Rant: The dangerous goodguy

[PayDay]

But do you think an amateur writer can pull that off?

Think about it. There's going to be a lot of emotional conflict, dilemma etcetera etcetera. That is one thing that I really find hard to write, without making it a yawner and boring away readers. Showing it on the screen is a less daunting task, as compared to penning your thoughts into the pages, IMHO.

No doubt, there are some great authors out here, but not everyone is on the same level.

Yes. Absolutely an amateur could.

An honest to god good guy is impossible and doesn't exist.

Lies and slander. A bad apple does not make all apples bad.

 

[49greg]

...

Here's what I wonder about the LW category and outlook...what about the obverse? The faithful, truly loving wife with the zipper-impaired husband? Is it just a 'boys will be boys' club or are there (should there be) consequences for the female intruder and husband in the same measure? (I have a feeling it wouldn't fly in LW simply because it IS a self-righteous boys club over there.)

I don't read a lot of LW, and only wrote three, but your post makes me wonder, are there any LW stories where it's a cheating hubby and a good wife. A wife who BTB's the hubby, kicks him out on the street? I bet the comments would go wild on that.

edited to correct 'their' to 'there' - doh!

 

[StrangeLife]

I don't read a lot of LW, and only wrote three, but your post makes me wonder, are their any LW stories where it's a cheating hubby and a good wife. A wife who BTB's the hubby, kicks him out on the street? I bet the comments would go wild on that.

Well, I have one. They aren't common though.... probably because we men so rarely cheat

 

[PayDay]

I don't read a lot of LW, and only wrote three, but your post makes me wonder, are their any LW stories where it's a cheating hubby and a good wife. A wife who BTB's the hubby, kicks him out on the street? I bet the comments would go wild on that.

That's a badass plot bunny

Also, for you good guy haters: What if the good guys agenda is to be a good guy and he works in defense of that?

The essence of the good guy is to act in defense of love and all that hooplah, in turn rescuing the dame from the Sheriff of Rottingham or whatever. Some people might see that as: 'That dude tried to steal my girlfriend etc."

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

Well, as I pointed out to Lovecraft, we will grant that it's one of those lame excuses used to get to what they really want to read about. Very like a lot of the stories here have just enough story to get them to the sex. It's that not-so-plausable deniability thing. "I'm not reading porn, it's a story with sex..." and in this case, "It's a story about a woman who deserves this fate because she abused a good guy..." rather than the truth "I get off on reading about doing such things to women."[/QUOTE]

Less so when the revenge is more sensible, more so and more likely whenever it is so extreme that it defies the Geneva Convention. It also means that whenever such extreme revenge is taken on the man, is it because the author hates men to such an extreme as well?

 

[PayDay]

But what if the badguy had**been a sleaze ball?

Change places?!?!!

Dudley Do Right
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0160236/?ref_=fn_al_tt_1

http://moviesection.de/v3/img/datenbank/du2.jpg
http://moviesection.de/v3/img/datenbank/du2.jpg

Kim Darling: "It's not that complicated, Dudley. The bad guy, Snidely Whiplash, is apparently doing good, ergo, putting you, the good guy, in the position of having to be the bad guy. Well, not exactly the bad guy. Let's say the 'badder' guy. But let me remind you just as a bad guy doing good does not necessarily make him the good guy, so a good guy doing bad does not, ipso facto, make him a bad guy."

Dudley: This can't be happening. He can't be the good guy.

Kim Darling: "But he is. The good citizens of Whiplash City are throwing a gala ball in his honor tonight."

Dudley: "For Snidely?"

