Where's the line: forced sex as a plot device

[MrRandyWatson]

I have a story idea I am developing, and it boils down to this: Sheltered college junior/senior (takes place over a couple of years) comes out of his shell and dates a gorgeous classmate, loses his virginity, and comes into his own. However, there's a problem - his mother.

She's a widow and very protective of her son, afraid she will lose him the way she lost her workaholic husband years ago. So when her son and his girlfriend start dating, she tries to break them up, going through several options including introducing him to other women she approves of (she's not opposed to him dating, just dating this one.) Finally, she takes matters into her own hands and tries to seduce him herself.

She fails. So here's where it gets dark (and again, it's a villain's move and not designed to tittilate so much as to provoke outrage): She drugs his drink and has sex with his unconscious body, ostensibly to get pregnant and force him away from his girlfriend and into her clutches forever. My question: Is this allowable as strictly a plot device, and if so, how much can I depict without running afoul of Lit guidelines?

 

[blin18]

Lit's noncon rules are in a sticky post at the top of the Story Ideas forum. If the victim of a noncon sexual act enjoys it or derives pleasure in the end, then it can pass muster.

This is pretty hard to do when unconscious. Your only hope would be to either establish an upfront rape fantasy for the victim, or a post awakening where he is titillated by the idea and seeks for it to happen again. Still pretty dodgy though. I think you're in trouble.

Have you thought through the mechanics of making an unconscious man hard an getting him to ejaculate. It would be a lot more plausible if he was simply drugged and compliant. In this way, you could also give him some inner conflict where he loves it but denies it, thereby achieving your plot point and complying with noncon rules.

Should this post be in Authors' Hangout?

 

[Hypoxia]

Have you thought through the mechanics of making an unconscious man hard an getting him to ejaculate. It would be a lot more plausible if he was simply drugged and compliant. In this way, you could also give him some inner conflict where he loves it but denies it, thereby achieving your plot point and complying with noncon rules.

I used drugged-but-compliant in THE BOOK OF RUTH (last episode page) when Randy's sister and her girlfriend 'rape' him after dosing hims with a convenient mix of taste enhancers, stimulants, hypnotics, and an early viagara. The brew cost him a few IQ points but kept him spewing for hours.

But inner-conflict has more dramatic scope. The problem: how does Mom (fairly) realistically seduce Sonny? There's always rub-lotion-under-bikini and drink-&-puff-&-watch-pr0n-together and suck-&-ride-sleeper and Mom-&-her-GF-in-hottub and day-at-nude-beach. Then he's torn between guilt and lust. Does guilt deter him? Ha.

Should this post be in Authors' Hangout?

Probably.

 

[NotWise]

I suppose the boy could be sedated but conscious; aware of what his Mom was doing and willing to let her try. He enjoys the experience and the story closes with him telling her, "No sedative this time Mom." then fucking her lights out.

 

[lovecraft68]

If being drugged wasn't rape then no one would be charged with rape in real life for slipping Rufies to people.

I know, let's ask Cosby

MInd control, drugging and even blackmail are all 'rape lite' devices here anyway.

 

[sr71plt]

All you need do for Lit. is throw in some hints that he's conflicted and experiences some arousal toward his mother but he's determined not to go there. Then he can be less conflicted to the degree you wish after he's gone there drugged--sort of an "oh, well, it's been done now; can't go back."

Passing no judgment; just noting how it can be passed at Literotica. I use that setup for what are essentially nonconsent ones--letting the sex scene come off as a forced taking, but one based on "he was working up to do it some time, just not yet and under these circumstances--but, oh, well, it's done now." This works better for GM than for straight stories, as "forced" is more of a foreplay game with GM than it is with MF. Submissives in MM don't have near as much to lose as women do in an MF.

 

[MrRandyWatson]

If this needs to go to Authors' Hangout, that's fine; I wasn't sure where to post this anyway.

My thought on the scene was to do it like this:

Mom spikes her son's drink - I'm thinking roofies and Viagra should do the trick. She then has sex with his unconscious body - but to solve the whole "he has to like it" problem, he dreams he's having sex with his girlfriend while his mom is having sex with him. So at the very least, he has a pleasant experience even if it's his mind playing tricks on him. So when he comes to, he wakes up satisfied - unaware until after the deed is completed that it was his mother all along.

I see her as the bad guy, so naturally the girlfriend would win and the son would defeat his mother through some clever trickery.

