/lit/ - Literature

>>5594651
>Aren't there laws about explicit pornographic stories with minors?
Probably somewhere but nowhere that matters.

>>5594651
op, are you trying to make 4chan read that book?

>>5594659
>closes amazon tab

>>5594651
It's shit.

>>5594651
>Why is this allowed? Aren't there laws about explicit pornographic stories with minors?

Please, go back to your fucking church in your little town of rednecks.

>>5594651
>15
>she is molested in her sleep
>Her cunny getting ravaged, her butt and mouth abused...She isn't even allowed to wear clothes.

>>5594651

I'm curious about this. Are there no laws regarding what you can publish? Can you literally write anything?

>>5594674
There are generally rules about slander but in most countries you can write pretty much anything.

In Canada we can't really write about history because history has facts that are anti-semitic; and anti-semiticism is a crime against humanity.

But apparently we can glorify and write erotic rape pedophilia...lol

>>5594651
A better question should be: why haven't I read this yet? Thanks for the tip, OP. I'm sure she got more than just the tip.

>>5594651

This falls under "Degenerate Art"...

>>5594674
>>5594682
There are laws prohibiting erotic literature involving minors in Canada. The difference between something like, say, Lolita and a graphic erotic fiction, pertains to the distinction between art and pornography.

The problem--and potential virtue--of these laws are that they are ambiguous. The question often left to be determined is, 'Is this literature artistic or pornographic in nature?' Keep in mind that a story containing pedophilic motifs does not denominate the piece as pornographic. The law is similar to the wording of the 4th Amendment of the US Constitution: "The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches..." (notice the suggestive term, 'unreasonable', which leaves its authority for interpretation.)

if you really think you can write anything, ask Ragnar Benson.

>>5594812
Also, straying from erotic literature, libel is nothing you want to fuck with in the US.

>>5594812

but OP's novel is obviously pornography. 80% of the story is just graphic sex with a paper thin plot and cheesy dialogue.

>>5594651
>Aren't there laws about explicit pornographic stories with minors?

>>5594674
>Are there no laws regarding what you can publish?

Depends where exactly you are. But in many jurisdictions, purely textual descriptions of fact (e. g., a person recounting their own experiences) or fiction, while possibly falling under legal definitions of "pornography", tend not to be illegal, usually on the basis that to make them so creates a victimless or thought crime. Consider the comparable cases of crime fiction: it is perfectly legal to depict, in detail in fiction, all sorts of acts that are in themselves illegal. And even the lobbies that like to claim that films, TV, or video games encourage violence, tend to steer clear of textual fiction.

Whether one can publish such material is often more a matter of tolerance and risk-averisty than of law. Many jurisdictions have exceptions to obscenity laws for works of scholarship or (some variation on) "genuine artistic merit" (which is obviously debatable, but which a defence will often be able to find expert opion to argue), and for established classics or historical works (like Sade or the ancient erotic novel Daphnis and Chloe), and even where prosecution may be possible, prosecution of purely textual material is often unpopular (as a restriction on freedom of thought and of speech, that cannot realistically be argued to involve identifiable harm to actual victims) and not seen as viable. Some jurisdictions have "public interest" and other criteria, or allow police and prosecutors degrees of discretion, which again may mean that technically prosecutable publications are seldom or never prosecuted. So too, texts without images are frequently exempt from pre-publication or pre-circulation censorship or rating systems. Some publishers will not want to carry texts they think may expose them to moral panics, and some retailers will refuse to carry them, which itself may deter publication (and there has recently been a fuss on this score over self-published erotic works on electronic retail platforms), but this is a different matter from legal prohibition.

>>5594931
>opion

opinion

>>5594651

>pedophilia and rape is morally fine

Damn it Anne rice...

>>5594651
>cunny

Nice fake outrage, m8y. Now back to /tv/.

>>5595090
>Nice fake outrage

This is like pointing out Colbert's character is just a character.

>>5594651

hahaha I'm reading this right now. I keep it in my bedside table and read a bit every night before having a nice little fap. If I'm going to be 100% honest, it's a little repetitive. Still hot tho.

Anyone know any other books similar?

>>5595148
le 47.5 hues, or thereabouts, between noir and blanche

>>5595148
is it the very first text porno which you read

>>5595148

ya I'm a guy and I can see the appeal of those "romance novels" for girls now. They are literally just pornos.

It's funny how women can read romance novels out in public just fine, but if a guy is reading a Porno Mag in public he's ostracized or seen as a weirdo...