Dance-off combat over Nell ensues:
http://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/movies/DudleyDoRight.asp
http://www.jesusfreakhideout.com/movies/pics/dudley1.jpg
http://www.nytimes.com/movies/movie/180737/Dudley-Do-Right/overview
http://content.internetvideoarchive.com/content/photos/203/008564_27.jpg
Dance-off videos:
http://www.anyclip.com/movies/dudley-do-right/snidelys-party/
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-Z4OPJ7nJYhub2/dudley_do_right_1999_snidelys_party_part_2/

Training:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-Z4OPJYJ4JhbJmm/dudley_do_right_1999_training_dudley/
http://www.anyclip.com/movies/dudley-do-right/training-dudley/
The clip training Dudley from Dudley Do-Right (1999)


Kim Darling: My son... the hero defeats danger... because he is dangerous himself. You are dangerous. Know it. Say it.
Dudley: You are dangerous.
Kim Darling: Say, "I am dangerous. "
Dudley: I did.
Kim Darling: No. Say, "I am dangerous. "
Dudley: You are dangerous.
Kim Darling: You say, "I am dangerous. "
Dudley: But you said-
Kim Darling: Oh, never mind. The hero must face three trials. Trust, daring... instinct. For the sake of consistency, we'll start with number two.
Daring!
Okay now, I am your adversary. I am evil. Evil! Evil!
Dudley: You're evil?
Kim Darling: Yes. And now I'm going to draw this line in the sand. Now, do not dare cross that line... otherwise evil will rain down upon you. Evil! ... Now look, Dudley, you-You're supposed to take me up on my challenge... by showing me how daring you are. Let's try it once again, shall we? I am evil! Now do not dare cross that line! I am evil! Evil! ...
Dudley: Well, what? You said I'm not supposed to cross the line!
Kim Darling: But you're supposed to cross the line. Now, let's try it again. Okay, now, do not dare...cross the line of death. I am evil! I am evil!
[Dudley crosses line and is struck with stick]
Dudley: What did you do that for?
Kim Darling: 'Cause I'm evil. I can't help it. Sorry.

Training Part II:
http://www.metacafe.com/watch/an-Z4OP2m44Jhbm2t/dudley_do_right_1999_training_dudley_part_2/
The clip training dudley Part 2 from Dudley Do-Right (1999)

Kim Darling: Trust.
The hero trusts. Now, I will throw some stones at you - missing intentionally, of course - and you will not flinch as they whiz past your head, because you trust me.
Dudley: I trust you, master.
[Dudley gets hit with rock]
Kim Darling: Good! Sorry, but that was very good. You trusted me.Okay?
[Dudley gets hit with rock]
Perfect! You didn't flinch at all. Just one more, okay?
[Dudley gets hit with rock]
Excellent, absolutely! Trust is your middle name. A little less moaning would be good.


Kim Darling: The final test, Instinct.
You will fight me without benefit of eyesight. You will block my every blow... because you can see without your eyes. You can hear without your ears. You can speak without your tongue.
Dudley: Yes, master.
Kim Darling: I said "without your tongue. "
Dudley: (mumbles)
Kim Darling: Now, your sword is your stick. The stick is your defense. Prepare to defeat me. Are you ready?
[Dudley gets hit with stick]
Very good, indeed! The hopping-foot defense.
[Dudley gets hit with stick]
Very good! The other-foot-hopping defense.
[Dudley gets hit with stick]
Wonderful! You're at one with the universe!
And now, concentrate. Prepare to receive my final assault!
[Dudley gets hit with stick]
Wonderful. The playing-dead defense.
Dudley: Master...?
Kim Darling: Good choice, under the circumstances. You'll be all right, my son - provided they don't attack you with sticks.

 

[3113]

Less so when the revenge is more sensible, more so and more likely whenever it is so extreme that it defies the Geneva Convention. It also means that whenever such extreme revenge is taken on the man, is it because the author hates men to such an extreme as well?

As for the revenge being sensible...fantasy is fantasy and this is a fantasy website. We might as well bemoan the outrageously large penises that somehow can still function and breasts so big no woman would be able to stand up, yet they can

And yes, I think readers if not authors (because, hey, what we write isn't always what we think or feel or believe personally) of such stories hate certain men. This testosterone high that guys get reading such stories may just include taking it out on the women who they think done them wrong. But I think such men fantasize equally (and get off in the same way) about taking out other men, especially men higher than they are in the pecking order. When a lady they had something with leaves them for another guy, they don't think, "Was I a jerk and drove her away?" They think, "That guy took what was mine. He needs to be taken down...before all the other guys look at me and think I'm a loser."

