Self-censorship or just editing?

Well, I'm still using the word if it's part of an 'unscrupulous' character I've created. After all, that's what's happening during a 'rape' right? As I've said, I like my stories to have a ring of reality in the dialogue especially. The spanking that happens in some of my stories is usually pretty much fictitious in a sense that they would never happen in real life. They're written to excite (I hope) and give readers an erotic feeling inside. Over the knee, caning, in-laws, brothers and sister, aunts and uncles. All of them are there in our stories. Some of them use the big F.

For obvious biological reasons, male on female rape is a shade worse.


I have no problems with the word, it's the act that's the problem.

I'm also not saying that rape in fiction is a "bright red line" for me. It might be perfectly appropriate in some stories. After all, rape is part of human existence. But if your goal is to amuse me or arouse me, rape isn't a good option.

I just realized, in answer to SNM's question above, that I do have an F/M rape scene. It was written so long ago I forgot but in a middle chapter of "Fox and Hounds" a female "fox" who is being pursued by one of the hunters, traps the guy, ties him up and, well, has her way with him. Somehow I didn't really view this as rape, but that's what it was. Double standard I guess. I wrote that passage for F/M fans. She uses a switch on him before she arouses then jumps him. I don't think I'd write that today---wait a minute, how about the scene with Queen Adrena and Flash in "Menace from Mongo"? Come to think of it.....

Yes, I do think about the stuff I share here and whether readers will respond positively or otherwise. Some of my stories do have sexy bits, or even gross bits. I'm not planning on sharing some of my M/M stories here as I'm not sure they really fit here in the library - or should I publish and be damned?

Absolutely!

I would be keen to see your MM stories, cayenne!l
Going back to island carol's point about rape: for me this partly raises the question about how far non-consensual spanking (in a story! In real life it's simply assault) "stands for" or symbolises sexual assault. Clearly some of the actions are the same. But there are too many other things, particularly emotions, involved for that to be true. But as someome who writes a lot of non-consensual stuff, it concerns me a bit. I've recently posted a story where characters are threatened with ravishment a lot. It doesn't happen, and I would never allow it, but as an erotic threat it seems to work. So maybe the thought of being 'taken' by your master works as a fantasy for some people. I think this may be one of the few times where it matters whether it's a man's story or a woman's.

Would you care to explain why this is so?

I'm not sure I can, SNM! I should have said it was what I personally wonder. I take it it's not an issue that we all hate rape; it's whether it's OK to include rape as a pleasurable fantasy element in stories. I agree with guy. For me I can only say it makes a big difference whether it's part of a woman's fantasy about being overwhelmed (let's say) or a man's fantasy about 'taking' a woman. Of course, if it's part of a man's fantasy about being a woman being overwhelmed, or a woman's fantasy about being a man taking a woman, that gets a bit more complicated!
I have to remind myself that this is a thread about self-censorship, not censorship. What tangles it up for me is that some spanking fantasies (a minoity, but a lot of mine are among them) as non-consensual spanking stories, are kind of in the next room but one to non-consensual sex. People may disagree. But I've not only commented on other stories that they give me a guilty pleasure, but I've had those comments on my stories too. What is this guilt? That's what I wonder.

Self-censoring is just as bad as official, maybe even worse. Charles Dickens wrote in a preface to one of the editions of Oliver Twist, that he felt is safe to describe ruffians as long as their language did not offend. I cannot help wishing that he had written what Sikes really said, now we can only guess.

If he had, then no publisher would have touched it.

Similarly, Nancy, although good at heart, could not be allowed to get away and live happily ever after. She was a 'fallen woman' and Victorian morality would not have allowed her a happy ending.