The morality of non-consent, in two minutes.

[SimonDoom]

 

[Cagivagurl]

Lets be 100% clear.
There is no moral support defence for Non Con.

Cagivagurl

 

[TheRedChamber]

I tried watching Always Sunny but gave up after a season and a half when it became clear it was always going to be 'irredeemable people doing horrible and frequently completely stupid shit with zero consequences'.

When it hits, it can definitely be savage though.

 

[FifthEstate]

I read where some authors like the OP, who I typically agree with on most topics, justify writing incest stories based on the rationale “Hey it’s okay, it’s only people’s erotic fantasies, nobody really condones incest in real life, right ?”

And then thousands or in some cases millions of Literotica readers read those stories and score them as high or higher than any genre on the site, leading most truly discerning people to question how so many people could gain excitement from a concept they say they find abhorrent in real life. Meanwhile authors in the category bask in popularity while collecting countless followers, favorites, and red-H’s.

And to be honest, I find little fault in that. We are all here providing fantasies for millions of readers seeking erotic escapes while catering to our own self-indulgences and/or desire for small scale notoriety.

But what I take serious issue with is when these same authors turn around and question other genres/story themes they personally take offense to like non-con. Why is it okay to write incest and suggest it’s only for fantasy purposes, but suggest N/C authors are morally wrong for doing the same? It reeks of hypocrisy regardless of one’s position on the topic. Imagine that exact same scene in the video clip if the bad guy had been joking that sex with mom or sister was okay.

 

[mirafrida]

I guess I'd make a point of distinguishing between "the morality of non-consent" (not moral, in case that isn't clear), and the morality of writing non-consent fantasies that are clearly fictional, labeled as such, and make a point of highlighting the immorality of non-consent in real life.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

I guess I'd make a point of distinguishing between "the morality of non-consent" (not moral, in case that isn't clear), and the morality of writing non-consent fantasies that are clearly fictional, labeled as such, and make a point of highlighting the immorality of non-consent in real life.

Art imitates life and life has no obligation to morals. Therefore art has no obligation to morals. That's not to say that art can't have morals. That is up to each individual artist as each individual piece of art is created. So I do not believe that a non-con story must make any statement judging its own non-con themes.

Literotica's rules however dictate that a writer must ultimately portray non-consent in a positive light. Literotica does not always enforce this rule, but the rule by its letter does state this, and by that is the site's official stance on the topic. As far as I'm concerned this is horribly short-sighted and foolish. If the site is so concerned about judging and taking a stance on non-con (which it has a right to do) it would have been better to just ban all non-con, rather than to allow the category as a whole to misrepresent reality so lopsidedly distorted, and host a collection that paints a big fat lie about life. But then again, that's what censorship does. It forces art to lie to us.

I'm sure that among the zillions of rapes that have occurred throughout human history we can find a half-dozen or so victims that came out of it with a positive experience, but for the rest of them it was a 100% BAD experience. Not only does lit not allow us to tell those stories, it actually encourages and fosters the exact opposite. The rule was brought in so that the site can display a legal stance that it is officially against rape, that rape is bad, yet the stories that it hosts tell the world that rape is not really so bad after all. The rule totally backfires on the very reason that it was written in the first place. It's tragically foolish and it's easily literotica's biggest facepalm.

 

[FifthEstate]

I guess I'd make a point of distinguishing between "the morality of non-consent" (not moral, in case that isn't clear), and the morality of writing non-consent fantasies that are clearly fictional, labeled as such, and make a point of highlighting the immorality of non-consent in real life.

I agree 100% and should have clarified, I absolutely do not condone N/C in any real life circumstance unless it’s role play and desired by all participants.

 

[Kasumi_Lee]

But what I take serious issue with is when these same authors turn around and question other genres/story themes they personally take offense to like non-con. Why is it okay to write incest and suggest it’s only for fantasy purposes, but suggest N/C authors are morally wrong for doing the same? It reeks of hypocrisy regardless of one’s position on the topic.

As an NC/R author, I approve of this statement.

 

[Sappho_CGN]

The comparison is wrong.