 

[Hypoxia]

Mom spikes her son's drink - I'm thinking roofies and Viagra should do the trick. She then has sex with his unconscious body - but to solve the whole "he has to like it" problem, he dreams he's having sex with his girlfriend while his mom is having sex with him. So at the very least, he has a pleasant experience even if it's his mind playing tricks on him. So when he comes to, he wakes up satisfied - unaware until after the deed is completed that it was his mother all along.

I see her as the bad guy, so naturally the girlfriend would win and the son would defeat his mother through some clever trickery.

I've no personal experience but I read that roofies cause retrograde amnesia. Sonny won't remember having sex with Mom and might not remember pleasure. But searching for DATE RAPE stories here show many where the victim "loves it" so I guess you can slide by. Maybe invoke some new potion that produces the experience you want. Sonny's GF may be an organic chemistry student who grows suspicious of his behavior; she secretly analyzes his body fluids and discovers he's been dosed. She traces the chems to Mom and devises retribution, yada yada.

 

[PervOtaku]

It's an interesting question. I think Lit wouldn't want anybody to get the idea "Hey kids, drugging a girl and then having sex with her is fun!" (I know your scenario is gender reversed but the inference could be made.)

Although on the other hand the mother character isn't doing it for titillation. Well, maybe you were planning on showing her enjoying it while it's happening, though that would seem to be beside the point of things. I wonder if you could pull it off just by having the deed done "off camera" with no details given.

Also not sure if you were planning to have the son experience any trauma from finding out his mother did this, even without remembering it. Though at this point he's probably pretty pissed at her in general already anyway.

You can't really know until you write it and submit it. My best guess is it probably wouldn't fly, but I don't really know.

 

[blin18]

Actual serious question, to which I'm really only interested in serious (non flame) replies:

Why is the SI forum so vehemently opposed to one type of illegal act (noncon) but celebrates another (incest)? Almost every negative comment on noncon that I read on this and other threads equates the illegality of the act in real life to its banned status on Lit. But Lit's stance is very clear, and very much unrelated to illegality of the act - it is related ONLY (I believe) to pornography laws that restrict Lit's ability to operate.

I thought that our collective disgust for noncon (but not incest) must be a moral question, but Lit is a veritable den of slippery morals. It is - I hazard - the reason many of us are here, and literally ALL of us operate under a pseudonym. We raise no moral outcry to tormenting cuckolds, or exacting revenge on cheating slut wives (BTB), or to the dubiously immoral practice of unprotected sex.

So, morals ain't the reason.
Legality of the real life act ain't the reason.

I'm not flaming or pointing the finger at anyone who decries noncon here. I celebrate free speech as much if not more than the next person, and I defend your right to say whatever you damn well please about an idea (without vilifying a person or class of people). I just don't understand the selective nature of our collective disgust over noncon.

I know I'll get flamed over this, but if it makes any difference, I don't write noncon, and I don't write incest - though I reserve the right to do either or both if the fancy takes me. I'm not taking a moral or legal stance against either one.

For the record. My position on the matter is that I am vaguely concerned with normalising any illegal act by providing an online refuge where it can be enjoyed without hurting anyone, but I'm not so concerned that I want to advocate censorship as an alternative

Apologies in advance for the thread hijack. I'm sure our mod will split it if it's off topic.

 

[Hypoxia]

Why is the SI forum so vehemently opposed to one type of illegal act (noncon) but celebrates another (incest)?

Because consensual (fantasy) incest and non-con anything are very different beasts. And it's not about legality. Much literature deals with more-or-less serious crimes of violence and property, of assault and theft. Non-con is definitely assault. Consensual incest ain't, and incest isn't even strictly defined. (See WHAT IS INCEST? linked in my .sig.)

Many LIT stories seem to glorify hacking, cheating, occasional violence, exotic motor vehicles, sex with magical beasts & aliens, impossible human anatomies, absurd psychologies, and fetishistic compulsions. Should these be banned?

 

[blin18]

So it's not about illegality, I hear you. It's because noncon is assault and incest is not.

So why do we continue to challenge the illegality of the act in these threads rather than the legality of the pornography?

And as to the potential banning of other fetishes , I thought I was pretty clear: live and let live. If its legal to write and publish and you enjoy it, go for it. I'm not calling for ANY bans, but I am perplexed by a community that embraces so much of what many would class as either violent or deviant, yet baulks at the legal and (in writing) condoned depiction of one particular act.