>>5595184
that's not a romance novel -_-
it's a blatant pron which she wrote with a pen name in like 1983

>>5594813

As far as I can tell, neither Benson (nor his publisher Paladin Press) nor any book of his has been criminally prosecuted; certainly not in the US. I find references to one from 1988 on explosives being "pulled from distribution" due to legal changes, but copies remain available from various mainstream sellers (Amazon, Barnes and Noble, ABE). That being the case, this is hardly "censorship" as some seem to allege, and it looks most likely that, as indeed some discussion suggests, some of the information provided has been rendered obsolete by subsequent changes to the regulation of explosives and their components. A publisher might in that case well withdraw a book that now provided outdated information, especially if that information was advice about formerly legal activity that had since become illegal.

It could also be a question of the risk-aversity mentioned at >>5594931 as the same publisher has apparently twice faced civil suits, both settled, resulting from murders committed by individuals who bought, and allegedly used advice from, a book they published, but no longer do, called "Hit Man: A Technical Manual for Independent Contractors". Here again, the book, publisher, or author has never, that I can find, been criminally prosecuted, but it has been alleged that the publisher bears some liability because a crime was committed allegedly using some methods presented in one of their publications specifically in the form of advice or instructions.

That's a fairly significant point: in some jurisdictions, books providing information useful in the commission of crime, in the form of detailed advice, instructions, or plans, would not be protected speech, especially if presented in such a way as to fall under definitions of incitement or similar (such as the ambiguous and much-criticized English offence under Section 2 of the Terrorism Act 2006, of possessing materials "likely to be useful in the commission or preparation of [terrorist] acts", which is specified to cover "direct or indirect encouragement or other inducement" and materials that both are useful and are presented "wholly or mainly for the purpose of being so useful", but which the appeal judgment of 2008-06-17 in the case of Samina Malik, the so-called "lyrical terrorist", clarified as meaning information giving "practical assistance", and not purely ideological documents). This would not apply to a fictional or factual narrative of what a character or person did (which is why, for instance, Frederick Forsyth, his publishers, and the makers of a film based on The Day of the Jackal have never been prosecuted despite individuals' allegedly using the method therein depicted to obtain a false identity for criminal purposes), because such a narrative does not advise or encourage the reader to do it. The same would apply to OP's title.

>>5594651
>15 year old

>>5595078
>>pedophilia

>>5595193
>a pen name

A. N. Roquelaure, to be precise.

>>5594651
>15 year old

>>5595078
>>pedophilia

>>5595210

hell I consider 18 year olds to be "children" mentally...

>>5595222

You would, however, presumably, concede that there are generally significant differences among children of, say, five, ten, and fifteen, in terms of both physical and psychological maturity, and that those of fifteen are generally closer to legal adults than to young children? (Not to mention that 16 is a very common legal age of consent.)

>>5594651
FYI
Its hard to read a book when your manhood is throbbing and engorged with blood....

>>5595271
16 is fine. Consent for sex only in marriage of course.

>>5595303

Lol

>>5595316

Actually, some jurisdictions have had lower ages of consent in marriage (usually permitted by parental or judicial consent) until surprisingly recently. 12 was not rare.

>>5594651
Is this really a thing? I mean what the fuck did I just read? Do the crueltys you describe add to the story? Is this book supposed to be serious?
Honest questions, never heard of this book

>>5595402


I'm just half-way through it. So far Beauty has been naked throughout the story. She was raped while she was asleep at the start, her hymen torn. She was paraded naked around town so poor peasants could poke and prod her.

Now she's in the Princes' castle where all the nobles are sexual deviants who tie her up and fondle her. So ya, it's pretty fucked up but apparently people like this...Im guessing most readers are women.

I'm a guy and new to the "romance genre" it's terrifying.
Anne Rice’s New York Times best seller The Claiming of Sleeping Beauty

http://www.amazon.ca/The-Claiming-Sleeping-Beauty-Roquelaure/dp/0452281423

>Readers of Fifty Shades of Grey will indulge in Rice’s deft storytelling and imaginative eroticism, a sure-to-be classic for years to come

>>5595402

See http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Sleeping_Beauty_Trilogy

It's thirty years old, but has been quite heavily promoted recently following the commercial success of "Fifty Shades".

>>5595407
>I'm a guy and new to the "romance genre" it's terrifying.

It's usually classified as "erotica" / "erotic fiction"; not "Romance".

>>5595271
Jesus, you write like a faggot

>>5595418
>It's usually classified as "erotica" / "erotic fiction"; not "Romance".

that's just a marketing trick... it's the same shit.

>>5595407
>I'm a guy
Stop oppressing women and let them have their schlick material too. Fuck, what is it with women being sexually oppressed lately.

>>5595426

I don't see how this would be a woman's fantasy though. It's marketed to women but Beauty is just getting abused and abused by a very dominant man who totally controls her. Doesn't even let her speak...

