Something I noticed while reading stories.

[tswd45]

I've just posted a story titled 'Karmals' slavery part 1'. I wrote this story specifically at the request of a woman named Karmal. It seems terribly violent to me but she seemed to like it. I'm not sure what to make of it.

I noticed that many stories appearing in the library seem geared more toward wanton violence, mostly toward women, and non-consensual sex. I was wondering a little about this and some of the ramifications of this.

Are some of these stories being written by people that are genuinely angry with women? Or perhaps with a specific woman? Are the stories written by people that have lived these fantasies out and look to do so again? Perhaps they are written to satiate the primal sexual desire before they actually act the fantasy out. Perhaps I am reading way too much into things, but I'm tired and it seemed like a good line of thought at the time.

I consider myself to be very tolerant of others. In fact, I am more tolerant of individuals than I am of cultures. Therefore, I understand that these stories are just stories. Fantasies and musings from minds possibly as twisted and corrupt as my own. So, i refuse to pass judgement on what a person writes. It is, after all, the actiions that speak louder than words.

At any rate, it was a passing musing that I had noticed. I thought, perhaps, that there would be more educational articles and stories than the presence of pure violence.

And don't get me wrong, please. Occasionally, I get in just the right mood for some good, old-fashioned violence. Just not all the time. So, I ask the good people here if they could please try to keep the perspective of the website in mind when contributing their material.

Thanks.

[emma_sub]

i can only respond to this point on a personal level, a submissive female one.

i personally believe that we need to consider intention. There is a difference between receiving violence and receiving pain. Violence is never pleasant to receive, pain can be under certain circumstances. There is also a difference between a Dominant and a sadist, a difference between wanting to be taken and controlled and wanting to be tortured.

If we are looking at ‘power exchange relationships’ then the last word needs attention too. There is undoubtedly a relationship between torturer and victim, but if it is non-consensual violence then it is a very limited relationship.

If the intention of the Dominant is to use pain to increase pleasure or arousal in the submissive then the pain is being used positively for both parties. If the intention is for pleasure or arousal to be gained by only one party i fail to see it as anything other than selfish behaviour lacking in sensitivity. Yes, the best Dominants are sensitive.

There is also the question of there being a difference between fantasy and reality. Surely if one is aroused by the fantasy of extreme violence then it actually must effect the way that one looks upon women (or submissives) in real life too.

Personally i do not believe being a submissive equates with receiving violence.

emma_sub

[longrover]

Emma's points are at the heart of most bdsm discussions and I agree with her. Consent may be within a couple or group, involve a (nonbinding in reality) contract, or rely on another mechanism but it provides the easiest "cover" for arousal in the face of another's pain.

Some nonconsensual stories work for me, though, and there is a category of nonconsensual stories I have not seen discussed.

First the exceptions.

Some stories are set in times and places where the victims' consent could not be an issue. Stories based on historical or hypothetical societies (Roman treatment of slaves and war prisoners; tyrannical governments' treatment of "out groups," spies, etc.; unpleasant future societies) may be painful to read, but their violence is "in bounds" in their settings. Several stories on this site use such designs and I find some of them thought provoking if not arousing.

Some stories are partly nonconsensual (sfmaster's "Janet" stories and the late, great Leviticus' "Valley" stories), but they allow the (usually remote) possibility that society will apprehend the sadistic torturers. Leviticus even brought the FBI into some of his stories (partly) for that purpose. This group shares many features of mystery, thriller, and other mainstream stories.


I have a bigger problem with stories set in societies whose authority to intervene is prevented by authorial design.

The first example is "Her New World," also by Leviticus. An entirely consensual group that wishes to colonize an uninhabited planet has no one with some skills needed to make the trip. They trick a woman who has the skills into accompanying them and then treat her the same as those who consented. (Note: This is not a cheap shot at a dead man. I admire his other work and the site that continues to operate in his name. We had a fairly lenghthy exchange about my reaction on the forum the site had for a while, ending with an agreement to disagree.)

Two other examples are by Crimson Dragon ("Time Out of Time" and "Dawn of Time"). A man learns to operate on two time lines, the "real" line and one where he is the only person able to move around. He brings selected women into "his" time line to bind, whip, etc. although there is little explicit sex and no "rape."

The villains in such storie are beyond even the potential reach of society. The victms have no way out, so their acceptance is merely a defense mechanism. No matter how well written ("Her New World" is up to Leviticus' usual high standards), no matter how much the victims seem to submit happily, such stories are over the line for me.

What do you think?


(Note: sfmaster's "Janet" stories are on this site. Leviticus' stories are on the "Writings of Leviticus" site. Crimson Dragon's stories are on his ASSTR pages.)

