men. A study of the comments to stories over the past several months backs this up. The brain function loss seems to come into play when the stories author is thought to be a woman.

When I see stories here that were written by women, or possibly a men posing as a women, the one thing I notice is that they usually have nice high scores and all sorts of praising comments. Many of these stories are good and deserve high scores and comments, but just as many of them are complete crap that shouldn't have scored more than a two or three.

So I can only conclude that men must be losing their brains and cannot judge any erotic material that they think was written by a woman. Or maybe there is something else going on here. Are guys here thinking...

Come on guys... Are we really that fucking pathetic? Does a female author somehow make us think with the wrong head? Does anyone out there really think that praising a woman's story in the comment box is somehow going to get their pathetic ass laid?

I hope I'm wrong. But what do you all think? Are woman really better writers, or are we men so pathetic that we will do absolutely anything if we think we might get laid?

I for one like storied from men or women so do not think all guys feel this way. But most sites I have been to are for sure visited by more men than women. Guess that is normal.

 

[FantasyXY]

tomato tomato

Hypothesis: (Heterosexual) men are more likely to be turned on by women writing. We are writing to turn people on. Writing as a woman/female profile/female PoV will turn men on more. (Hence better votes.)

Nothing to do with writing worse or better, and in fact women are getting scores (in a voting sense!) we deserve, as our stories are going to get stroke fiction fans going quicker.

It's the 'pathetic' that is making most of us cross. If our fans are pathetic then what are we?

If the "fans" out there in sausage nation aren't pathetic, then maybe we should routinely refer to them as trolls... Tom-ay-toe - Tom-ah-toe

Although personally my stories are pretty low scoring! LOL. I must be a total dog of a woman and not a bit sexy Or I'm not that good a writer (I do think I edit and review better than I write), or I write romance which sometimes doesn't have much sex in it, and this is an erotica site so I get scored accordingly.

I looked at your scores. Take the mean, the mode, or the median... It doesn't matter how you slice it. On average, your stories score very well here on Lit.

 

[NaokoSmith]

I looked at your scores. Take the mean, the mode, or the median... It doesn't matter how you slice it. On average, your stories score very well here on Lit.

That's nice to know! I mostly glance at profiles of highly popular writers, it's true, and they all seem to have lots of hot red H's. At one time I thought it was because my stories are romantic and I post chapters without much sex in, but I have got stories around which are pretty down and dirty and they have very similar scores, so I decided it was a fair judge of my writing ability.

(I don't think I do that badly with the writing! although I think I could do better.)

 

[Katiecat]

You know, there might be a reason for that.

Very married, VERY satisfied, and NOT interested in cyber

Having that in your profile would tend to discourage even the most desperate of horndogs.

Yep, and that was my intent -- PM's are fine, I enjoy talking with readers and fellow writers. But I'm certainly not leading anyone on.

I'm not saying, trying to say, or even implying that female authors are getting scores they don't deserve.

Now, wait a minute -- that is exactly what you said:

The not so obvious thing I have noticed is that the vast majority of these dudes that are reading, voting, and commenting, completely lose their fucking brains when they read a story written by a woman.

The brain function loss seems to come into play when the stories author is thought to be a woman.

When I see stories here that were written by women, or possibly a men posing as a women, the one thing I notice is that they usually have nice high scores and all sorts of praising comments. Many of these stories are good and deserve high scores and comments, but just as many of them are complete crap that shouldn't have scored more than a two or three.

So I can only conclude that men must be losing their brains and cannot judge any erotic material that they think was written by a woman.

You said men lose their brains and can't judge when stories are written by females, and they lavish high scores and compliments on stories that are "complete crap". In fact, "just as many" stories that are, in your opinion, garbage and are getting undeserved high marks because the author has, or is perceived to have, a vagina.

And that, sir, is why I'm calling bullshit.

The thing with the alt account which has the higher scoring stories, is that she isn't just saying she's 'female'. She's saying she is female and up for it. Fair enough! all sorts of things get circulated in magazines for PR reasons and being willing to pretend to be up for it in order to increase your fan base, or their ... size (of vote ) is perfectly legit, although no point grumbling about undue masculine attention if you do this.

Do women get votes just for being women? that's what FantasyXY seems to be saying. In a way your story shows that they don't, since the female alt who writes more seriously doesn't get such high votes as the female alt who is proud to be a slut.
-----------------
It's the 'pathetic' that is making most of us cross. If our fans are pathetic then what are we?

And I really think Bramblethorn has comprehensively shown that women writers don't get significantly higher votes than our male equivalents.

Exactly. Thank you, ma'am.

 

[Black13]

First of all, consider the site. We're all jerking off here, g. We're not here to have a deep, literary discussion of what the hell ever, we're here because Captain Caveman needs some Caveman time. That means beating rocks with sticks when you see a pair of titties and other such lunacy. Most of us are likely civilized and decent men in the real world who come here to act pathetic so that pathick..er…y doesn't fester in our everyday lives and turn us into basket cases.