It's like we as a community have judged widespread pornography laws and local (Lit) regulations and found them wanting.

 

[Hypoxia]

It's like we as a community have judged widespread pornography laws and local (Lit) regulations and found them wanting.

You assume that the varied global throngs reading and writing LIT have some commonality other than horniness, that we form a kum-ba-ya affinity group or something. Ha. Readers and writers here a semi-randomized clusterfuck, with love-hate pockets throughout. Almost all categories are adored and despised by large numbers. My most-read and most-favorited story is also my lowest-scored and most-reviled. Welcome to CognitiveDissonanceLand. And AmbiguityLand. Little is quite as it seems. This way to the Egress. ==>

 

[deltablonde]

Question about virtual sexual vilence

I am starting a new story that involves extreme graphical rape/violence/murder, possibly with dismemberment and sexually sadistic physical trauma. Eventually the reader discovers it all happens in a dream sequence, so it is not real - it never actually happens. The story is not centered around the sexually violent dreams per se, but the absolute abhorrent nature of the sexually violent dreams is an important plot device that drives the protagonist to seek out non-traditional remedies.

I would appreciate any suggestion and guidance on how to proceed without getting arrested.

Thanks,

Deltablonde

 

[Hypoxia]

I would appreciate any suggestion and guidance on how to proceed without getting arrested.

You won't be busted but you probably won't be posted, either. You might want to poke around for the LIT guidelines on graphic violence. Basically, the victim must eventually enjoy their treatment, and Laurel (LIT's owner and editor) doesn't much like mayhem or gratuitous violence.

 

[blin18]

I am starting a new story that involves extreme graphical rape/violence/murder, possibly with dismemberment and sexually sadistic physical trauma. Eventually the reader discovers it all happens in a dream sequence, so it is not real - it never actually happens. The story is not centered around the sexually violent dreams per se, but the absolute abhorrent nature of the sexually violent dreams is an important plot device that drives the protagonist to seek out non-traditional remedies.

I would appreciate any suggestion and guidance on how to proceed without getting arrested.

Thanks,

Deltablonde

I think you'll struggle, because it's hard to make a happily ever after out of murder. Graphic violence in literature is fine, and so is erotica, it's the combination that is the problem.

I do wonder how Laurel would deal with straight horror with no erotic component. After all, there is a non erotic category, so not every story needs to be erotic.

If it was allowed, you may be able to segregate your horror from your erotica with chapters and categories.

 

[PervOtaku]

Why is the SI forum so vehemently opposed to one type of illegal act (noncon) but celebrates another (incest)? Almost every negative comment on noncon that I read on this and other threads equates the illegality of the act in real life to its banned status on Lit. But Lit's stance is very clear, and very much unrelated to illegality of the act - it is related ONLY (I believe) to pornography laws that restrict Lit's ability to operate.

I've run into this myself.

Note that a great deal of real-life incest is molestation, what we would call real-life non-con and reprehensible. Fictional incest is near universally consensual, and for that matter the instigator is very often the person who would normally be considered the "victim" (i.e. the younger family member, or the female of the pair if the ages are close). This is because the incest kink is about the taboo and wanting to break it, it's not about rape or coercion.

Rape and coercion are their own kinks. In my mind, this is mostly for people with a rape fantasy to experience it vicariously (hopefully moreso women with a victim fantasy than men with a culprit fantasy). You can have a girl raped by her brother instead of her boyfriend, but at that point the incest factor doesn't really make getting raped all that worse than it already was. Fictional rape often (and at Lit, always, per the rules) has the victim, either during or after, develop a kink for submission and therefore an enjoyment of the rape.

At the root, we have two kinks centered around things no civilized person would want to do in real life, turned into something with no actual victim by conceit of the plot. Why, then, is non-con hate serious business?

As an aside, a major argument against bestiality that I've seen is the idea that the animal cannot give consent. I find that silly, as it's very difficult to get a large animal do to something it doesn't want to do. A better argument against bestiality is simply that it blatantly flies against the laws of nature, much like incest itself. The fact that people would even focus on a non-con element here shows that they view, and expect others to view, non-con as the ultimate sin.

Non-con is serious business, for instance in situations of college frat parties where girls are too drunk to say no and guys are too drunk to make sure she's explicitly agreeing to sex, it's not hard to find people willing to equate those guys to sober violent rapists, and the mere suggestion that those girls should be at the very least less naive about sex at frat parties is equated to supporting rape.

