Turn rape into love?

[XerXesXu]

There are problems with the US Constitution, but not, in my opinion, in its relatively robust protection of free speech. I'd much rather have our system than systems that have absurd things like hate speech laws and blasphemy laws.

I must be misinformed. I understood there was a current controversy about the Federal Government leaning on private media to get them to follow the Government line. Does it not want its views, or information as they describe it, promoted, and others' views, misinformation as they call it, proscribed? Whither the Constitution, when push comes to shove?

 

[alohadave]

I understood there was a current controversy about the Federal Government leaning on private media to get them to follow the Government line.

You'll need to tell us what you are talking about, rather than hinting.

 

[XerXesXu]

You'll need to tell us what you are talking about, rather than hinting.

Sorry, I assumed people followed the news.

Judge Limits Biden Administration.

Re: Your report - considered and dismissed. The story's back up.

 

[alohadave]

Sorry, I assumed people followed the news.

Judge Limits Biden Administration.

There's a lot of partisan politicking going on there, and it isn't as clear cut as you seem to think it is.
https://www.politico.com/news/2023/...or removing First Amendment-protected speech.

Re: Your report - considered and dismissed. The story's back up.

That's Lit's decision. I did my part by bringing it to their attention.

 

[BongoGal]

It was done in The Fountainhead, although the rape episode was only a very small part of the story.

Rand said that if that was rape, then it was rape by engraved invitation.

 

[MrHereWriting]

It tells us what people who have been convicted of rape fantasise about when they masturbate, and what many people who have not yet been convicted of rape fantasise about when they masturbate. You'll have noted the abysmally low prosecution and conviction rates for rape ~ 5%. We don't yet have analyses of those men who've left the courtroom without a stain on their character.

Here’s a ‘harmless’ rape fantasy of the sort you endorse:

Caught in the Crossfire - NonConsent/Reluctance - Literotica.com

Nazis on Reds – they had it coming.

How comfortable do you feel about the author joining the Wagner Group, going to Ukraine and being given a gun and a prey population? Do you think he would be appaled, or join in the punishment clusterfucks with relish, aroused by the distress of the women and the pleasure of his mates? Reds on Nazis - they had it coming.

Your argument parallels that of AIDS denialists – ‘No one’s ever isolated or seen the virus, therefore it can’t exist.’ One can draw very strong inferences from indirect evidence. I do.

Fiction is harmless. People are not.

 

[XerXesXu]

Fiction is harmless. People are not.

Well, as I think you're trying to say, people who write fiction aren't harmless, as some assert. 'The pen is mightier than the sword.'

 

[MrHereWriting]

Well, as I think you're trying to say, people who write fiction aren't harmless, as some assert. 'The pen is mightier than the sword.'

You know what I'm saying, you choose to see it your own way so you can make excuses to censor people. Imagine if everyone was able to censor what they found repulsive?

 

[SimonDoom]

Well, as I think you're trying to say, people who write fiction aren't harmless, as some assert. 'The pen is mightier than the sword.'

Indeed, the pen is mightier than the sword. And there are two ways of responding to that. One way is to be fearful and to censor what the pen might write. And the other is to celebrate the pen's power and let it write what it wants.

I know where I stand.

 

[XerXesXu]

You know what I'm saying, you choose to see it your own way so you can make excuses to censor people. Imagine if everyone was able to censor what they found repulsive?

I'm simply pointing out that your observation is self-contradictory and contrary to the wisdom of the ages, like SimonDoom's assertions. Evidence-free clap-trap.

 

[MrHereWriting]

I'm simply pointing out that your observation is self-contradictory and contrary to the wisdom of the ages, like SimonDoom's assertions. Evidence-free clap-trap.

A criminal does not need fiction to indulge in self-gratification at the expense of others. (Rape happened before the written word, so did murder, so did thievery, and so on.) They may blame fiction, but that's BS. Good people write repulsive things. Harmful people write repulsive things. The person who commits a repulsive act is going to commit that act regardless. It's in them and it's waiting to get out and it will when they can no longer control it.

And the pen is not mightier than the sword, though it's a nice saying.

 

[XerXesXu]

Indeed, the pen is mightier than the sword. And there are two ways of responding to that. One way is to be fearful and to censor what the pen might write. And the other is to celebrate the pen's power and let it write what it wants.

I know where I stand.

I know where you stand. You stand in the blue corner, I stand in the red corner. You celebrate the pen's power to write corrupting and destructive pabulum more destructive than the most maliciously wielded sword, and I will call you out for what you are. It's heartening that you'll fight for my right to call you out.

You now have two brownie points. One for moving from 'no evidence' to ''some evidence, but', the second for celebrating my right to call you out.

 

[SimonDoom]

I know where you stand. You stand in the blue corner, I stand in the red corner. You celebrate the pen's power to write corrupting and destructive pabulum more destructive than the most maliciously wielded sword, and I will call you out for what you are. It's heartening that you'll fight for my right to call you out.