Hell, that's why I'm here. And the thought of women being as depraved as we are is titillating. Like Louis C.K. says, we're sick with our thoughts, and we have to live with them 24/7… it's a relief to think that there are women out there as depraved as we are in our ugliest moments, of which we come here to reconcile.

 

[slyc_willie]

First of all, consider the site. We're all jerking off here, g. We're not here to have a deep, literary discussion of what the hell ever, we're here because Captain Caveman needs some Caveman time. That means beating rocks with sticks when you see a pair of titties and other such lunacy. Most of us are likely civilized and decent men in the real world who come here to act pathetic so that pathick..er…y doesn't fester in our everyday lives and turn us into basket cases.

Hell, that's why I'm here. And the thought of women being as depraved as we are is titillating. Like Louis C.K. says, we're sick with our thoughts, and we have to live with them 24/7… it's a relief to think that there are women out there as depraved as we are in our ugliest moments, of which we come here to reconcile.

I don't entirely agree. Yes, some people come to Literotica only to read stories and masturbate to the fantasies portrayed therein. But there's a segment of the readership that is truly looking for something to satisfy them on more than a base level. That's the segment I --and I suspect, many other writers here -- aim for: the "more than just the jerk-off" crowd.

Believe it or not, there are readers who are touched beyond their supposed Captain Caveman (or Cavewoman) mentality and invest themselves in what they perceive as a worthwhile read that satisfies them on multiple levels. I've received numerous comments and private feedback to that effect.

 

[robertreams]

Asking for sex? If a man is any kind of a lover, she should be asking him. If she isn't asking, he is doing something wrong.

 

[Desiremakesmeweak]

What the fuck world have I been living in?!

Women, as depraved as men is a titillating idea?

Holy fuck! All the women I know are wa-a-a-ay more depraved than I will ever be. They just seem to be a lot better at disguising the fact when they choose to do that, than most men I've ever seen be around women.

 

[FantasyXY]

Asking for sex? If a man is any kind of a lover, she should be asking him. If she isn't asking, he is doing something wrong.

In a recent study researchers had both an extremely attractive woman and an extremely attractive man each ask 100 strangers to have sex with them. The man only asked women and the woman only asked men.

The woman had 30 of the 100 agree to have sex with her (too bad the study didn't allow her to follow through)

The man got exactly zero, zilch, nada... Not even one of the 100 women asked agreed to have sex, and most became indignant about it.

 

[Bramblethorn]

In a recent study researchers had both an extremely attractive woman and an extremely attractive man each ask 100 strangers to have sex with them. The man only asked women and the woman only asked men.

The woman had 30 of the 100 agree to have sex with her (too bad the study didn't allow her to follow through)

The man got exactly zero, zilch, nada... Not even one of the 100 women asked agreed to have sex, and most became indignant about it.

Actually, that's quite an old study, which has been... I won't quite say "debunked", but at the least "heavily re-evaluated", as a result of more recent work.

The research you're talking about is Clark & Hatfield, Gender Differences in Receptivity to Sexual Offers, Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39-55. Published in 1989, but the experiments it reported were conducted in 1978 and 1982.

Across the two experiments there were 96 men and 96 women asked, but only one-third (i.e. 32 men, 32 women) were asked "would you go to bed with me tonight?"; the others were asked "would you go out with me tonight?" or "would you come over to my apartment tonight?"

For "go out with me tonight", success rates were about 50% with no significant difference between male and female subjects.

For "go to bed with me", a woman propositioning men actually got a 72% success rate (not the 30% mentioned above) and for a man propositioning women it was indeed 0 from 32. "Come over to my apartment" got very similar responses. So, yeah, going by Clark and Hatfield it appears that men are much more interested in casual sex than women.

But that's not the end of the story!

In 2011, Prof. Terri D. Conley (U. Michigan) revisited the issue (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2011, vol. 100, no.2, 309-329) and found that the male/female differences observed in Clark and Hatfield were entirely due to factors such as perceived sexual ability and safety: the sort of guy who directly propositions strangers for sex is likely to be a creep or worse.

In Conley's research, a male stranger who propositions people out of the blue was perceived as more dangerous and less sexually skilled than a female stranger who does likewise. ("Was perceived" by both men and women, BTW - even straight women and gay men rated the hypothetical female propositioner as safer and better in bed than a male propositioner.)

In scenarios where those safety/skill issues were neutralised, women were just as open to casual sex as men. As an example, when offered a one-night stand with a celebrity, women were just as willing to say yes to Johnny Depp as men to Angelina Jolie.

More discussion about Conley's research here.