When you get right down do it, these people that hate fictional non-con are simply in denial that it is a valid fantasy or kink. To them the real-life thing is so bad that you shouldn't be allowed to have that as a fantasy, even in completely fictional or completely consensual role-play settings. And really, that's a horrible view to have, because people can't help what their fetishes are. But since the worst thing that can happen in the forum is a flame war, and flame wars are an inherent consequence of having a forum in the first place, it's not really a big deal in the end.

I am starting a new story that involves extreme graphical rape/violence/murder, possibly with dismemberment and sexually sadistic physical trauma. Eventually the reader discovers it all happens in a dream sequence, so it is not real - it never actually happens. The story is not centered around the sexually violent dreams per se, but the absolute abhorrent nature of the sexually violent dreams is an important plot device that drives the protagonist to seek out non-traditional remedies.

I think the rules here are less focused on whether something is "really happening" and more on whether it is presented as something the reader is expected to get sexually aroused by. "It was a dream" is not something that's going to excuse bestiality or pedophilia, for example. If the sexual violence is presented as bad like you say, you might be able to get by with it.

 

[Hypoxia]

A better argument against bestiality is simply that it blatantly flies against the laws of nature, much like incest itself.

"Laws of nature" are equations of physics. Anything that can physically happen probably will eventually. Inter-species and same-family intercourse obviously occur with some frequency. Various societies impose taboos against certain behaviors ranging from sexual (incest, bestiality) to political/religious (apostasy, heresy) to violence (assault, rape) to whatever (appearance, dialect), some seemingly absurdly trivial, some deadly serious. Some of the strongest taboos seem to be against attractive infractions. None are 'unnatural'. By definition, the unnatural and unreal cannot exist.

Moralists like to invoke 'natural' or 'divine' law to justify their beliefs. Alas, such laws seem quite different in various societies and subcultures. Universal laws? Ha. In some societies, bestiality is common (if not highly regarded), rape is almost universal, and what we'd call incest is mandatory.

 

[deltablonde]

Sounds like a no-go

I've run into this myself.


I think the rules here are less focused on whether something is "really happening" and more on whether it is presented as something the reader is expected to get sexually aroused by. "It was a dream" is not something that's going to excuse bestiality or pedophilia, for example. If the sexual violence is presented as bad like you say, you might be able to get by with it.

Thanks, that is very helpful insight. I think I have to abandon this project in favor of a less controversial narrative.

 

[Bramblethorn]

As an aside, a major argument against bestiality that I've seen is the idea that the animal cannot give consent. I find that silly, as it's very difficult to get a large animal do to something it doesn't want to do.

It's difficult to physically force a large animal to do something it doesn't want to do, but consent isn't just about lack of physical force. If you're living in somebody else's house, dependent on them for food and shelter, if you've been trained from childhood to obey them and their kind, then your capacity for free consent is greatly diminished.

No horse is born wanting to carry humans around on its back. No dog wants to wait for a master's permission before it starts eating. But we've figured out how to make them do those things.

A better argument against bestiality is simply that it blatantly flies against the laws of nature, much like incest itself.

...or homosexuality, or masturbation?

Sorry, no, this is a bad argument. The only true "laws of nature" are the ones that nature rigorously enforces (Newton's, Maxwell's etc. etc.) and they're not relevant here, since it's impossible to violate them. But when people invoke "against the laws of nature" they usually mean something else, take your pick:

"I've never seen that behaviour in the animal kingdom" - well, that's not a moral argument for why it's wrong. Also, humans are part of the animal kingdom.

"I've never seen that behaviour in the non-human animal kingdom" - still not a moral argument. We do LOTS of things other animals don't do, like posting on the internet or donating kidneys to one another, and many of those things are considered acceptable.

Also, when applied to sexual matters, pretty much invariable means the speaker has some very naive ideas about what's going on out there in nature. Re. this particular issue, humans are not the only species that has inter-species sex, so it can't be "unnatural" on those grounds.

"It doesn't seem beneficial for the survival of the species" - yeah, there's not actually a scientific law that says animals can only do things that benefit their species. There are laws that describe how animals doing beneficial things are more likely to survive and pass on their genes, but that's NOT the same thing - and it's still not a moral law.