It's as old as mankind. That territorial, prove-your-position in the pack mentality. The idea that if a man lets another man take what's his, then every "brother" male out there will walk all over him. Kick sand in his face and make him the omega on the bottom. Maybe literally fuck him to prove how low he is.

Does such a reader hate such men who put him in such a position? Very much so. He hates how they take away women from him with ease. He hates that they're always higher in the pecking order than him. He hates that they disregard and ignore him as if he wasn't even worth fighting. And he especially hates that, in real life, he can never win against them. They always humiliate and embarrass him (in his mind, at least). Oh, yes, he hates them. And any woman who leaves him for such a man? Well, he's really going to hate her.

 

[StrangeLife]

The choice of "sleaze" guy over "good guy" also reflect the typical, furious refrain of so many guys likely reading these stories: "Why did she pick the bad boy over me! I was a good guy but she went for the sleaze instead!" Thus, these stories are ways for guys to take revenge on a girl of their desire for picking the bad boy over them, in spite of how "nice" they imagined they'd been, how much more worthy they were of her.

It's as old as mankind. That territorial, prove-your-position in the pack mentality. The idea that if a man lets another man take what's his, then every "brother" male out there will walk all over him. Kick sand in his face and make him the omega on the bottom. Maybe literally fuck him to prove how low he is.

Does such a reader hate such men who put him in such a position? Very much so. He hates how they take away women from him with ease. He hates that they're always higher in the pecking order than him. He hates that they disregard and ignore him as if he wasn't even worth fighting. And he especially hates that, in real life, he can never win against them. They always humiliate and embarrass him (in his mind, at least). Oh, yes, he hates them. And any woman who leaves him for such a man? Well, he's really going to hate her.

So what you are saying is, that the term "badguy" is highly subjective and depends on the point of view? That it is something the looser is calling the winner in order to make himself feel better?

I don't quite agree. While the definition isn't crystal clear, there are certain objective criteria that I think most can agree on.

A goodguy...

- is not in it for the the sake of competing with hubby, but for the sake of getting the girl.
- prefers "making love" over "fucking the bitch."
- is not married or in another relationship.
- is interested in doing datey stuff as well as having sex.
- is gainfully employed in a non-illegal business.
- has no major issues with substance abuse or violence.
- wants to build a future with the girl.
- feels bad about breaking up the marriage, but assumes that he can make her happier than she is right now.
- is prepared to adopt the kids or, if that is not an option, avoid interfering in bio-dads visitation or poisoning them against him.

If he is also good looking and reasonably well-endowed, I'd claim that even the losing party in a fight will call him a goodguy.

We men are not as dense as you might assume. We can make a realistic assessments of the competition and admit the truth to ourselves, if the other guy has been dealt the stronger hand. Batman and Superman aren't special in that regard - most of us can do that.

Of course "knowing" is not the same as giving in. It just means that it's time to fight dirty...

 

[PayDay]

We men are not as dense as you might assume. We can make a realistic assessments of the competition and admit the truth to ourselves, if the other guy has been dealt the stronger hand. Batman and Superman aren't special in that regard - most of us can do that.

Act upon a personality disorder with a costume and claims of super powers?

 

[StrangeLife]

Act upon a personality disorder with a costume and claims of super powers?

No. Recognise that the "other guy" is the better choice for the women they love, as described in the original post. That doesn't require super powers - only logic.

Of course where Superman and Batman go beyond what most men would do, is respecting this assessment and giving up their women to the other guy. Most normal men would be selfish and fight for their girl regardless of the other guys qualities. I certainly would...

 

[3113]

I don't quite agree. While the definition isn't crystal clear, there are certain objective criteria that I think most can agree on.