N/C covers physically and mentally mistreatment against the will of the victims. "Normal" incest stories describe voluntary sexual acts which are criminal deeds in many countries. But in the story it is mostly consensual sex.

So, accepting incest stories has nothing to do with accepting non-consensual violance. You cannot compare that.

BTW.: I hate incest stories and I hate "real" N/C stories.

 

[TheLobster]

But what I take serious issue with is when these same authors turn around and question other genres/story themes they personally take offense to like non-con. Why is it okay to write incest and suggest it’s only for fantasy purposes, but suggest N/C authors are morally wrong for doing the same?

Because of the ludicrous extent to which the contemporary Western culture has fetishized Consent™ and made it into one of its highest virtues. It currently trumps almost everything, common sense included, when ideas like retroactive revocation of consent are actually entertained seriously rather than being laughed out of the room as the complete and utter nonsense they are. Or when, you know, the implication on getting on a stranger's boat and sailing away is not immediately obvious before even stepping on board.

Let's face it, if people of the previous generations took consent with the same prudish squeamishness that people of today do, humanity would've gone extinct long ago.

 

[AlinaX]

Consent is all about the idea we can control what happens to us, and only really applies between adults who all believe in it.

There are so many ways in which that control can be lost and one's wish to withhold consent becomes an irrelevance - and there can be a lot of eroticism and even pleasure (willing or not) in the experience.

I dislike stories that derive their only eroticism from the cruelty with which they exercise power, especially if it feels like it's the author revelling in their power over characters they have only contempt for. "Hah, let's abduct this woman and make her an unwilling fucktoy for any man hungry for a loose, sloppy cunt, yeah. No need to show her enjoying it; bitches get what they deserve..."

It's possible to show people exercising control over others while also making it clear (subtly or not) that they are villains - to whatever degree. In Mind Control / Reality Altering stories, for example, where the MC can do whatever they like, it's far more interesting to explore the morality of such power than merely to indulge it.

...

"Sir?"
"What is it?"
"It seems the factory, um, produced another doll overnight."
"Oh no. Again? Not one of the cleaning staff, I hope."
"I think it was that reporter? She must have sneaked in for a look, and, well."
"I see. Nothing we can do about it?"
"No, sir. The synthesisation is too far through for reversal. All that's left of her conscious mind is basically the erogenous centres."
"So it would be cruel to deny her a new life, is what you're saying?"
"Yes, sir."
"Very well. Pack her up. And maybe slip a vibrator in her cunt to keep her happy until she's purchased."

 

[Scarla]

As someone who writes mostly non-con/reluctance, I try to make it obvious in my stories that these are consenting adults, who've either made a contract, or a verbal agreement beforehand - so basically consensual non-consent.

I like the CNC aspect of BDSM, where someone can safely explore non-consent. I don't find any joy in outright cruelty, violence, or actual sexual assault.

In my newest story, the main female character signs a contract with a stranger. She tells him her limits and gives him full control in making up a scenario. She might not have expected to be stalked down an alley by a masked man, or kidnapped, but in the end, it's still consensual.

 

[Kraken_96]

I tried watching Always Sunny but gave up after a season and a half when it became clear it was always going to be 'irredeemable people doing horrible and frequently completely stupid shit with zero consequences'.

When it hits, it can definitely be savage though.

Just a side note on this though, the writers are all wonderful people - and use the extremes of these characters to show a mirror to the idiots who toe on their side of the line to say "we see you, you're a fuckwit". It's a gloriously leftist show designed to attract and teach center-rights!

Even without the consequences, every non-main character reacts to them as horrible and we the audience all know they deserve consequences, which is the best takeaway because so  so many real people get away with this shit and that's worth showing

 

[SimonDoom]

I read where some authors like the OP, who I typically agree with on most topics, justify writing incest stories based on the rationale “Hey it’s okay, it’s only people’s erotic fantasies, nobody really condones incest in real life, right ?”