>>5595428
>I don't see how this would be a woman's fantasy
The author is a woman. That's Anne Rice's pen name.
Also Beauty finds a lot of pleasure in it. When will you people learn that being desirable to the point of pleasurable assault (though never actual hurt) is the most common and gratifying sexual fantasy of women.

>>5595428

anne rice directly told it's her fantasy, why do you think everybody wants to dream of power

also it's funny, i imagine if somebody of those writers on literotica suddenly becomes popular and then publishes his/her porn stuff as a romance novel, it's basically what rice did

>>5595434
>being assaulted and degraded is the most common and gratifying sexual fantasy of women.

I don't get it, what is so great about being forced to walk on all fours, naked, kissing people's boots or being spanked for doing nothing wrong at all

>>5595443
Why did you deliberately misquote my post?
Also do you suffer from autism or what? What part of "she finds pleasure in it" do you not get?

>>5595455
You have to admit, it does sort of put the lie to the notion that women hate being objectified.

>>5595455
>What part of "she finds pleasure in it" do you not get?

Repeating it doesn't really explain it. It's not just her own peculiar fetish, this is what many women find arousing.

Being beaten (without being hurt too bad) and degraded publicly in the nude... A man wouldn't find this arousing at all loll...makes no sense to us

>>5595459
Everybody hates being objectified.. by ugly unattractive people.

>>5595459

good point. maybe that's why women like to stay in those "abusive" relationships...

>>5595461
>A man wouldn't find this arousing at all
You've never been around many gay men, have you.

>>5595463

no.
In this novel Beauty is objectified and poked and prodded by ugly townsfolk, poor peasants, old men...etc

so maybe that is an even bigger turn on, being objectified by dirty ppl

>>5595467

I'm talking about authentic men, not the ones dominated by femininity/homosex.

>>5595461
>A man wouldn't find this arousing at all loll...makes no sense to us
men like sensuality and intimacy...love making. Women like psychological tricks like being objectified, tied up, overpowered, dominated, whipped...it's weird

Guys just wanna make love, girls wanna put on a show.

Several people in this post need to browse Fetlife a bit before acting so surprised/confused about an incredibly common fetish. Heck, I have several friends of both genders in d/s relationships. I could post a post-beating pic of one friend's ass that would make you cringe, but she loved it and shared the pic proudly.

>>5595422

Not really. Works classified as "romance" tend usually to be less explicit than those classified as "erotic". Some of the major publishers, like Mills & Boon, actually use different imprints or series to indicate to readers not just the kind of setting and plot, but also the degree and type of sexual content.

>>5595428
>I don't see how this would be a woman's fantasy though. It's marketed to women

I don't know about recent editions, but the series was originally marketed as for both sexes. But submissive and even rape fantasies are documented to be common among women. And so are dominant male stereotypes: it's been observed that, although some of the tropes of romantic and erotic fiction (again, like that from Mills & Boon) have reflected social changes, the type of the hero has pretty much not changed. Even some of the authors of these works have described the heroes they write as seriously objectionable, but, they sell.

And look up The Story of O - a book many believed could never have been written by a woman, until it turned out absoutely certainly to have been written by ... a woman.

>>5595434

This.

>>5595477
Pics

>>5595469
Generally though the dominanting man is exceedingly attractive and belongs to the upper social classes and/or has other good qualities to him, like in 50 shades of grey.

>>5595479
>But submissive and even rape fantasies are documented to be common among women
>women have rape fantasies

Are you having a laugh or something m8?

>>5595487
They do?
Have you seen the books women like to read?

>>5595477
>I could post a post-beating pic of one friend's ass that would make you cringe
>I could post

then why dontcha?

>>5595459
>>5595466

Not really. The key thing about submissive / rape fantasies, regardless of sex, and whether or not translated into role play, is that they are shaped and controlled by, and for the satisfaction of, the person having them. (It's even possible that, for some, they work by giving the pleasure the imaginer desires, while abdicating responsibility through the element of imagined force.)

>>5595487
>>5595494
Not rape that damages, rape that's pleasurable. Yes, that's the most common fantasy for women everywhere.

>>5595494
>Have you seen the books women like to read?

You mean books that are products of the patriarchy where women are brainwashed to have weird tastes by society and power-structures?

>>5595500
>Not rape that damages, rape that's pleasurable

wtf is this?? rape is mentally traumatic by definition...

>>5595501
Ahhhh I was missing the feminist bullshit of the day. Damn, if women are that mentally weak why are we letting them vote again? The future of the nation is too much responsibility for such mentally unstable creatures.

>>5595507
Then don't call them rape fantasies. Also! The feminist diktat says rape is any unwanted sexual contact, so it can be nice and pleasurable too.