Um...once again, faulty premise. Re-read what you said, "objective criteria...." Hel-LO! I don't think many of the readers in LW are objective or want to be. Any more than those reading the porn stories with ridiculously endowed women ever will "objectively" say "Such women don't exist naturally and couldn't defy gravity like that if they did..."

As for men being dense...whether writers/readers of LW stories are dense or not isn't the issue. They may know perfectly well that the sleaze guy doesn't make for as good a story as one with a good guy, and they may even agree with your objective criteria of what could be defined as a good guy.

That doesn't mean they "objectively" want it in their favorite porn.

Let me put it another way. You may not be so dense as to think that a lot of sugar, fat, carbs and such is good for you. But that doesn't mean you want anyone telling you to buy kale chips to eat during a movie instead of a giant soft drink, butter soaked popcorn and a candy bar. You asked why these stories have sleaze guys instead of good guys. And there reason is because the sleaze guys are easy to hate and and make the revenge on them and the cheating wife "sweeter." They're a soft drink and a candy bar. Objectively knowing that a good guy would make for a better story doesn't enter into it even if the reader/writer isn't dense. They don't want the healthy stuff no matter how much better it would make the story.

 

[lovecraft68]

I will never suffer from being the dangerous nice guy.

But I am a case in point on looks and personality being deceiving.

My mother in law describes me to people as "He's not the nicest guy, but he's damn good to my daughter." Because well....I'm a rough around the edges "retired" bad boy with a crappy attitude from the wrong side of the tracks

Her other son in law was a brown nosing shmooz mister suit and tie nice guy well educated, great money, pretty boy.

Who we found out was beating my sister in law and their kids.

After that was discovered the lawyer made sure he only has about half his money and I made sure he's not even half as pretty.

I agree with JBJ, if they seem excessively nice? They're pricks covering up, like people who don't shower and just put cologne over the stink

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I'm not sure if I agree with the criteria listed by Strange Life, partly because if the adulterous wife can fool around, one can't really judge what her equally adulterous lover is doing elsewhere. Of course, from the injured husband's perspective, he'd prefer that the other guy went elsewhere with those others.

Also, by that standard, I was partly a very nice and partly a very bad guy for moving in on a failed, already doomed marriage ten years ago that got me my present wife. I tend to think that I was just a guy who loved her better, that's all, and knew how to show it better.

I think that 3113 misunderstood what I meant, but in doing so, she went back to the original issue of the other man. I was actually referring to "burn the bastard" stories and how they are often just as harsh in punishing the offensive husband. Frankly, both kinds of stories to me reflect a sickening tendency to judge sex more harshly than lawless violence. They reflect a wrong sense that the man or woman owns his or her wife/husband and has the right to "punish" the offending spouse and lover in some violent manner for trespassing on his/her "property".

Yes, when someone breaks their word to you and in so doing, tricks you into a double standard by causing you to unknowingly be more faithful than they, it is an injustice and there should be consequences....but he/she is not a possession. The other person didn't "steal" him/her away. Any consequences should be somewhat sane and civilized, otherwise you become worse than a cheater: you become a criminal.

Just my take on things.

 

[3113]

II think that 3113 misunderstood what I meant, but in doing so, she went back to the original issue of the other man. I was actually referring to "burn the bastard" stories and how they are often just as harsh in punishing the offensive husband.

Whoops! My bad, as we seemed to be focusing on bitch rather than bastard. But sure yes, women can have nasty fantasies too and hatred of men that might not be deserving.

 

[3113]

if they seem excessively nice? They're pricks covering up, like people who don't shower and just put cologne over the stink

Well, but the examples given in the original post say otherwise. Harvey Dent may not be a saint, but he is a good guy desperately in love with the girl and trying to do right. He's good enough that even after he goes bonkers and threatens to kill Jim Gordon's wife and son, Batman still tries to save him rather than kill him. Bruce Wayne certainly doesn't try to bat-a-rang his balls off for taking away the girlfriend, right?

