What happens if you put a monogamous vanilla cis het romance into LW?

[joy_of_cooking]

Apparently they don't like kink over in LW, and they don't like cheaters or swingers, and they don't like LGBT... So what happens if you don't do any of that? Just act like you're writing an EC story or something. Had anyone ever tried this?

 

[Djmac1031]

You'd probably just get slammed with "wrong category" comments.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I think one of the AH regulars might've posted a LW story that was something like that, but it only revealed at the end that they were husband and wife after letting readers believe they were cheating. Anybody else remember this?

 

[TheRedChamber]

I get the impression that the dominant vibe on LW is conservatism. So as long as the loving wife in question isn't too much in control of her own sexuality, I suspect it would be fine.

That said, LW has so many comments from people wanting diametrically opposed things it's inevitably in contradiction with itself the whole time, that you'll get negative ones whatever you write.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I think one of the AH regulars might've posted a LW story that was something like that, but it only revealed at the end that they were husband and wife after letting readers believe they were cheating. Anybody else remember this?

Vaguely, but I can't recall the outcome. About a year ago, I reckon.

Edit: There you go - it was RejectReality

 

[RejectReality]

You could probably put it there, and it wouldn't get beaten up too badly. It is not, however, going to rack up the sort of numbers common for the category. The various camps are largely going to ignore it when it isn't going the way of what they want or what they hate.

There's a fair to middling chance Laurel might move it to another category if there's no hint of extramarital action.

I posted one once that was a bait and switch where I revealed at the end that they were a husband and wife role-playing. It did reasonably well so far as score — especially for that category. Currently sitting at 1k votes, 53 comments, 65 favs, and 124k views after damn near 15 years. That was with it playing as a straight cheating wife story until the last few paragraphs, though. Something that's a straight up EC style story will lose a majority of the readership fast if you don't at least let them think it might be infidelity for a while. You could probably write it ambiguous enough through the early story and hope to rope enough people in that the story keeps them even once they realize there's no cheating.

Depending upon the content, you could easily rack up similar readership in categories like Mature and Anal, so if there's another category with decent readership where it could also fit, that's probably a better option.

If it's a choice between EC and LW... If it's not going to stir up a hornet's nest, you'll likely get more action on it in LW. Probably a lower score, but without attracting the more venomous elements, it would probably still end up a net positive.

Assuming Laurel doesn't overrule you and put it in EC upon publishing.

 

[Seadog777]

What the fuck is "cis"???

 

[MrPixel]

I think one of the AH regulars might've posted a LW story that was something like that, but it only revealed at the end that they were husband and wife after letting readers believe they were cheating.

Interesting premise, which I can relate to IRL. A few years ago my wife and I would go to a particular hotel bar periodically, a get-out-of-the-house date. She is blessed with looks considerably less than her chronological age, and is slender; me, not so much, on either count. We'd dress up a little bit, me in casual office attire, she'd lean towards somewhat provocative and flattering, especially with a couple of short skirt outfits that were head-turners (great legs!). Our normal banter is teasing and sometimes goofy, which we'd share with the bartenders. It didn't hurt that we could be a little kissy-face on occasion.

After several months of this, one of the familiar bartenders overheard us talking about something at home. "You live together?" was the question. "Why, yes, we've been married for 30 years." We almost had to pick her up off the floor. "You're married?! Noooo! Everyone here swore you guys were having an affair!"

I think I answered to the effect of "I guess we are," which resulted in chuckles and, of course, a kiss.

 

[MindYaBitness]

What the fuck is "cis"???

It's a term borrowed from chemistry, the new-fangled way to say that you identify as the sex & gender you were assigned at birth

 

[Seadog777]

It's a term borrowed from chemistry, the new-fangled way to say that you identify as the sex & gender you were assigned at birth

So it's a made-up word for a persons ACTUAL gender.

 

[Djmac1031]

So it's a made-up word for a persons ACTUAL gender.

All words are made up.

 

[MindYaBitness]

All words are made up.

I get what he means; as opposed to natural progression of a word from Indo-European to modern English. It's a neologism.

 

[pink_silk_glove]

What the fuck is "cis"???

It's the new way to marginalize straight people.

 

[Seadog777]

I get what he means; as opposed to natural progression of a word from Indo-European to modern English. It's a neologism.

It's the new way to marginalize straight people.

Fucking stupid is what it is.

I'm not going to stop reading a story if I see "cis" in it.

 

[Unblemished]

I get what he means; as opposed to natural progression of a word from Indo-European to modern English. It's a neologism.

Every new word is a neologism, it’s in the name. Cis is a perfectly ‘natural progression from Indo European’: Specifically, it’s derived from the reconstructed Proto-Indo European term kis, or ‘this’, from which we get the Latin cis or ‘from this side’.

It was first documented in a sex/gender context in 1914, though the term ‘cisgender’ didn’t really take off until the mid-90’s…which is still almost 30 years ago, shocking though that is. It’s an established word in its context, people only think it’s new because the right began demonzing trans people a few years back because their anti-gay stuff stopped being so popular.

 

[Bramblethorn]

It's a term borrowed from chemistry, the new-fangled way to say that you identify as the sex & gender you were assigned at birth

Not from chemistry, from Latin. I feel like I end up explaining this here every few months, but here I go again:

"Cis" and "trans" are Latin prefixes meaning "same side" and "opposite side". For instance, the Romans referred to "Gallia Cisalpina" and "Gallia Transalpina" - i.e. the parts of Gaul that were on the near side of the Alps (relative to Rome), and those that were on the far side of the Alps. Those get Anglicised as "Cisalpine Gaul" and "Transalpine Gaul".