>>5595512

back to >>>/pol/

>>5595518
What? I just paraphrased what you said.
Also nice job pissing women off by wanting to take away what gets them hot.

>>5595496
>>5595480
I thought this was a non-nude/SFW board. Here's a milder one that should pass.

>>5595523

>>5595523
disgusting on multiple levels

>>5595523

well some people like to cut themselves...mental probelms.

>>5595487

It's well documented in studies going back several decades, some of which find these among the most common reported fantasies of female respondents, and information about this is pretty easy to find. The point is that fantasy is, well, fantasy: the fantasist remains in control in reality (though not in fantasy); and women who report rape / coercion fantasies tend to fantasize about desirable figures doing things they find pleasurable (though, as with pretty much anything sexual / fetishistic, this is not invariable).

>>5595496

Worksafe board?

>>5595536
>It's well documented in studies

Cite me these "studies"
I'm calling Bullshit.

And this is a severe one. Lots of orgasms, apparently.

>>5595543
welp that's it

no more 4chan for me

>>5595540
https://pdf.k0nsl.org/krystallnacht.com/Science/Women%23U2019s%20Erotic%20Rape%20Fantasies%3B%20An%20Evaluation%20of%20Theory%20and%20Research%20Joseph%20W.%20Critelli%20And%20Jenny%20M.%20Bivona.pdf

>>5595507

Thing is, people having fantasies can call what's going on in those fantasies whatever they choose. Of course, whether in fiction, role play, or personal imagination, it's not the same as the real-world crime of rape - the fantasist controls setting, characters, acts, degree and kind of force or violence, and so on. But the person imagines it, and gets pleasure from imagining it, as forced in some way.

>>5595552
NO ANON WOMEN ARE TOO DUMB FOR THAT

>>5595549
>Rape fantasy

you can't fantasize about rape, since the fantasizer is implicitly consenting to the rape of their "imagined self"...

>>5595562
That's what too much philosophy does to your common sense.

>>5595562
Nigger it's the feminists that bitched to have that terminology because they hate women.

>>5595562

le epic logic

>>5595540

http://link.springer.com/article/10.1023%2FA%3A1018740210472

And see http://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/all-about-sex/201001/womens-rape-fantasies-how-common-what-do-they-mean which notes that "From 1973 through 2008, nine surveys of women's rape fantasies have been published. They show that about four in 10 women admit having them (31 to 57 percent) with a median frequency of about once a month. Actual prevalence of rape fantasies is probably higher because women may not feel comfortable admitting them."

>>5595540

Do you even internet?

>>5595562

That's like saying you can't write fantasy fiction, because magic and dragons aren't real.

>>5595588

No it would be like fantasizing about unimaginable dragons and unimaginable magic. You can try, but you won't succeed.

>>5595597
Then take it up with feminists who demanded everything they don't like be called rape.

>>5595597

And yet, many, many people can and do imagine it, and find it erotic. Kind of like how actors and writers can imagine themselves into characters, or treat as real worlds they themselves have created, even though, rationally, they know they're not. The human imagination is a pretty powerful thing.

>>5595569
>>5595604

Somebody's a bit confused. First off, feminism's not a unitary ideology; second, the people who see erotic fantasy, literary or visual, as "training for rape" or such are as likely to be self-identified conservatives and Christians who also attack feminists, as they are to be feminists themselves.

>>5594651
I didn't like it. To much spanking and beating I don't really like stuff like that .

>>5594651
because it's art duh
u just dont understand it
A Y Y
Y
Y

>>5594710
hi /pol/
A Y Y
Y
Y

>>5595428


what makes you think women dont like being dominated? sounds like youve drunk the modernist koolaid a bit too much anon.

>>5595613

You can imagine all sorts of things. But you can't imagine contradictions imo.

Like a squared circle, or imagine an object with no one looking at it.
Or consenting to a non-consensual act.

>>5595628
>what makes you think women dont like being dominated?

being dominated is embarrassing and dishonorable.

Domination is arousing. Exerting your will and controlling the other is sexy...It's simple.

>>5595636


>being dominated is embarrassing and dishonorable.

thats just your male subjectivity speaking.

now get out there and start oppressing.

>>5595642

>now get out there and start oppressing.

I want to read Lolita but I'm afraid of being judged. What do I do

>>5595657
No one will judge you; it's considered one of the major modernist works.

If you read it just because it seems sensational, however, you deserve to be judged.

>>5595657

Americans don't know what the word "lolita" means. Europeans will recognize it as a good work of literature.

So you're safe.