But what I take serious issue with is when these same authors turn around and question other genres/story themes they personally take offense to like non-con. Why is it okay to write incest and suggest it’s only for fantasy purposes, but suggest N/C authors are morally wrong for doing the same? It reeks of hypocrisy regardless of one’s position on the topic. Imagine that exact same scene in the video clip if the bad guy had been joking that sex with mom or sister was okay.

I think you may have misunderstood my intention in posting this video. I posted it because I think it's funny, and because it's a clever bit of dialogue about the implication of nonconsensual sexual activity. Dennis is a sociopath, and it's often suggested in the show that he may be a serial killer. In this scene he's rationalizing, and his friend Rob is pointing out that what he's talking about is wrong regardless of how he wants to spin it.

This isn't meant as a criticism of non-con as an erotic fantasy or Literotica category. I have no objection to it at all.

 

[alohadave]

I tried watching Always Sunny but gave up after a season and a half when it became clear it was always going to be 'irredeemable people doing horrible and frequently completely stupid shit with zero consequences'.

When it hits, it can definitely be savage though.

It's the spiritual successor to Seinfeld on crack.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

So we've had a few responses and opinions about how non-con should be written. If one needs to rationalize in order to navigate one's morals (we all do from time to time) or justify one's own art (well ... as long as she ends up enjoying it, or as long as the villain ends up paying for it, etc - the Hays Code in full effect) then go ahead and do that. Your art has no obligation to do so, but you do have the right to produce judgmental art, absolutely. Just remember that everyone's ideas, opinions and judgments are different but still valid, and if you feel that anyone else should conform to the same restrictions that you self-impose, then that's censorship. I'm not saying that anyone here is doing that - yet, but I am saying that if the topic ends up going in that direction, it is some slippery ground full of pitfalls.

 

[SimonDoom]

View attachment 2401506



It's the spiritual successor to Seinfeld on crack.

Exactly right. Which is why I like it, because I loved Seinfeld.

 

[lovecraft68]

Tone deaf on the topic as always.

 

[AlinaX]

Don’t b flat.

 

[lovecraft68]

Don’t b flat.

Morality is not an issue when it comes to reading or writing NC stories. It's a fictional fantasy that all know is as bad as it gets when its real, same as incest-in fact worse than incest because some of that is consensual-but in the context of fantasy morality isn't a factor. No different than morality is a factor if you watch movies about serial killers.

But the idea there is anything resembling morality in real life rape, is as disgusting as the act itself. I don't know why over the years the same people keep pushing this issue, as if it kills them to think its completely wrong, like they want to find something in it that's not heinous.

Those people have either never dealt with a victim of the crime, or have and you can double down on how sick they are to still push this envelope.

No surprise its only men here that I've seen do it, the usual suspects of mansplaining. I have seen a lot of the effects of NC in real life, I'd make a safe bet more than anyone here unless they deal with treating victims for a living-which the OP sure as hell has not-and I still, as a male, know that I still cannot possibly identify with the effects of this act because I'm not a woman. But that will never enter the mind of the people I'm talking about who will continue to keep trying to explain and mansplain to women what NC does or does not mean.

If there's an iota of an iota in someone's mind that there is a morality in NC then they should have those conversations on incel chatboards, or hang out with the BTB crowd that paints the LW category in a bad light.

My main point is enough with shit you don't understand, never will, but continue to post about because you just can't leave it alone. I also take offense to it being mocked by being represented by a snippet from a crappy show.

 

[Bamagan]

Don’t b flat.

That's A♯ rebuke.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I find incest stories repulsive. The idea that mother and son, father and daughter, and so on, can engage in sexual activity is so alien to me that I can rarely enjoy even some well-written incest stories. There were a few exceptions but even then, I would have enjoyed those stories much better if, say, it was about a son and stepmother rather than a son and his mother. It's all fantasy, of course, and here I am just stating my personal taste.

That being said, there is no reason why anyone should compare incest and rape, in real life or in erotic stories. Yeah, we can drop the euphemism "non-con". Consensual non-con and reluctance are a different thing so I am not talking about them here.
I can't believe I am saying this, but there is no true rational and moral reason why there shouldn't be consensual sexual activity between an adult mother and her adult son or daughter, for example. Absolutely none. There is a justified medical reason for not impregnating and giving birth among the close family, but there is absolutely no reason against any consensual sexual activity that doesn't result in procreation.