 

[Katiecat]

I don't entirely agree. Yes, some people come to Literotica only to read stories and masturbate to the fantasies portrayed therein. But there's a segment of the readership that is truly looking for something to satisfy them on more than a base level. That's the segment I --and I suspect, many other writers here -- aim for: the "more than just the jerk-off" crowd.

Believe it or not, there are readers who are touched beyond their supposed Captain Caveman (or Cavewoman) mentality and invest themselves in what they perceive as a worthwhile read that satisfies them on multiple levels. I've received numerous comments and private feedback to that effect.

There are plenty of "Captain Caveman/woman" stroke stories on here, if that's what a reader is looking for. But yes, absolutely, many of us are trying to write stories that are interesting, fun, intriguing, or thought-provoking with characters that are more than one dimensional. That's why this is Literotica, and not Penthouse Letters. Different readers come here looking for different things...and there is certainly a little something for everyone.

In a recent study researchers had both an extremely attractive woman and an extremely attractive man each ask 100 strangers to have sex with them. The man only asked women and the woman only asked men.

If a random stranger walks up to you and asks you for sex, there are some serious safety concerns with that -- for men as well as women. If you don't know the person and you are agreeing to be vulnerable (stark naked) and seriously distracted for a period of time, you don't know if they are going to commit a crime, if they have accomplices who will rob you, or worse (suppose she has a big burly boyfriend who would also like a turn with you? Not to say that some wouldn't be up for that, too...) It's a fun prospect in fantasy, but not very wise in real life.

Still not sure what this has to do with your initial premise and assertion that half of the stories on here written by female authors are total crap and have received undeserved high scores and praise.

Actually, that's quite an old study, which has been... I won't quite say "debunked", but at the least "heavily re-evaluated", as a result of more recent work.

Again, Bramblethorn, excellent post -- you are a researcher after my own heart.

 

[slyc_willie]

In a recent study researchers had both an extremely attractive woman and an extremely attractive man each ask 100 strangers to have sex with them. The man only asked women and the woman only asked men.

The woman had 30 of the 100 agree to have sex with her (too bad the study didn't allow her to follow through)

The man got exactly zero, zilch, nada... Not even one of the 100 women asked agreed to have sex, and most became indignant about it.

I was going to ask for the link to said supposed study, considering this post pretty dubious on the surface, but thankfully, Bram beat me to it:

Actually, that's quite an old study, which has been... I won't quite say "debunked", but at the least "heavily re-evaluated", as a result of more recent work.

The research you're talking about is Clark & Hatfield, Gender Differences in Receptivity to Sexual Offers, Journal of Psychology and Human Sexuality, 2, 39-55. Published in 1989, but the experiments it reported were conducted in 1978 and 1982.

Across the two experiments there were 96 men and 96 women asked, but only one-third (i.e. 32 men, 32 women) were asked "would you go to bed with me tonight?"; the others were asked "would you go out with me tonight?" or "would you come over to my apartment tonight?"

For "go out with me tonight", success rates were about 50% with no significant difference between male and female subjects.

For "go to bed with me", a woman propositioning men actually got a 72% success rate (not the 30% mentioned above) and for a man propositioning women it was indeed 0 from 32. "Come over to my apartment" got very similar responses. So, yeah, going by Clark and Hatfield it appears that men are much more interested in casual sex than women.

But that's not the end of the story!

In 2011, Prof. Terri D. Conley (U. Michigan) revisited the issue (Journal of Personality and Social Psychology, 2011, vol. 100, no.2, 309-329) and found that the male/female differences observed in Clark and Hatfield were entirely due to factors such as perceived sexual ability and safety: the sort of guy who directly propositions strangers for sex is likely to be a creep or worse.

In Conley's research, a male stranger who propositions people out of the blue was perceived as more dangerous and less sexually skilled than a female stranger who does likewise. ("Was perceived" by both men and women, BTW - even straight women and gay men rated the hypothetical female propositioner as safer and better in bed than a male propositioner.)

In scenarios where those safety/skill issues were neutralised, women were just as open to casual sex as men. As an example, when offered a one-night stand with a celebrity, women were just as willing to say yes to Johnny Depp as men to Angelina Jolie.

More discussion about Conley's research here.

The value of perception is always a fascinating subject for me. Just as many women would be willing to fuck Johnny Depp at the drop of a hat as men would be to fuck Angelina Jolie, eh? I'm thinking the reasons behind such a decision are not entirely based on physical, romantic, or erotic attraction. From both sides, I'm sure, would be the allure of bragging about having "banged" such a personality. It would be a personal badge, a mark of social attainment. Not in all cases, but in many, I'd wager.

I think that establishes an interesting flaw in the program, from my point of view. I mean, if a gorgeous and famous person approached you out of the blue and propositioned you for sex, would you be using the same subconscious rating system you would for a gorgeous, but not famous person? In other words, if Nicole Kidman came up to you in a hotel bar and said (as she did to Alec Baldwin in Malice), "take me upstairs and fuck me," would you be just as ready to say "yes" if the woman only looked remarkably like Nicole Kidman, but wasn't really her?