You now have two brownie points. One for moving from 'no evidence' to ''some evidence, but', the second for celebrating my right to call you out.

Sorry, no, you're still in the "I have no evidence" corner. But enjoy your imaginings.

 

[XerXesXu]

A criminal does not need fiction to indulge in self-gratification at the expense of others. (Rape happened before the written word, so did murder, so did thievery, and so on.) They may blame fiction, but that's BS. Good people write repulsive things. Harmful people write repulsive things. The person who commits a repulsive act is going to commit that act regardless. It's in them and it's waiting to get out and it will when they can no longer control it.

And the pen is not mightier than the sword, though it's nice saying.

It's not a question 'need, it's a question of 'can'. They can do the most atrocious things in fiction, and normalise them to the world. What they 'need' is the opportunity to act on their fantasies. One doesn't often have the opportunity to cook and eat a child, but some will, all they 'need' is the opportunity. All that holds such people in check is the sword of justice, wielded, preferably, before they act on their fantasies.

You're definitely Blue Corner. Beware who you rub shoulders with, you'll be known by the company you keep

 

[XerXesXu]

Sorry, no, you're still in the "I have no evidence" corner. But enjoy your imaginings.

Oh dear, walking backward, you've tripped over the ropes and banged your head on the floor. Docked one brownie point.

 

[MrHereWriting]

It's not a question 'need, it's a question of 'can'. They can do the most atrocious things in fiction, and normalise them to the world. What they 'need' is the opportunity to act on their fantasies. One doesn't often have the opportunity to cook and eat a child, but some will, all they 'need' is the opportunity. All that holds such people in check is the sword of justice, wielded, preferably, before they act on their fantasies.

You're definitely Blue Corner. Beware who you rub shoulders with, you'll be known by the company you keep

I have no idea what your blue/red corners are supposed to mean.

Fiction does not give people the opportunity to commit what is written because it is harmless. People put themselves in situations where opportunities arise, because they can be harmful.

Before their was fiction, before there were words, there is what we in today's world would consider atrocities.

Fiction is harmless. People are not.

 

[XerXesXu]

I have no idea what your blue/red corners are supposed to mean.

Fiction does not give people the opportunity to commit what is written because it is harmless. People put themselves in situations where opportunities arise, because they can be harmful.

Before their was fiction, before there were words, there is what we in today's world would consider atrocities.

Fiction is harmless. People are not.

Yet people attribute power to Andrew Tate's words. Strange world.

 

[Winter_Fare]

Yet people attribute power to Andrew Tate's words. Strange world.

AFAIK Tate doesn't write fiction, he's a professional con artist. Nice try though.

 

[MediocreAuthor]

Mozart's Sonata K 331 begins with the enchanting Andante grazioso, a term that signifies grace and elegance. NC writers may struggle to appreciate this kind of music as they are unfamiliar with the concept of grace, and their eardrums are covered with cobwebs. I'd say it may extend to their soul, but I doubt they possess one.

This!

I was just listening to Mozart Sonata K 331 with my husband, and he said "Ahhh! I absolutely adore the grace and elegance that this song begins with! The Andante grazioso is simply lovely!"

To which I was forced to respond, "Darling, I am struggling to appreciate this music because I struggle with the concept of grace, and my eardrum are covered with cobwebs... which extend to my soul!"

... Oh wait, yeah, none of that happened.... That's absurd... But wouldn't it be hilarious if it had?

 

[ChloeTzang]

Just read women's romances. "Forced seduction" (aka rape to anyone else) and subsequent romance, is a really popular genre. Personally, I love them.

The links below are just a couple of examples from a 30 second search. If you read women's romances, these are wildly popular. A lot different from Literotica of course, because these ARE mainstream women's romances, where the sex is largely handled from a female POV by writers writing for women, so they very much cater to women's fantasies rather than men's. LOL. Fantasies of being forced into sex are very popular—reported by almost two-thirds of women. There's various different stats depending on the survey's, but "forced sex" is a very popular one.

https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/27204.Romances_with_forced_seduction_or_rape_by_the_hero

https://www.goodreads.com/list/show/131668.Non_con_romance_rape_fantasy_romance_

‘Forced seduction’ is as old as literature itself. Greek mythology has multiple stories where one of the gods (usually Zeus) rapes a unwitting mortal women. Restoration fiction used the concept as well - Samuel Richardson's novel Clarissa, where Lovelace kidnaps and rapes the heroine. The kidnappings (and rape) in Seven Brides for Seven Brothers and The Sheik, both on-page and on-screen, were explicitly sold as romantic. These stories were also extremely profitable and in many ways helped to create the women's romance genre as we know it.

