Powered by Bravenet Bravenet Blog

Janitor On Duty

journal photo

January 5th, 2008

1:47 PM

Literotica Published Authors

I just ventured into the comments section of Karen Scott's blog entry about the connection between Literotica and The Publishing House That Shall Not Be Named.

I like Literotica. I can't say I am a regular visitor there (I have enough to read already without looking for more) but I like what it stands for. If you ask me to sign a petition to save a site like Literotica from censorship, I will. Plus, there are some really good stories there, I think. Sure, there are plenty of terribly written stories, but they are also good to laugh at.

I personally think there should be a distinction drawn between the Literotica story sections and the Literotica forums but I also know not everyone is going to do that, heh. The stories on the main site are depicted without any ambiguity to be fiction. No matter how obvious sometimes that the author is writing about underaged characters and just slapping the ages of these characters to be 18 just to comply with the law, these are officially depicted as sexual fantasies rather than a reflection of the author's lifestyle.

The forums, which I even more rarely venture to because it's a different beast altogether, are where the problems lie. We have people discussing incest and pedophilia on top of swapping spouses and what not. It's not a regular occurrence, but it does happen. I don't want to get into the morality of such discussions, however, so let me just say that with these people going all TMI - although to be fair, it's hard not to go TMI in a forum about your sex life and fantasies - they should not be shocked when people start judging them based on what they say. The boundaries between fiction and reality are really fuzzy in those forums because there are people talking about sleeping with young children in their real life now and then, and these discussions may very well be immortalized in Google's cache for a long time to come. It is easy to say that the stories on Literotica are strictly fiction, but the forums are a different matter altogether. And this can create problems for the author's reputation.

No matter what I personally believe about the right to free speech when it comes to talking about such matters, were I an author who started out contributing stories to Literotica, I would not use the same pseudonym as the one I used on Literotica due to the touchy nature of the forums. As the comments in Karen's blog entry demonstrated, the graphic and often disquieting nature of the forums is one giant elephant sitting in the room that nobody wants to acknowledge when it comes to Literotica. I would not use the same pseudonym especially if I have taken part in some of these controversial discussions on Literotica. But that's just me, of course, because I'm a bit of a coward in that I don't like seeing my sex life being dissected by other people based on the ammunition I myself handed them via an unwise TMI discussion on those forums.

(Disclaimer: I have never participated in the Literotica forums before so don't waste time looking for any details on my sex life there! I have also never contributed anything to Literotica. The above is just a "What if?" scenario if I have done that and happened to be a published author as well.)

Should authors be embarrassed if they started out on Literotica? Perhaps not. But because people will always associate you with the company you keep, who knows, it may better for these authors to avoid openly announcing their association, unless they are willing to answer many uncomfortable questions about the nature of Literotica and its forums. That, or they want to cater to an audience exclusively from Literotica.

Literotica is not the same as fanfiction.net - as long as the owners of Literotica allow unmoderated discussions of everything and
anything on their forums, thus blurring the line between fantasy and reality in that place, Literotica will be, fairly or not, used as a yardstick for strangers to judge the author's moral even if the author only contributed stories and didn't get involved in the forums. Life is unfair like that, so unless the author is willing to stand up for whatever she feels Literotica and herself stand for all the time, unless the author is willing to let any TMI stuff she said in those forums to come back and haunt her later on, I wonder whether keeping mum about one's role in Literotica is the wiser option, what with all the TMI and potentially damaging things the TMI stuff can do to one's professional reputation.

PS: I also feel the same way about authors who cut their teeth writing real-life person fanfiction, especially the always touchy and controversial real-life person slash or RPS (which involves authors writing stories about, say, Daniel Radcliffe and Alan Rickman having gay sex instead of Harry Potter and Prof Snape). These authors must be either very daring or are ready to defend themselves from accusations of random strangers if they admit in their professional bio that they wrote or are a big fan of RPS!

20 comment(s).

Posted by Karen Scott:

The more things change, the more they stay the same huh? :)
January 5th, 2008 @ 6:48 PM

Posted by Anonymous:

I personally think there should be a distinction drawn between the Literotica story sections and the Literotica forums but I also know not everyone is going to do that, heh.

Of course not Mrs. Giggles, because what would be the fun in that. Its much more fun to shriek than to be rational... ehhh...