The morals of modern society say it's wrong, and those morals are an echo of times long past, of various religious influences, of the experiences of those women who gave birth to defective children as a result of copulation with a close family member, so those ancient societies saw it as a punishment from god, as a sign of sin being committed. They didn't have the scientific knowledge of genetics to understand why such sexual activities sometimes resulted in the birth of a deformed child. But if we put these things aside, there is nothing inherently wrong about two consenting adults having non-impregnating sexual activity, regardless of the blood ties between them.

Rape is a whole different beast. It's an act of severely hurting another human being for some sexual gratification. The other person never agreed to it and often bears severe scars and consequences their whole life.

Then, there are our written fantasies and I know they are a different thing altogether. Maybe they are completely harmless, maybe they aren't. Maybe they are worth it even if they aren't harmless. But my desire wasn't to bring up this old discussion. I just wanted to point out that the argument made in that post that everyone seems to approve of is silly, because morally and ethically, incest and rape aren't the same thing and they never will be. They are both against the law, of course, but law and morals are not the same and never will be. That person was mixing apples and oranges when they compared the morality of incest with the morality of rape. Whether this applies to writing erotic incest or erotic rape is a whole different subject, but they are still not the same, not even close.

 

[MrHereWriting]

Just a side note on this though, the writers are all wonderful people - and use the extremes of these characters to show a mirror to the idiots who toe on their side of the line to say "we see you, you're a fuckwit". It's a gloriously leftist show designed to attract and teach center-rights!

No.

I've watched this show since it's inception, and it wasn't "designed to attract and teach center-rights." The show loses it's funny bones when serious politics enters the picture, which happened when the show's 3 main writers seemed to have run out of ideas, especially when David Hornsby was allowed to write an episode or two on his own. He's great as Cricket, but his writing could use more humor. Megan Ganz on the other hand, had some gems during that time, especially with "Dee Day."

Season 16, though, had an influx of new writers who infused the show with great call backs and social commentary that toned down the in-your-face, preachy politics. It wasn't the good old days again, but it added a new, almost what I'd call 'wholesomeness' to the show despite the character's awfulness, that was nice to see. I'm looking forward to Season 17.

Is it a "Leftist" show? There's no doubt now where the politics swing, which really became clear around 2015/2016, the start of their worst run of seasons where the lack of hilarity in both politically driven shows and non political shows left me wondering if it was time to give up Always Sunny, but after Season 16, I've got hope, for the first time in years, that the next season is going to be enjoyable from the first episode to the last.

 

[Japansurfer]

non-consent and rape can be two very different things. I have been through a significant non-consent situation that was border line, but I know I could have stopped anytime if I really wanted. Rape is very different

 

[pink_silk_glove]

Rape is a whole different beast. It's an act of severely hurting another human being for some sexual gratification. The other person never agreed to it and often bears severe scars and consequences their whole life.

Then, there are our written fantasies and I know they are a different thing altogether. Maybe they are completely harmless, maybe they aren't. Maybe they are worth it even if they aren't harmless. But my desire wasn't to bring up this old discussion. I just wanted to point out that the argument made in that post that everyone seems to approve of is silly, because morally and ethically, incest and rape aren't the same thing and they never will be. They are both against the law, of course, but law and morals are not the same and never will be. That person was mixing apples and oranges when they compared the morality of incest with the morality of rape. Whether this applies to writing erotic incest or erotic rape is a whole different subject, but they are still not the same, not even close.

I can agree with that, but on the basis of personal squick, non-con incest or any other kink are the same. One person's kink is another's squick, and in that sense, any two kinks can be fully compared for double standards. The same person who thinks that incest is moralistic but non-con is not, may also think that anal is immoral but asphyxiation and cutting are just fine, or vice-versa or any other combination. We can suppose that whether such comparisons are valid or not wholly depend on whether they align with our own individual morals, but we cannot state unequivocally that any of these comparisons are universally invalid.