>>5595562
>>5595630

But it's not a logical contradiction. The fantasist imagines a character, either themself or another, being forced / coerced / seduced, and if it's an erotic fantasy (which the clear majority are, according to the studies), they imagine that happening in a way that causes them pleasure. Are you trying to argue that a person cannot logically imagine anything happening to them against their will? Cause that's a stretch.

>>5595691
>a person cannot logically imagine anything happening to them against their will?

You can't imagine a non-consensual situation while implicitly and continuously consenting to it.

It's a contradiction.

>>5595636
Not if you're a woman and you're getting pleasure out of it because you're wanted so much. Women like being wanted. Stop thinking like a man and try thinking like a woman already.

>>5595693
The studies call out on this too and note the eventual submission and melting into pleasure and happy, fulfilling ending these fantasies have, but when you point this out tumblr and alike tend to scream RAAAAAAAAAPE CUUUUUUUUULTUUUUUUURE.

>>5595630

To continue, >>5595691 your argument would also seem to exclude, for instance, anyone imagining an experience of being mistreated, betrayed, cheated, robbed, attacked, etc. - in every case, on your account, they couldn't imagine it, because they'd be doing the thing to themselves, in their own mind. This would mean that, for instance, an author could only write about these things, or an actor convincincingly depict them, if they had personal experience of such things. And they couldn't gain this experience by role play, or even by hiring people to do it to them, because then they'd be consenting too. They would have to really undergo those experiences. Which would make both classes of people among the most unfortunate and put-upon on the planet.

>>5595520
It's not a paraphrase, it's a rather dubious extrapolation. You're implying that if women could be culturally conditioned, that they, as a gender, are mentally weak. Whereas within the model of patriarchy theory that the guy you're responding to was using, women and men are both susceptible to cultural conditioning and brainwashing. Which would be the default reading to anyone who wasn't determined to make women out to be inferior somehow.

>>5595526
>>5595530
holy shit am I really on 4chan?

>>5595703

I accept the fact that you can have "rape fantasies" but I also think there is some self-trickery involved that's kind of neat.

Probably the rapist is also some handsome Alpha type who is very easy to 'not-consent-to'

I doubt they fantasize about beta fat, ugly, hairy, diseased neckbeards raping them with tiny penises---that would be much hard to "not consent to"...

>>5595709
Why would you make women inferior by having fantasies of being loved and desired, and getting pleasure in the way they prefer? There is nothing inherently inferior about that.

Also it is implying that they as gender are mentally weak because the patriarchy model theory is often backed up by women in actually abusive relationships as the result of said fantasies, even though 1) correlation is not causation, 2) people is such relationships may have never even entertained this fantasy or read a derivative product and still find themselves in such a predicament as a result of their own actions 3) far more people and the writers themselves have these fantasies and are not in abusive relationships - if any at all - and 4) they are implying women are not capable of distinguishing reality from fiction, which is a subhuman trait and a sign of being mentally weak.

>>5595693

So you keep saying. But your assertion would only work if it were the fantasy itself that were being forced on the fantasist. Quite apart from sexual fantasy, people can and do imagine things happening to them that they do not want to happen. In some cases, they do this to imagine their responses; in some, perhaps, it's a way to dealing with or exploring a taboo or fear; and in some cases, it's erotic.

>>5595703

Well, yes. That's why it's erotic fantasy: whatever the imagined scenario, it is ultimately chosen by and pleasurable to the fantasist.

But the studies note that there is an apparent contradiction in finding fantasies of being forced pleasurable; they don't deny it's possible, or that it happens.

>>5595720
>handsome Alpha type
Jeez, you don't say? Why the fuck would any self-respecting woman submit to some random nobody? I want only the best for myself.

>>5595727
...when did I judge anyone for the fantasies they preferred? I just called out a /pol/ shill's fallacies and obvious doubletalk. I'm fine with people having noncon fetishes. The fact that women seem to have them more often, though, is more likely to be cultural than "muh biological inferiority". Considering the guy earlier in the thread who called being dominated "dishonorable", it's even plausible that men are less willing to admit the same type type of fantasies under patriarchy and that skews the statistic.

Nobody's even brought up domestic abuse so I don't know what your second paragraph is supposed to have to do with anything.

>>5595732
>there is an apparent contradiction in finding fantasies of being forced pleasurable

There is no contradiction when you look at the reason why X is being forced. X is being forced because they're just too damn irresistible men can't help themselves and since they desire X so much, they don't really want to hurt them. That's an extremely flattering and positive fantasy to have.

>>5595742


>is more likely to be cultural than "muh biological inferiority"

considering its what you might call in the biz a 'cross cultural phenomena', signs point to no.

>>5595742
>is more likely to be cultural
It's too universal to be cultural. It's psychological, sorry.