Quoting directly here.....
"The origins of the modern romance genre as we know it can be found in these rape-and-forgive romances. 1972’s The Flame and the Flower by Kathleen E. Woodiwiss, is widely considered the first of its kind, the so-called bodice ripper that paved the way for all that followed. That novel’s heroine is raped and impregnated by the man who becomes her happy-ever-after. The Flame and The Flower was considered hugely radical in its time because, as Kelly Faircloth of Jezebel notes, its unabashedly explicit portrayal of sex, seduction, and sensuality was unexpected, and readers flocked to it. Earlier romance novels tended to be much more chaste, and the sexual revolution had not quite made its mark. This is a context where feminine desire and the freedom to explore it is still taboo and facing immense societal backlash from the likes of Phyllis Schlafly. Novels like Woodiwiss’s offered this strange bind: they were a much-needed reminder that, yes, women experience pleasure and deserve to do so, but that to simply go out and do so isn’t the done thing. Instead, these heroines, and by extension the reader, make a trade: autonomy for sensuality. You’ll get to feel good, but you can’t entirely admit that yet. Your body feels it before your mind does."

In The Flame and the Flower, the male character disregards the heroine's protests as some sort of sophisticated sex game and takes her anyway. Woodiwiss isn’t trafficking in what would come to be known as the “forced seduction” trope; she’s pretty clear that this is rape. Contemporary press coverage often calls attention to this fact; in 1980 the New York Times reported with a faint air of bewilderment that this particular type of romance was sometimes known “in the trade” as a “rape saga.”

"And make no mistake: the rape itself is entirely eroticized in such stories. These were usually stories of full-on alpha men (often exoticized as ‘wild’ or ‘primal’ due to their upbringing in very racist ways — think lots of Vikings and Indigenous Americans) who put the women in their place and physically overpower them in every conceivable manner. Heroines are kidnapped or saved from rape by the ‘hero’ who forces himself on her. She is confused and potentially ashamed of the pleasure she feels but nonetheless she feels it. It’s depicted as the gateway to further (consensual) pleasure, something she has to be coaxed into because society won’t let it happen any other way.

These stories use rape/’forced seduction’ in a specific narrative way. It’s an extension of the alpha hero trope and his damsel heroine. The woman may fight back if she’s ‘feisty’ but his strength, both physical and psychological, is undeniable in the context of the narrative. He is ‘wild’ and primal, almost to the point of regression, but ultimately the love of a good woman tames him. Perhaps some backstory is given to explain his a**hole behavior, a tortured childhood or trauma in some unnamed war. The slate is wiped clean by the climax to ensure a happy-ever-after full of shirt-ripping, house-shaking, and wholly consensual sex. There are various plots that use ‘forced seduction’ in this manner, from cases of mistaken identity to the heroine being literally bought by the hero to the hero being convinced he’s procured the services of a particularly hesitant sex worker (there are also a lot of ‘fiery g*psy’ confusion narratives out there, which adds a dose of racism to this trope.) The endgame seldom changes, even as the window dressing does.

It’s also worth noting that marital rape did not become a criminal act in the United States until the 1970s, but it wasn’t fully illegal across all 50 states until the ’90s. Some states still treat marital rape differently to non-marital cases."

https://jezebel.com/the-sweet-savage-sexual-revolution-that-set-the-romanc-1789687801

lots of food for thought there lol

 

[gunhilltrain]

It depends. I don't worry about Stephen King and all the depraved violent things he writes about (including a famous prepubescent group sex scene in IT). I don't worry about most of the genre detective and thriller novels that feature murder. I don't worry that their authors, or that the readers of these books, are more predisposed to want to murder people than the population at large.

This thread is like the Battle of Gettyburg going into a fourth day. Anyway, regarding Stephen King's publisher for It (Viking): different outlets have different standards. We've been over that point on other occasions. What Viking accepts is not the same as what Lit does, and so be it.

Anyway, I'm impressed that we managed to get John Hinckley into the debate too. Also when I first saw the word IT, for a moment I thought it was a reference to Incest/Taboo.

https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/4/49/John_Hinckley_Jr._FBI_Mugshot.jpg

 

[SimonDoom]

This thread is like the Battle of Gettyburg going into a fourth day.

I think it's a little more like Stalingrad. Gettysburg had a clear (if not entirely satisfactory) ending. This one has no end in sight.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I think it's a little more like Stalingrad. Gettysburg had a clear (if not entirely satisfactory) ending. This one has no end in sight.

Paulus ended up in the cauldron. It took a while, but the war turned at that point.

Mind you, this topic's run on and off ever since I've been here, and that's WW2 x 2.

 

[SimonDoom]

Paulus ended up in the cauldron. It took a while, but the war turned at that point.

Mind you, this topic's run on and off ever since I've been here, and that's WW2 x 2.

Maybe the 100 Years War, then? With a little Black Death thrown in?

 

[alohadave]

The Sheik

Wow, that's an actual book? I've seen it used in porn before and figured it was an inside joke.