Forum: Author Hangout

She's not saying it didn't happen and she does have trauma. But as you said different people manifest differently.

here's an excerpt from an early section.


he next week she was off school and I took some emergency leave. Gab wouldn't leave my side, she slept in bed with me every night, she would wake up in the morning crying begging me to wash her clean. I couldn't refuse her, the shower was not convenient but the spa bath in my bathroom was as good as it could get. I just poured her from the loose t-shirt she wore to bed into the warm swirling waters, her naked form briefly visible as she was soon covered in the foam of the hot tub. She didn't want to be left alone and I would sit there and wash her back for her but go no further she had already been violated, but sometimes she would ask to be held, and she pressed her firm breast into my hand, as I held her from behind, the same way I held her in bed. I was initially surprised at her lack of worry about being naked with a man, she had just been raped but this was soon brought out in the few therapy sessions she did go to. I needed to be a safe male, an anchor for her to feel safe with whilst she was still so very vulnerable.

The hospital sent her to a rape crisis counsellor but they had a hard time working with her. She had no memory of the event from the drugs found in her system combined with the amazing and almost total lack of physical trauma Gab didn't want to talk about much other than how humiliated she felt found naked and covered in cum and other bodily fluids. It seemed the care was making her feel worse rather than better, at least the news had been mostly censored, by a court order.


what I am trying to do is show that despite the traumatic event she draws even closer to her father. He is her rock and knows that bringing it up unduly will cause more grief.

Perhaps she is walking a tightrope between open and direct discussion and more 'typical' responses. It is a very serious issue and I'm trying to find a novel mechanic to minimise her trauma but still give the event the acknowledgement it needs.

I typed what I have quite a while ago and seem to of lost the flow I had. but I need something I can write (very) slowly while I wait to hear back on another project. that's the 'serious' story I'm well into the weeds of, over 80K of around 100-120K words. it will actually be much longer but I need to get editing this slab of text before it turns into a monolith that cannot be managed when the ideas I have are slowly introduced.

I'm going to spend the next week carefully poking at this one, mainly to exercise the old noodle so that it's back in shape for the big job coming up. But that doesn't mean that this story is not going to receive a serious attempt at writing only that it's being used, temporarily at least as a training exercise that won't need significant redress when I do come back to it at some future point.

Again, thanks in advance for input.

F.

@Paladin_HGWT

An Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, said, "I cannot define the difference between porn and art, but I know it when I see it."

It's part of the job of the legal profession to define the law so that people can't be taken by surprise. He's admitting he's not fit for his job.

The quote, which Paladin_HGWT gets wrong*, is from a case the US Supreme Court decided in 1964. The justice who said it is no longer on the court.

*The actual quote is: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

And the shorthand description he was referring to was obscenity, not porn.

https://www.mtsu.edu/first-amendment/article/1359/potter-stewart

@Paladin_HGWT

An Associate Justice of the US Supreme Court, said, "I cannot define the difference between porn and art, but I know it when I see it."

It's part of the job of the legal profession to define the law so that people can't be taken by surprise. He's admitting he's not fit for his job.

The quote, which Paladin_HGWT gets wrong*, is from a case the US Supreme Court decided in 1964. The justice who said it is no longer on the court.

*The actual quote is: "I shall not today attempt further to define the kinds of material I understand to be embraced within that shorthand description, and perhaps I could never succeed in intelligibly doing so. But I know it when I see it, and the motion picture involved in this case is not that."

And the shorthand description he was referring to was obscenity, not porn.

But awnlee jawking is right. It is the job of the legal profession, in this case broadly understood to include the politicians who draft the laws and administrative agencies who operate under delegated authority within the executive branch under laws passed by the legislature -- in other words, the government -- to make and administer laws in ways that are comprehensible to the average person with reasonable attention and effort.

Unfortunately, that is often not the case. Obscenity is one such area as it is an exception to the general prohibition on government regulation of speech established by the First Amendment. But defining the limits of obscenity has been and remains an incredibly difficult problem.

Of course, the difficulties modern governments have in defining prohibited conduct in ways that are clear to the average citizen extend far beyond free speech. For example, ordinary folks might be excused in thinking that bumble bees are not fish, but great legal minds understand that no such artificial lines can be allowed to exist if, in doing so, they also limit the power of the state. https://toputitbluntly.com/2022/09/30/the-california-court-decision-defining-bumble-bees-as-fish-is-a-loss-for-the-california-courts/

I'll get back to you guys after a reasonable amount of 'research' read stealing ideas and twisting them my own unique (hopefully) way.