Ditto with Superman. Here's a guy whose taken away Lois and is raising Superman's son, but Clark Kent doesn't use his heat vision to sterilize his rival.

And there-in lies the problem. In stories where the guy who takes the woman away is a "good" guy, the protagonist would come across as a real dick for taking outrageous revenge on said guy and the woman. Even if it was an adulterous affair.

Example of that: Lancelot and Guinevere. In most re-tellings (at least) of the legend, Arthur knows all about their affair, which goes on for years. Here we are talking about Arthur's *best friend* and most trusted knight fooling around not just with Arthur's wife, but the Queen. That's a double whammy. And the Queen herself is fooling around which is a form of treason. But Arthur doesn't do anything about it until Mordred spills the beans, making sure every one knows, and forcing Arthur's hand. Then he quite literally has to "burn the bitch" or try to. She's saved by Lancelot and Arthur is usually seen as happy about that.

Most famous LW story there is and it has such good guys in it that they have to be forced to take action over the infidelity. If Lancelot was a sleaze, Arthur would have done away with the pair right away and saved himself a lot of trouble.

 

[SEVERUSMAX]

I always wonder about that with Arthur, perhaps it was also due to his knowledge that he was the fruit of adultery himself, and that since he had bedded his own sister, also while married to Guinevere, he couldn't really judge too much.

 

[3113]

I always wonder about that with Arthur, perhaps it was also due to his knowledge that he was the fruit of adultery himself, and that since he had bedded his own sister, also while married to Guinevere, he couldn't really judge too much.

Excellent points! I also tend to give him the benefit of the doubt. Putting his kingdom first means not taking out his best knight/right-hand man and a well-liked queen. And in many stories Arthur is amazingly understanding. There's no such thing as divorce. If he could free Gwen to marry Lancelot, he likely would, but he can't and so turns a blind eye to their relationship.

 

[PayDay]

No. Recognise that the "other guy" is the better choice for the women they love, as described in the original post. That doesn't require super powers - only logic.

Gotcha

 

[StrangeLife]

That doesn't mean they "objectively" want it in their favorite porn.

Let me put it another way. You may not be so dense as to think that a lot of sugar, fat, carbs and such is good for you. But that doesn't mean you want anyone telling you to buy kale chips to eat during a movie instead of a giant soft drink, butter soaked popcorn and a candy bar. You asked why these stories have sleaze guys instead of good guys. And there reason is because the sleaze guys are easy to hate and and make the revenge on them and the cheating wife "sweeter." They're a soft drink and a candy bar. Objectively knowing that a good guy would make for a better story doesn't enter into it even if the reader/writer isn't dense. They don't want the healthy stuff no matter how much better it would make the story.

This is the first time I can remember getting hungry from reading a post on the board... http://s14.postimg.org/hkdqgwxp9/very_hungry.jpg

I understand that people aren't necessarily after realism in their erotica - part of sex is fantasising about whatever turns you on after all - but I don't believe that half the readers of Loving Wives are a bunch of knuckle-dragging misogynists lost in dreams about dealing out "just punishment". It is an interesting question though: What exactly drives an infidelity story?

For me it has always been the thrill of something precious being on the line. A game gets increasingly exciting as the stakes get higher, right? Since our reptile brain equates the act of having sex with our wives as "staking out our private territory", another man doing so is essentially him laying claim to something that is yours. This is why I see most cases of infidelity as a duel between two men. Sure, the wife is an accomplice in the crime but she is also the MacGuffin of the story.

I could be wrong of course, but I find it hard to imagine the idea of bloody revenge as a driving force behind an erotic fantasy in a large percentage of the readers. Burning down the village of the invader is part of the victory celebration of course, but as a main focus? As in "I hope my wife cheats because I love taking out my anger on other people"? Naah...