[ProjectEuropa]

[QUOTE=longrover]
What do you think?
QUOTE]

I agree with you. The context of the story is of vital importance. If a story is psychopatic then it needs to sit in that context and be acknowledged by the author that s/he is exploring the world of a psychopath. I find nothing arousing or rewarding in a story that is free from moral or social restraint. Characters set free to do whatever they want at will, to me is not a story, it is an author out of control of the craft they are trying to master.

Myself, I find very few stories arousing. I find arousal in the psychology of a story rather than in the depicting of graphic sex. I don't need a depiction of a woman bent over and a man pumping away at her. I want to know the psychology and the motivations that brought the characters to such a point. I want to understand and empathise or be disgusted or provoked by them.

It is quite legitimate for a character to get away free with their crimes (which is what non consensual behaviour is) but I think the reader should be left with a feeling of disgust in them but that requires the author to set moral bounds which is where I came in.

[Alex Bragi]

sub emma,

All I can say in response to your posting is, yes, yes, yes, and I agree completely.

You have an excellent insight on this topic.

Btw, I see you have your private messaging block, were you aware of this?

Some stories are set in times and places where the victims' consent could not be an issue. … Several stories on this site use such designs and I find some of them thought provoking if not arousing.

I read one just the other day. The torturers were not apprehended and it didn’t have a happy ending. I don’t begin to understand the warped and twisted motivation I had to keep reading it. I didn’t ‘enjoy’ it, but it was thought provoking for sure, for hours later I was thinking, “What if…?”

I find nothing arousing or rewarding in a story that is free from moral or social restraint. Characters set free to do whatever they want at will, to me is not a story, it is an author out of control of the craft they are trying to master.

Yes, it’s kind of interesting that people enjoy stories where the characters are "…free from moral or social restraint" and "…set free to do whatever they want at will.." so long as they’re reprimanded, or deal with, before the story ends. We love to hate these characters. We feel a vicarious relief and satisfaction when they get what, we believe, they deserve.

...I find arousal in the psychology of a story rather than in the depicting of graphic sex….

Well, now, here’s a fetish I’m sure none of us has ever heard of before. *gg* Just, kidding! It’s really all a matter of taste, isn’t it? Maybe, I’m a ‘greedy’ reader—I want both when I read erotica. Although, I do understand what you mean. Some of the hottest stories I’ve read, at this site, have been so cleverly subtle sexually that I found myself getting aroused long before the ‘fun’ had even started.

[ProjectEuropa]

It’s really all a matter of taste, isn’t it?

For sure! I'm not condemning people for having different tastes than mine and I can fully understand the enjoyment of graphic sex. When I am turned on by it, boy! I just want to explode!

However I find very little graphic sex that does that too me. I've analysed this ad infinitum and I think the problem is, that most writers and artists of erotica tend to illustrate graphic sex rather than live it and so the graphic sex appears detached. Observing sex in an objective manner reduces it to a very silly jig. If the author/artist is radiating their own desires, that tends to permeate through to me.

Maybe I'm just talking a lot of bullshit but I'm trying.

[Mobius]

For all that is holly please authors never use the word Cunny in reference to a womance vagina.

I cant stand the word cunny it just drive me nuts

I would much prefer

Cunt
Vagina
Beaver
love Vally
inner core
molten vally
woo hoo
but never cunny

[Dr Mabeuse]

However I find very little graphic sex that does that too me. I've analysed this ad infinitum and I think the problem is, that most writers and artists of erotica tend to illustrate graphic sex rather than live it and so the graphic sex appears detached. Observing sex in an objective manner reduces it to a very silly jig. If the author/artist is radiating their own desires, that tends to permeate through to me.

Maybe I'm just talking a lot of bullshit but I'm trying.

As a writer, I've found that my stuff has tended to get more internalized and subjective as time goes by, and I've come to believe that the sexiest stuff always happens inside people's heads. I think that when we read objectified, detatched BDSM -- the kind of stuff where the author just gives you an objective description of what was done -- we miss out on seeing the character's feelings and reactions and thereby miss out on some of the juiciest stuff.

Part of the problem is that, to a lot of writers, the sub's feelings aren't of any interest. They tend to objectify her and use her as a sexual toy, so the characters come across as flat and basically pretty dull. The whle experience feels remote and unreal. You can still get good porn that way, but the reader has to use their imagination to supply the missing thoughts and feelings, doing the job the author should have done.

Anyone who's fooled around with BDSM knows something of the incredible intensity of feeling that goes on, and it just seems like such a waste to ignore it. Like I said, that's some of the sexiest stuff.

---dr.M.

[Alex Bragi]

ProjectEuropa, Doc,

What's exactly is too much graphic sex? How much detail is too much? Shouldn't some of it at least be left to the reader's warped imagination?

I think one of you ought to start a new thread on this. It's an excellent topic for a fresh discussion.

I'm ticking over already.

Alex