Its all been quite the tempest in a teapot, but thats probably part of the fun. I didn't see what the big deal was about your first post, or even Karens post, it was the comments that went south to downright strange...
January 6th, 2008 @ 5:18 AM

Posted by sallahdog:

sorry, the above was mine, I forgot to sign my name, such as it is..
January 6th, 2008 @ 5:19 AM

Posted by Selena Kitt:

There are other Literotica-to-Phaze authors Karen missed in her original list (two who posted in her comments section - I haven't gone to look to see if she's deleted them yet) who DID change their names. You wouldn't know they were from Lit unless you did some digging. Then there are others, like Will and Alessia and I, who used close pseudonyms. I have no problem with anyone reading anything I've posted under my name on any site. Guess I'm just not cowardly that way. I'll stand behind any opinion or view I've expressed. Just like the lines get drawn between "sweet romance" and "erotic romance" (eww!) so the lines get drawn between "erotic romance" and "eroticA" and even "porn." (yuk!) I have your view on censorship as well, Mrs. G. There's a big difference between fantasy and reality. I abhor the reality of pedophilia... the fantasy, however, of incest or rape or any fantasy, really, is a different animal entirely.
January 6th, 2008 @ 6:29 AM

Posted by Michelle:

Oh, how nice of you to abhor the reality of pedophilia but be so gungho about the fantasy of pedophilia. Just lovely and dandy. One of the main points on Karen's blog was about the over-reaction of phaze authors. It wasn't a Spanish Inquisition. I still don't understand why some of the phaze authors aren't upset about their connection to Literotica, but are frothing at the mouth about the blogs that just state there is a connection.
January 6th, 2008 @ 8:24 AM

Posted by Sherry Thomas:

Weird. Daniel Radcliff and Alan Rickman barely raise my eyebrow, but Harry Potter and Prof. Snape broke my squik-meter.
January 6th, 2008 @ 9:19 AM

Posted by Teddypig:

I really have no love of the rape fantasy or incest fantasy but the facts around this stuff are facts. In regards to the blogs that just state there is a connection. This I would guess between writing sexual fantasy and actually acting on it.

Totally wrong. That's all, they need to read more before acting like they are giving valid or even intelligent information on the subject.

January 6th, 2008 @ 9:24 AM

Posted by veinglory:

Fiction truly is fiction. Some people are as disgusted by homosexuality as I am by kiddy sex. But all types of fiction should be protected forms of expression. Being disgusting to certain people has nothing whatsoever to do with being censorable. Nor is there any scientific link between fiction and action--depending on some very complex factors it may increase, descrease, or in most cases have no effect on threshold for action. Alcohol is by far a more dangerous influence but in all cases the person is responsible for their act.
January 6th, 2008 @ 10:38 AM

Posted by Michelle:

I don't know why I bother, but the equating of homosexuality and pedophilia is just wrong.
January 6th, 2008 @ 9:32 PM

Posted by Mrs G:

Michelle, please don't be deliberately obtuse. You know exactly what veinglory is trying to say and she is NOT equating homosexuality with pedophilia. Let's not unnecessarily stir the pot here, okay?
January 6th, 2008 @ 10:19 PM

Posted by Michelle:

No I am not being deliberately obtuse, nor am I the one stirring the pot. I was replying to her own words "Some people are as disgusted by homosexuality as I am by kiddy sex. But all types of fiction should be protected forms of expression." I personally don't like seeing the two directly compared-I don't see that the two are equivalent forms of fiction. Now how else should I analyze her sentence?

I personally don't think she needed to use the comparison to argue about freedom of expression or to discuss censorship.

Ok Mrs G can we try not to be so condescending?
January 6th, 2008 @ 11:08 PM

Posted by Michelle:

I think veinglory's point was that people have different views of what "deviant" sexual behaviour is-some view homosexuality as a deviant behaviour, some view BDSM as deviant etc and that some would ban "all alternative sexual fiction" etc-kind of the slippery slope argument. My point is I don't view pedophilia on the same level as the other types of fiction discussed. I think her analogy was unfortunate. Ok now?
January 6th, 2008 @ 11:19 PM

Posted by Mrs G:

And you're telling me not to be condescending? That's almost... funny.

You've made your point, Michelle, but the fact is, many people in this world still believe that homosexuality is a sin. Whether or not you agree with it, whether or not you like such comparison, it is a valid one because it's true.