>>5595749
Patriarchy is cross cultural. Get me some stats from tiny matrilineal jungle tribes or something and try again.

>>5595752
>it's too universal to be cultural
Proof?
The study cited ITT surveyed 137 (!) COLLEGE women. It already only applies to places that have colleges (and moreover, the specific cultural atmosphere of those colleges). Given the sample size, I'd be willing to bet they're all English speaking, if not all in the same country.

>>5595762
>stats from nigger tribes that can't even write
No thanks I don't want no Ebola-chan

>>5595501
>whenever women do something wrong is because they were brainwahed by the patriarchy

Wow, your worldview truly does not permit women to be anything but innocent, blameless victims, free of original sin.

>>5595762


>Patriarchy is cross cultural.

correct, that implies a level of inevitability to the dynamic reaching across contexts (other synonyms include essential, transcendent, or fundamental).

>>5595771

>>>/pol/
I'm really tired of the right-wing echo chamber here...

>>5595732
>>5595737

>>5595746

Yes; quite possibly (although the idea that the fantasy of being forced satisfies sexual impulses, while removing responsibility, is also not impossible). In any event, the contradiction is only apparent because it seems counterintuitive that anybody could imagine being "raped" as a turn-on. When you look at the content of the fantasy, the apparent contradiction disappears, as I've been saying.

>>5595752
>It's too universal to be cultural.

(1) The studies I've seen are nowhere near widespread enough to say it's "universal".

(2) Even if something is extremely widespread in human cultures, that doesn't mean it's not cultural - it would just mean that either it's a response to something that's common to the cultures in which it occurs, or it's a response to different things but one or more of those things occurs in each of the societies where it's found.

>>5595657
I read that at 16 in secondary school for my English dissertation and I'm a britbong.

I'm pretty sure this is not classified as Pornography. It's crap literature, but literature nevertheless.

>>5595798
>I'm really tired of the right-wing echo chamber here...

Then it's time for a nap, my sweet sensitive mouse ...

>>5595873
The phenomenon is.

>a response to something that's common to the cultures in which it occurs
That's the fucking definition of universal

>>5595953
>The phenomenon is.
>>a response to something that's common to the cultures in which it occurs
>That's the fucking definition of universal

I didn't say it wasn't. My point at >>5595873 was, precisely, that "universal" (or "extremely widespread") does not necessarily mean "not cultural".

>>5595908

Pornography and literature are not mutually exclusive categories.

>>5596019
The fact that it goes beyond cultures is the proof that it's far more than cultural, idiot.

>>5595762
Femanon here telling you to fuck off.
I am WAY into this fantasy, and have even experienced real rape. (no shitheads, it was traumatic and did not fulfil any fantasy. A tiny part of me was surprised that the reality was in no way arousing. Probably because I was terrified, and the intent was clearly to actually hurt me)
People are kinky, lady, deal with it.

>>5596036

Feeling a need to insult is usually a sign of an absence of argument.

And, no. As I said, if a phenomen is found cross-culturally, it could be that the phenomenon is not a product of culture, but it could also be that (a) each of those cultures shares something that gives rise to the phenomenon, or (b) each of those cultures has different features to which the phenomenon is a possible response.

>>5595873 was a response to the claim at >>5595752 that evidence for something being "universal" (which in any event in lacking in the present case) means it must be "psychological". Apart from the implied, mistaken assumption that psychology is independent of culture, this is a non sequitur.

>>5596072
You just won't let women schlick in peace, will you.

>>5596087
>You just won't let women schlick in peace, will you.
Of course not, women masturbating is evil patriarchy.

(The self-contradictory SJW madness will start to make sense once you realize that it's only another redaction of the same old gnostic sect religions that have been around for two thousand years or so.)

>>5596087

I think you're confusing me with somebody who thinks women - or people - enjoying sexual fantasies of any kind is a problem. It isn't. But that doesn't mean it isn't interesting to study such phenomena, and wonder what are the factors that prompt specific (kinds of) fantasies. My own, as much as anybody else's.

>>5596174
You have already been told but you refuse to accept it and try to blame it on external causes. Newsflash, women don't fap to shit they don't like.

>>5596188
>You have already been told but you refuse to accept it and try to blame it on external causes. Newsflash, women don't fap to shit they don't like.

Excuse me? Again, I think you are confusing me (who wrote >>5596072) with some other poster(s) in this thread. I have nowhere, either implicitly or explicitly, used the language of "blame", which would imply a negative moral judgment, that I do not make. I have pointed to logical problems with certain claims of causality made by other posters; I have nowhere made a claim of causality myself.

Perhaps you are offended by the suggestion that "psychology" may be influenced by culture. You should not be.