Also, "beneficial for the survival of the species" is very complex to assess; non-reproductive sex can still offer benefits.

"I'm trying to disguise a religious argument in scientific language" - 'nuff said.

 

[Hypoxia]

Back to forced sex: A fetish / urge for noncon / rape pieces is like a taste for many taboo subjects. We make assault and incest more palatable by rendering them fantastic. The forced-sex victim enjoys the experience. The weaker kin seduces the stronger. Such fantasies are much more erotic than the cruel realities.

And we read many tales of unsafe and unlikely sex but don't worry much about rough details and implausibilities. Stories are screenplays unfolding in our minds; we see what we want to see.

OP asks, Where's the line? The rule is in the guidelines. You get hints of other lines by how readers react. Read scores of noncon stories; look for common elements; see what formulas work. Or just throw something against the wall and see what sticks.

 

[Ldy_Sea]

IO think a slightly more plausible scenario is that GF and mom are similare heights and weights, and he is taking GF to a costume party. Mom dresses in similar xostume and has sex with him. This way mom can reveal herself at the moment of climax, or allow GF to catch them.

 

[LOAnnie2]

Fictional incest is near universally consensual, and for that matter the instigator is very often the person who would normally be considered the "victim" (i.e. the younger family member, or the female of the pair if the ages are close). This is because the incest kink is about the taboo and wanting to break it, it's not about rape or coercion.

One could argue it's only taboo because it's illegal, and because it's illegal it's automatically non-consensual. Take for example statutory rape. If someone has sex with a person considered too young, even if that person wants it, that person can't consent. The question is can a person consent to something illegal?

 

[HandsInTheDark]

To the OP's question - if I were writing that, which I wouldn't, I'd write nothing explicit about the sex scene with mom; I'd simply refer to it after the fact, with no details since the victim mercifully can't remember any. If all you are after is showcasing villainy, you can spend pages on his subsequent sense of betrayal and horror, and get a good telling of her defective moral compass that way.

Noncon on Lit is really reluctance, sometimes after-the fact. As such it can be a grey area but there's no possible way to pawn off what you're describing with any detail at all, and not have it be against the rules. You can try to negotiate with Laurel but honestly if she lets it go further than that and I stumble across it she'll hear from me at least. It's rape, pure and simple.

Any other advice I'd give you runs afoul of my opinion of incest so I won't suggest other changes.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

Actual serious question, to which I'm really only interested in serious (non flame) replies:

Why is the SI forum so vehemently opposed to one type of illegal act (noncon) but celebrates another (incest)? Almost every negative comment on noncon that I read on this and other threads equates the illegality of the act in real life to its banned status on Lit. But Lit's stance is very clear, and very much unrelated to illegality of the act - it is related ONLY (I believe) to pornography laws that restrict Lit's ability to operate.

Lit doesn't allow real noncon because real noncon is morally repugnant and when detailed graphically, is horrifying, not erotic. Laurel might be banning it to avoid reader (or legislative) backlash, or she might be banning it because she finds it personally horrifying; I don't know which, and it doesn't matter because they are equally valid reasons. And whatever it is, it's non-negotiable - her site, her rules. So we'll subtract her from the set of forum members and talk about everyone else.

Not everyone here is as you describe. I write stories with reluctance elements, including one where women are kidnapped, which is noncon by any definition. And I abhor incest stories. I'm not exactly alone in that. So I think you're misrepresenting the forum a bit. There are a few people here who celebrate fantasy-incest (I don't know their opinion on the real thing and I'm not going to ask) and a few who definitely don't. There are a few who have written noncon (even though one or two of those might rail against it) and a few that clearly hate it.

And then there's the readers. Incest is popular here. As much as I'd like to believe it's popular with a particular kind of male reader who probably deserve to be caged, I'm reliably told there's a large female readership with daddy issues who keep it popular. Likely, as much as the anti-noncon crowd would like to believe that all those NC fans are drooling, basement-dwelling male pervs, virtually all the private and uniformly positive feedback I get is from women. It's literotica, and stereotypes do not always apply.

At the end of the day, though, anyone engaging in real incest or real noncon belongs in a cage, and accurate accounts of either do not belong on this site.

The stated suggestion in the Everything FAQ at the top of this forum, suggests abandoning discussion of noncon on this forum. It's fuzzy, badly defined, and provokes trouble. So leave it alone. The same *should* apply to incest in my opinion, but it's a wildly popular category so that won't work.