Many modern languages including English use Latin as a kind of auxiliary language for scientific terminology, including "cis" and "trans". Chemistry is a well-known example but you'll also find English using "cis" and "trans" here and there in geography, biology, and astronomy.

A lot of the early 20th-century work on sexology was done in Germany (pre-Nazi era), and in 1914 Dr. Ernst Burchard's Lexikon des gesamten Sexuallebens defined "cisvestitism" as an antonym to "transvestitism" - though no scholar of the era would've needed Burchard to explain that "cis-" meant the opposite of "trans-".



For a large chunk of the 20th century, many folk didn't make much distinction between homosexuality, transvestitism (cross-dressing), and transsexuality/transgenderism - and of course what was published on the topic was more likely to be cis people writing about trans people than vice versa, because universities weren't exactly falling over themselves to grant professorships or psych degrees to trans people.

By the 1990s, things had progressed to the point where that distinction was better understood, and where trans people might occasionally get a say in the discourse without necessarily having their lives wrecked for it, and in 1994 we get our first English-language citation for "cisgender" - which already makes it older than many words that are accepted without drama. But that formation is following two millennia of established linguistic patterns.

People who are willing to describe others as "trans" but go into snowflake meltdown mode when called "cis" are the same brand of ridiculous as somebody who calls others "left-handers" but insists that being called a "right-hander" is HATE SPEECH.

I get what he means; as opposed to natural progression of a word from Indo-European to modern English. It's a neologism.

It's more than two thousand years old. How old does a word need to be before it stops being a neologism? How many of the words you just used have been around as long, with so little change in form or meaning?

Is it too much to wish that the self-appointed defenders of the purity of English would take the time to learn the history of their own language?

(It's never actually about a dislike of new words, of course; it's about a dislike of social change, and the idea that only My People, not Your People, get to decide what people are called.)

It's the new way to marginalize straight people.

No, because "cis" is not a synonym for "straight". One means not transgender, the other means not gay/bi.

 

[Bramblethorn]

What the fuck is "cis"???

If only there was some kind of book that people could use to look up the meanings of unfamiliar words, instead of needing to get angry about it in front of strangers on the Internet. Imagine how useful that would be. Somebody ought to make something like that.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

I think one of the AH regulars might've posted a LW story that was something like that, but it only revealed at the end that they were husband and wife after letting readers believe they were cheating. Anybody else remember this?

Your comment sounds like you might be referring to "One Friday in February". The premise went over the head of too many readers, especially for a Valentine contest entry.

 

[alohadave]

So it's a made-up word for a persons ACTUAL gender.

No, it's not made up. Just because you are not aware of it doesn't make it some liberal conspiracy to change definitions of things.

It's akin to homo and hetero as prefixes.

 

[MadeleineSinha]

To return to the initial enquiry, I put https://literotica.com/s/dutch-weekend-treat in LW to a fairly positive response

 

[SimonDoom]

Vanilla hetero romance can do well in LW. For instance, stories about men who are cheated on, get divorced, and then find romance with a new woman can do quite well.

 

[nice90sguy]

What happens if you put a monogamous vanilla cis het romance into LW?​

Good subject for a PhD thesis. It will require a fully-randomized clinical trial.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

No, it's not made up. Just because you are not aware of it doesn't make it some liberal conspiracy to change definitions of things.

But the definitions WERE changed. For millennia all we knew in terms of human genders were a woman and a man. Now there is a trans-man and a trans-woman (there are others as well, but focusing on these two for simplicity). They could have just kept "woman" and "man" for those people whose gender corresponds with their birth gender and also kept "trans-man" and "trans-woman". I assume that some people perceived that that would imply in a way that a trans-woman isn't truly a woman and a trans-man isn't truly a man. So former "man" and "woman" had to become "cis-man" and "cis-woman". Now there are cis and trans and both are men and women. Not everyone agrees with this classification and that is all right in my opinion. Of course, there is no need to get angry or worked up about it, just saying that it isn't a sin to disagree with any mainstream stance.

 

[Bramblethorn]

But the definitions WERE changed. For millennia all we knew in terms of human genders were a woman and a man.

Nope. The idea of gender being an immutable binary is far from universal in human history. Why do people insist on waving their ignorance around instead of doing five minutes of googling to check whether what they believe is actually true?

 

[alohadave]

They could have just kept "woman" and "man" for those people whose gender corresponds with their birth gender and also kept "trans-man" and "trans-woman".

Why use heterosexual for straight people? It's the default, right? Why even call them straight? They shouldn't need a label. It's because it gets confusing when one group is labeled and another isn't when referencing them.

We label and classify characteristics and the default characteristic get labeled too.

I assume that some people perceived that that would imply in a way that a trans-woman isn't truly a woman and a trans-man isn't truly a man. So former "man" and "woman" had to become "cis-man" and "cis-woman". Now there are cis and trans and both are men and women.

It simply refers to your gender identity. If you identify with the gender you were assigned at birth (99% of the population), you are cismale or cisfemale.

If you identify as the opposite gender that you were assigned at birth (based on the genitals when born, because you can't exactly ask a newborn how they identify), you are transmale or transfemale.