Dial down the attitude, lady. I don't want another unnecessary hissyfit in my blog.
January 6th, 2008 @ 11:33 PM

Posted by veinglory:

I think my analogy was entirely apt, I was showing that allowing censorship of thing we abhor will lead to censorship of things we endorse but that are abhored by ohters. It was utterly necessary to use an example of something I endorse both in my own life, my writing and my reading. could hardly have made that point without using a widely, and appropriately, endorsed type of minority sexuality, could I?

Conclusions and the jumping to them seems to be the norm these days--rather than grappling with actual concepts, logic and debate people attack the poster's morality, intelligence or intent. This is where we came in.
January 7th, 2008 @ 2:43 AM

Posted by Michelle:

I know I should just let this go because often when it comes to this type of topic people focus on their views and often read more into someones post than is really there.

Where in my post did I attack veinglorys morality, intelligence or intent?

Often I see people bash M/M saying it is one step away from pedophilia. I object to the connection often made by critics between the two. Maybe that is why the analogy between M/M and pedophilia grated on my nerves. I clarified why I didn't think the argument about censorship didn't need to rely on equating pedophilia fantasy/fiction on the same level as homosexual fiction. Even though some view the behavior as morally equivalent. To me the act of making a child a sexual object is not on the same level as M/M, BDSM/ menage etc. Now again how by trying to make a distinction (even if the distinction is only to me) am I attacking veinglory? I am not trying to be snarky, or to give attitude-I really want to know. I understand veinglory defending her analogy as apt but how is questioning the analogy jumping to conclusions and not trying to debate the concept? (Maybe the concept being are all/any sexual acts outside of monogomous adult M/F on the same level socially, and morally)
January 7th, 2008 @ 3:06 AM

Posted by Teddypig:

Because the underlying implication is the assumption that fantasy or writing of fantasy leads to the real life act. And you know what they say about assuming things?

Like the totally unsupported idea, by hard scientifically provable data, that pornography leads to sex crimes. The actual data gathered in the research of several countries and cultures, that I sited here, says NO. The only vague support even used anymore are highly suspect lab results involving the use of alcohol. So you have to get people drunk to do stupid, idiotic, bad things. WHO KNEW? That's it let's ban alcohol!

It's great if your personal opinion is "The world is flat." but do not try to debate based on opinion with no proof.
January 7th, 2008 @ 3:36 AM

Posted by Michelle:

I still don't get why saying M/M and pedophilia are not equivalent fiction wise (to my mind) has suddenly jumped to if someone writes it means they are going to live it out. I think that those are two different issues.

Anyway I just want to end it by saying that I am aware that veinglory has done alot in the erotica arena, and has been a founder of the EREC site and has tried to help authors and readers. I am sorry if you took my posts as an attack on you personally. You have always been a voice of reason at the romantictimesboard and I have enjoyed your posts there. Peace.

January 7th, 2008 @ 4:20 AM

Posted by Mrs G:


Veinglory is NOT saying M/M=pedophilia. God. She's saying that SOME PEOPLE believe that M/M is some kind of perversion. And she's using this example to illustrate how just because some people believe that this is a perversion DOES NOT mean that the very act itself is a perversion and should be banned/censored.

Your posts suggested that you don't get what veinglory is trying to say, you just took a few words in her post out of context and tried to take her to task for your own missing the point. You are both on the same side.

The recent Phaze nonsense started because of some people getting riled up because they completely missed the point but started making noise anyway, so excuse me if I don't want to see another similar drama happening in my blog so soon after the last circus.
January 7th, 2008 @ 7:56 AM

Posted by Michelle:

Oh good grief. I in my own post said later that I got the analogy that veinglory was trying to make and I said FICTIONWISE I didn't view a story dealing with pedophilia and a story dealing with homosexuality as on the same line or level of "deviant" behaviour. That CRITICS (not veinglory) have tried linking the two so that is why it bothered me. Teddy then writes about assuming writing the act leads to the act and I said THAT was a different issue than the original analogy. I then APOLOGIZED to veinglory and I still get my wrist slapped? I feel that I am arguing in circles-so I give up. By questioning the APTNESS of veinglory's analogy I wasn't attacking her or saying she had an ulterior motive. She writes M/M for goodness sake why would she attack her own livelihood.
January 7th, 2008 @ 8:29 AM

Posted by Mrs G:

Who is slapping your wrist? Me? How did I slap your wrist? You're still here posting, aren't you?

Oh never mind, there's no talking to you. Carry on, dear.
January 7th, 2008 @ 8:35 AM