Just a thought.

Regarding the site and data Bram quoted above, I have a strong feeling that if the same research were conducted now in 2015, the results would be markedly different. I think there would be more women willing to have casual sex now than in the mid-eighties. I think the number -- or percentage -- of men willing to have casual sex would be relatively the same. Just my opinion.

 

[Bramblethorn]

The value of perception is always a fascinating subject for me. Just as many women would be willing to fuck Johnny Depp at the drop of a hat as men would be to fuck Angelina Jolie, eh? I'm thinking the reasons behind such a decision are not entirely based on physical, romantic, or erotic attraction. From both sides, I'm sure, would be the allure of bragging about having "banged" such a personality. It would be a personal badge, a mark of social attainment. Not in all cases, but in many, I'd wager.

FWIW, they also asked the same question with celebrities rated as unattractive.

For men, the average scores were: unattractive celeb 1.43, non-celeb female stranger 3.52, attractive celeb 4.16. For women they were: unattractive celeb 1.71, non-celeb male stranger 1.86, attractive celeb 4.09. (This is on a scale from 1 to 7: 1 = definitely would not accept, 7 = definitely would.)

So the mere fact of celebrity doesn't count for much; it seems to have a lot to do with what people think of that particular celebrity. Men were almost as willing to sleep with Random Female Stranger as Angelina Jolie - although it's possible that the scoring system just doesn't capture the difference between "yes" and "OMG yes".

I think that establishes an interesting flaw in the program, from my point of view. I mean, if a gorgeous and famous person approached you out of the blue and propositioned you for sex, would you be using the same subconscious rating system you would for a gorgeous, but not famous person? In other words, if Nicole Kidman came up to you in a hotel bar and said (as she did to Alec Baldwin in Malice), "take me upstairs and fuck me," would you be just as ready to say "yes" if the woman only looked remarkably like Nicole Kidman, but wasn't really her?

My personal attraction patterns probably aren't very representative. I'm not oblivious to "gorgeous" but on its own it's not enough to get me seriously interested, and honestly most celebrities don't appeal* - I'm not interested in being in the tabloids and I doubt we'd have much in common. So I'd be marginally more likely to say yes to the look-alike, because at least there's a chance we'd hit it off.

*Salma Hayek excepted, natch.

Regarding the site and data Bram quoted above, I have a strong feeling that if the same research were conducted now in 2015, the results would be markedly different. I think there would be more women willing to have casual sex now than in the mid-eighties. I think the number -- or percentage -- of men willing to have casual sex would be relatively the same. Just my opinion.

From the 2011 study, women were still very reluctant to sleep with a strange man who propositioned them out of the blue. (Remember, the Clark & Hatfield study was carried out just before AIDS put the chill on heterosexual sexyfuntimes.) But if they get an appealing offer, that's another matter.

 

[Carnal_Flower]

The key is the pic, not the listed gender.

I had a former account with a pretty racy pic of lingerie. It was so tiny! But man the PMs started flooding in.

"You seem like such a nice person."

"I love your stories." rolleyes

It was constant.

Take the pic off and they stopped immediately. I never get random solicitations for cyber now and I'm not one to shy away from sex in a story. (But most don't even bother to go to the stories anyway.) You'd think . . . but honestly I think a female author who doesn't pull any crap is not a draw to the cyber crowd. If anything it might scare them off. Post a pic of tits or legs, however? Watch out.

 

[Sammael Bard]

I do believe that she is female, but I would laugh my ass off if it came out that Silkstockinglover was a guy.

9k plus favorites in about the amount of time I've been here and don't think for a second it has nothing to do with she is a woman writing mother/son stories as well s milf stories.

The simple minded male automatically assumes-or wants to think-she has banged her son and is a cougar in heat. I've never seen her post anything that states that which is why I say assumption, its what they want to believe.

She has over 2k more favs than Tx Tall Tales who has been here much longer and also writes a good amount of incest stories

But he's missing something, actually a pair of somethings.

Silkstockinglover has hundreds of stories in Incest category (Gold Mine of Lit!) as compared to Tx Tall Tales, who writes in a variety of categories and with a fewer grand total. That's a major thing you're overlooking here.

Favourites are determined both by quality and quantity, and yeah, to some extent, sex of an author.

You can't deny the fact that there are a few males here who like to get off on a female's story. Doesn't matter if they're real or not. What you can't determine is the number of such males or perceived males.

An accurate Quantitative analysis of this subject matter will require something more concrete than puny assumptions being thrown around.

*notices the empty thread for the first time as a ball of dusty tumbleweed rolls past*

Aww, crap....I'm late to the party.

Anywho, that's my 2 cents.