Example of that: Lancelot and Guinevere. In most re-tellings (at least) of the legend, Arthur knows all about their affair, which goes on for years. Here we are talking about Arthur's *best friend* and most trusted knight fooling around not just with Arthur's wife, but the Queen. That's a double whammy. And the Queen herself is fooling around which is a form of treason. But Arthur doesn't do anything about it until Mordred spills the beans, making sure every one knows, and forcing Arthur's hand. Then he quite literally has to "burn the bitch" or try to. She's saved by Lancelot and Arthur is usually seen as happy about that.

Most famous LW story there is and it has such good guys in it that they have to be forced to take action over the infidelity. If Lancelot was a sleaze, Arthur would have done away with the pair right away and saved himself a lot of trouble.

Great example - though I do question the ethos of Lancelot in this case.

Considering the societal standards of the time and Guinevere's special situation, I don't see him acting in her best interest. To me he simply comes across as a dog getting his rocks off with the hottest chick around, while sticking it to the boss at the same time. He did it because he could - simple as that. So I don't buy the "grandiose love affair", and I don't judge Lancelot a goodguy.

Also, by that standard, I was partly a very nice and partly a very bad guy for moving in on a failed, already doomed marriage ten years ago that got me my present wife. I tend to think that I was just a guy who loved her better, that's all, and knew how to show it better.

I think that 3113 misunderstood what I meant, but in doing so, she went back to the original issue of the other man. I was actually referring to "burn the bastard" stories and how they are often just as harsh in punishing the offensive husband. Frankly, both kinds of stories to me reflect a sickening tendency to judge sex more harshly than lawless violence. They reflect a wrong sense that the man or woman owns his or her wife/husband and has the right to "punish" the offending spouse and lover in some violent manner for trespassing on his/her "property".

You were probably a goodguy since your wife is still with you and - if I may allow myself the assumption - is content in the relationship. I see the criterions for "goodguyness" as objective, so whether or not her ex hates you is not important.

On a more general note, I sense you have a problem with the idea of "ownership" in a marriage. But like it or not, surely you must realise that that is part of the package in a vast majority of modern relationships. It is that reptile brain again - our women are the vessels for spreading our precious genes and we don't want to help other men spreading theirs. Ugga!

 

[lovecraft68]

Well, but the examples given in the original post say otherwise. Harvey Dent may not be a saint, but he is a good guy desperately in love with the girl and trying to do right. He's good enough that even after he goes bonkers and threatens to kill Jim Gordon's wife and son, Batman still tries to save him rather than kill him. Bruce Wayne certainly doesn't try to bat-a-rang his balls off for taking away the girlfriend, right?

Ditto with Superman. Here's a guy whose taken away Lois and is raising Superman's son, but Clark Kent doesn't use his heat vision to sterilize his rival.

And there-in lies the problem. In stories where the guy who takes the woman away is a "good" guy, the protagonist would come across as a real dick for taking outrageous revenge on said guy and the woman. Even if it was an adulterous affair.

Example of that: Lancelot and Guinevere. In most re-tellings (at least) of the legend, Arthur knows all about their affair, which goes on for years. Here we are talking about Arthur's *best friend* and most trusted knight fooling around not just with Arthur's wife, but the Queen. That's a double whammy. And the Queen herself is fooling around which is a form of treason. But Arthur doesn't do anything about it until Mordred spills the beans, making sure every one knows, and forcing Arthur's hand. Then he quite literally has to "burn the bitch" or try to. She's saved by Lancelot and Arthur is usually seen as happy about that.

Most famous LW story there is and it has such good guys in it that they have to be forced to take action over the infidelity. If Lancelot was a sleaze, Arthur would have done away with the pair right away and saved himself a lot of trouble.

But understand that all the fictional characters you are discussing are being written that way. The creators of Batman and Superman don't want them to be revenge crazed psychos, they want them to have some morality and see bigger picture.

Something about myself. I grew up in a violent home and led that path for awhile. My first marriage ended when I found out my wife was cheating. I knew who and I knew where to find him. First reaction was I'll go beat him half dead and...