>>5596221
Nigger I've seen enough tumblrinas to fall for that.

>>5596230
You're mistaking humans for scarecrows.

>>5596240
No, I know better than to engage tumblr.

>>5596188
>Newsflash, women don't fap to shit they don't like.

I (>>5596072 and >>5596221) have assumed that throughout this thread (e. g., at >>5595479 and >>5595499 and >>5595536 and >>5595552 and >>5595613 and >>5595691 and >>5595708 and >>5595732 and >>5595844). But the evidence is that some women really, really like this kind of fantasy, and some do not, and there are points in between those extremes. As with just about any fantasy and subset of humanity. That prompts the curious to wonder why, for this as for any other. Now, it could be entirely personal and random, of coure, and so not amenable to deeper enquiry; but then again, maybe it isn't. And if it isn't, "psychology" or "culture" (or any other generalized term) is not a satsifactory account. Again, wondering about it doesn't imply a negative, or indeed a moral, judgment of any kind; it can be a purely descriptive enquiry.

>>5596287


replace some with most and youre less wrong.

>>5596295

We don't have enough evidence to say "most" with confidence; we do have the evidence of varying proportions of female respondents to a series of studies over a few decades (and we also know that social sciences self-reporting studies often have problems of selection). So the cautious "some" is appropriate. It could be "most", but we just don't know.

>>5596319


on the contrary, we've known for milennia.

ps self reporting a shit.

>>5596287
>>5596319
I've seen enough tumblr bitching that "X needs to be changed" to fall for that. i like what I like and I don't give a fuck what you think.

>>5595623
>Everyone I disagree with is the same person!
>This also means that my enemies are way more numerous and organized than they seem, which gives me something to fight against, and thereby, a reason to not off myself!

>>5596355

Can you show me where I suggested that anything "needs to be changed"? Can you show me where I queried the legitimacy of anybody's fantasies or consensual sexual behaviour (and, just to be clear, role playing a non-consensual fantasy, or other fantasy-inspired behaviour, falls within that)?

Personally, I don't really think causality is that important, although it's interesting in the way any enquiry into human behaviour is. Evidence of people's actual fantasies is more important, in part because it tends to undermine facile assumptions (such as the curiously persistent myth that a woman, or a person who is not in some way defective or damaged by abuse, cannot possibly enjoy or create power-based erotic fantasy).

>>5596070

Did you enjoy it?

Was he good looking?

Were anonymous here you can tell the truth.

I have a personal theory that part of what makes rape so traumatic for women so traumatic is that they actually enjoy it on some level and this causes them a lot of gilt.

>>5596499
>I have a personal theory that part of what makes rape so traumatic for women so traumatic is that they actually enjoy it on some level and this causes them a lot of gilt.

Did you, by any chance, come up with that after watching too many Vietnamese cartoons?

>>5595475
Men just like objectifying while women like being objectified. It's an old thing. Not really healthy, but damn is it common.

>>5596406
I just wanted to post to thank you for keeping the discussion at a level of polite and rational debate, without caving in to the temptation of writing anon off as idiots, and despite the stupidity of contrarians that didn't even realize they weren't disagreeing with you.

>>5596499
Usually fantasies don't work the same in real life, even tame things like dirty talk or oral sex. Imagine if someone was actually trying to hurt you in a non sexual way during the act, do you think people would actually enjoy it?

>>5596499
>>5596028
The reality was that my attacker actually wanted me to feel pain, not to get off.
My fantasy is more like pain to induce pleasure.
I think that if one is experiencing a genuine ight or flight instinct it is not possible to be aroused. I could be wrong,but that is certainly my experience.

>>5594651
>banning books
fuck off, australia

>>5595540
Are you trolling? It's very well known that a shitton of women have rape fantasies.

To be precise, they fantasize about being manhandled and fucked very roughly, but not really raped, since they wouldn't be subjected to anything they wouldn't find pleasurable. They just want to be stuffed hard and good.

>>5596499
>I have a personal theory that part of what makes rape so traumatic for women so traumatic is that they actually enjoy it on some level and this causes them a lot of gilt.

We know (because some have said so) that some people who experience sexual assaults do experience some physical arousal, and that this can make reporting and recovery complicated, but it's certainly not generalizable to all, as >>5596847 tesifies.

>>5596847
>I think that if one is experiencing a genuine ight or flight instinct it is not possible to be aroused.

This.

>>5596733
>Imagine if someone was actually trying to hurt you in a non sexual way during the act, do you think people would actually enjoy it?

And this. Except that I don't think one would even necessarily need the reality or explicit threat of non-sexual violence to make arousal unlikely. Forcing somebody to do or endure intimate things they do not want is probably quite enough of a threat (and when faced with somebody doing that to you, how would or could you know what else they might be capable of?).

And that's the key difference between between real-world rape and rape fantasies (and role play): in the former, the person experiencing it doesn't control the situation; in the latter, whatever the content of the fantasy scenario, the fantasist is in control of it.

>>5595797
no it doesn't, you idiot. it means it was transmitted by cultures across cultures. capitalism is cross-cultural too, but it's not innate, it's only existed for a few hundred years. cultures are not discrete units and memes are not images with text in Impact font.

>>5596070
Did you read my damn post?

I am not judging anybody for their fantasies. I'm glad you enjoyed yours. I'm trying to convince these /pol/ idiots that the fact that you did doesn't mean all women everywhere want to be submissive.

>>5596287
This is entirely true. "Culture" only comes in when it comes to the question of why it is (or appears to be) more prevalent among women than men, or more widespread among women that one might for other reasons expect.

>>5596230
>>5596244
>>5596355
have fun engaging with strawmen instead of people's actual arguments then. as this guy said:
>>5596375

This entire thread seems to be unaware of the enormous feminist BDSM movement.

>>5595797
no it doesn't. it means it was transmitted by cultures across cultures. capitalism is cross-cultural too, but it's not innate, it's only existed for a few hundred years. cultures are not discrete units and memes are not images with text in Impact font.

>>5596070
Did you read my damn post?

I am not judging anybody for their fantasies. I'm glad you enjoyed yours. I'm trying to convince these /pol/ idiots that the fact that you did doesn't mean all women everywhere want to be submissive.

>>5596287
This is entirely true. "Culture" only comes in when it comes to the question of why it is (or appears to be) more prevalent among women than men, or more widespread among women that one might for other reasons expect.

>>5596230
>>5596244
>>5596355
have fun engaging with strawmen instead of people's actual arguments then. as this guy said:
>>5596375

This entire thread seems to be unaware of the enormous feminist BDSM movement.

>>5595184
It's all about the meanings we attribute to men and women's sexualities. Men are active, aggressive pursuers; their sexuality is dangerous and needs to be contained. Women are passive, submissive, and something which men are supposed to acquire; they function as the gatekeepers of sex and thus their sexualities aren't dangerous, but regulatory.

>>5594651
For whatever reason, when women write about these things it's not taken as lascivious, which seems pretty paternalistic. Every authoress is good little girl who'd never tap into the seamier side of anything.

Some women do tap into that (or at least try to) and come off as tryhards, though, like Kathy Acker and Amelia Grey.

>>5595471
Where do you derive this normativity from?

>>5598794

If a man wrote this story he would get roasted publicly.

>>5599202

enlightened rationality.

>>5599352

actually he would be deemed to be gay
have you read it? half of the book is about gay sex, the author probably associate herself with both beauty and prince alexi

also there is a lot of male authors of erotica stuff and it's not some happy sex erotica too

>>5599366

i just started the prince alexi part....but now that you said its gay i might not read it

There is one gigantic plot hole in this book. She's meant to be 15 years old but at the beginning of the book she is awakened from her hundred-year sleep. Does that mean she's actually 100 years old?

>>5594651
Thankfully we're past the age of censorship for those laws to be tolerable.

>>5599402
time spent sleeping doesn't count towards age

... have you seriously been walking around thinking you're 14 when you're actually more like 11 and a half?
lmao....

>>5599448
11/points

>>5595170

yes kit kat come to think about it it is

certain scenes of novels have always "done it for me" but I've never really read a whole book devoted to it.

>>5599448
I'm 23 if I slept for 100 years I'd be 123

>>5599489
If you miss out on 100 years of growth and decay, as well as 100 years of life experience then your mental age and emotional will stop at 23. It's not a plot hole that a fantasy character doesn't age, it's a plot device to make the porn all the more appealing.

>>5599507
Still doesn't make sense. If you fall asleep as a 15 year old then you don't wake up 100 years later as a 15 year old. Major flaw.

>>5599768
in wells' 'when the sleeper wakes', a man slept for 200 years and he definitely wasn't called 200 y.o. man

btw, that's a pretty book, senegalese black police which suppresses the rebellion in european cities singing kipling's poems :3

>>5595428
>just getting abused and abused by a very dominant man who totally controls her. Doesn't even let her speak..
I'm not from /lit/ but that's pretty much every gf I've ever had. I really don't know why this is so surprising to you mate.

Is this board just full of wankers and tumblr feminists who like to rave against rape online but touch themselves to it at night? Get your shit together people, you're living in an imaginary world, rape is awesome.

>this thread

>>5599898
>Implying a christfag book burner didn't start this thread