But then I slowed my roll and sat back and thought that he did not force her, it was her, it takes two. And all doing something to him would ensure if I could lose rights to see my daughters

That is how rational people in the real world think.

Now look at the category in question. You can tell that many, many of these trolling hate spewing fools have been victims of adultery in the past or maybe present and odds are they did the right thing and did not maim the wife or other guy so they come here and they vent that hate and frustration.

The authors? I'm sure some of them have the same thing or they want to play to their hate filled audience so these "good guys and burn the bitch/bastard'" characters are driven to do what the genre over there currently calls for and that is to lash out and react with all the hatred that they cannot in real life.

LW, these days, is driven by hate filled authors whipping up hate filled readers. Its why its a pit.

 

[PayDay]

Politics and religeon, these days, is driven by hate filled authors whipping up hate filled readers. Its why its a pit.

I fix'd that for you

 

[lovecraft68]

I fix'd that for you

Religion

I fixed that for you

 

[3113]

But understand that all the fictional characters you are discussing are being written that way.

I do understand that. But the writers of LW have been...call it "brainwashed" if you like, but these are the underlying social rules in our cultural mythology going back to white & black hats in cowboy tales. Which is to say, just because a writer can cross them (have a superman—if not Clark Kent—use his heat vision to sterilize even a good guy who takes his girl) doesn't mean that the writers/readers of LW are going to get the same satisfaction out of that as they would with a sleaze.

We, who are interested in more sophisticated stories, would cross such a line and create a story to mess with the reader. But I think those writing/reading LW type stories don't want to do that kind of work. They don't want to create the complications of the protagonist castrating a good guy who the wife picked because he was good, nor do the readers want to be "messed with" in that way.

As you say, LW is a pit, and those in such places never want things kept "black & white" and that means making sure their position, however violent, at least seems to them to be on the "white" side. That's harder if the adulterous guy is good, and they don't want anything that's even the tiniest bit deviant or challenging in that way.

 

[lovecraft68]

I do understand that. But the writers of LW have been...call it "brainwashed" if you like, but these are the underlying social rules in our cultural mythology going back to white & black hats in cowboy tales. Which is to say, just because a writer can cross them (have a superman—if not Clark Kent—use his heat vision to sterilize even a good guy who takes his girl) doesn't mean that the writers/readers of LW are going to get the same satisfaction out of that as they would with a sleaze.

We, who are interested in more sophisticated stories, would cross such a line and create a story to mess with the reader. But I think those writing/reading LW type stories don't want to do that kind of work. They don't want to create the complications of the protagonist castrating a good guy who the wife picked because he was good, nor do the readers want to be "messed with" in that way.

As you say, LW is a pit, and those in such places never want things kept "black & white" and that means making sure their position, however violent, at least seems to them to be on the "white" side. That's harder if the adulterous guy is good, and they don't want anything that's even the tiniest bit deviant or challenging in that way.

Sophisticated and LW cannot be used in the same sentence at this point, anyway.

The category is going down hill to the point that when a rare story of a truly loving wife appears, as in a couple maybe trying to work it out, it is being put in romance.

The pit the category is, is being encouraged by the site because all these votes and comments and people arguing within the comments are hits and more traffic and that's what its about.

This site back in the day stuck to its rules and had some integrity that kept it apart from pits like asstr. Now the only thing keeping lit from being asstr is the underage rule and even that is slipping more and more.

I wrote two stories in LW a Burn the bastard as a "in your face" to the burn the bitch asshats and a cuck story so far out there it was borderline satire.

I won't put anything there again because its like posting here, you don't always need to feed the trolls and truth is just like the way I see asstr I would not want my "name" associated with it. The cloven hooved animals can yammer at each other and spew all they want.

Too bad they are slipping out of LW and running around the rest of the site. I would be willing to bet if the site erased the LW category this site all across the board would be a better place.

 

[PayDay]

Religion

I fixed that for you

Pro. A+