Forum: Author Hangout

I envisaged a scene which indicated that sex was inevitable but no sexual contact occurred until, say, halfway through. There could be plenty of verbal and physical cues that wouldn't normally be described as sex yet set the mood and expectation.

Eek, have I just described a 'stroke' story that only a woman could write?

AJ

Should a story where the sexual content is limited to the verbal flirting of two peolple tagged "sex"?

If you are talking in general, then flirting could very well be considered foreplay, which is generally considered the initial steps that lead to intercourse. In general the terms sex and intercourse are synonymous.

However, if you are talking about the way sex is defined on SOL's website, then flirting is not sex. I'm not sure if sex is specifically defined on the website, but the sex codes are all oriented to intercourse being required for sex to have occurred. I also recall statements made saying that on the site sex means intercourse.

I did say 'in general'. When you get into the specifics, sex includes activities in addition to intercourse. However, that doesn't stop people from using the two terms interchangeably.

Intercourse refers specifically to vaginal penetration by a penis.

I've seen the expression 'anal intercourse' used but not 'oral intercourse'.

Personally, my inclination is to disagree with Bill Clinton, then read whatever he said and still disagree ;)

AJ

Intercourse refers specifically to vaginal penetration by a penis.

That's only true if you use the phrase sexual intercourse, because social intercourse is talking due to intercourse meaning interaction or something similar.

Sexual intercourse is implied when you are saying sex=intercourse.

maybe, but not everyone sees that as a direct implication unless you use the full term.

I'm not sure if sex is specifically defined on the website, but the sex codes are all oriented to intercourse being required for sex to have occurred.

Does that mean that stories about lesbians aren't allowed unless they employ toys? Boy, if it does, I'll start peddling my stories to a LOT more family friendly sites!

Ross has a point, you continually seek explicit definitions, even when it doesn't apply to the circumstance, and you continue to badger everyone else until we either consent or abandon the thread altogether. That's not 'seeking insight', that's bullying in order to force everyone to quit arguing their points.

You clearly understand the distinction we're making. If you don't agree with it, that's fine, but quit forcing the issue. We don't define sex as Intercourse only! If you do, then that's fine (you and Bill should get along great), but don't badger us simply because we don't believe in strict, exclusionary definitions.

You clearly understand the distinction we're making. If you don't agree with it, that's fine, but quit forcing the issue. We don't define sex as Intercourse only! If you do, then that's fine (you and Bill should get along great), but don't badger us simply because we don't believe in strict, exclusionary definitions.

You are out in left field CW. I have already fielded this accusation, but perhaps you haven't gotten to my reply. But since you left the post rather than delete it as inappropriate, I will reply.

The post you replied to was in response to Robberhand's post:

Should a story where the sexual content is limited to the verbal flirting of two peolple tagged "sex"?

My response was based on the definition of SEX that is inherent in the ability of an Author to select details codes for their story. Code a story as containing SEX and the full set of codes are available to you for selection. Code the story as "No Sex" and the codes related to sexual intercourse are no longer available. Thus flirting does not meet SOL's definition of SEX.

As to my belief of what constitutes SEX, your accusation is an extension of DS's post:

I take it therefore that you agree with Bill Clinton that oral sex is not sex

My response to his post was:

I did say 'in general'. When you get into the specifics, sex includes activities in addition to intercourse. However, that doesn't stop people from using the two terms interchangeably.

My response was based on the definition of SEX that is inherent in the ability of an Author to select details codes for their story. Code a story as containing SEX and the full set of codes are available to you for selection. Code the story as "No Sex" and the codes related to sexual intercourse are no longer available. Thus flirting does not meet SOL's definition of SEX.

There's a huge distinction between SOL's definition of sex and the legal definition of it. You can easily be charged with 'lewd sexual action' without ever having 'smashed your genitals together'. Although the general discussion was about story differentiations were about story codes, your assertion was generic (you likened it to Bill Clinton's defense, who never wrote anything on SOL).

Although the general discussion was about story differentiations were about story codes, your assertion was generic (you likened it to Bill Clinton's defense, who never wrote anything on SOL).

CW, you need to get your facts straight. Go back and read the series of posts that got you to this point. Do that and you will find:

1. I never mentioned Bill Clinton, that was DS.

2. Robberhands asked if a story should be tagged 'sex' when the only sexual content was flirting. My response to that question is what you are addressing, and I told him the term 'sex' is not specifically defined on the website to my knowledge. However, sexual intercourse appears to be required because tagging a story as 'No Sex' removes the detailed codes related to sexual intercourse so the Author can not select them when posting a 'No Sex' story.

Get your facts straight before you dump on others.

or as Robberhands said:

I wait with bated breath for the next time you pick one of my statements, rip it out of context and drown it in your wisdom.

You and CW are both wrong,

Sorry about that DS. I missed or forgot about Robberhands' comment.

My main point is CW totally missed the boat on my post. I also noticed in other threads that his reply to a post sometimes addresses something other than what the poster said. Have you noticed it?

Thanks. It's nice to know I wasn't misinterpreting what I read.

What matters is the intent of the flirtation itself. Is the intent of the flirtation itself sexual arousal/pleasure/gratification of either oneself, or the other party?

In this case, I'd say that what matters is whether the flirtation is for the sexual arousal of the reader.

AJ

As much as I thought Clinton's definition of sex was self-serving and artificially constricting, yours is indefinable extensive.

Sex is not limited to sexual penetration, nor is it limited to only that. You can have an active sex story where the couple never has penetration (say, for instance, is one partner has AIDS and the other is allergic to latex, or one has a stroke but both remember their intimacy fondly and want to continue it).

Many stories feature young people who aren't yet ready to go 'all the way', yet still have fun playing around together.

Thanks a lot for that insightful comment. This time you really opened my eyes to a brand new world of wonders. I wait with bated breath for the next time you pick one of my statements, rip it out of context and drown it in your wisdom.

It was also considerably late, after everyone else had already made the exact same point.

The SOL definitions imply 'much sex' and 'stroke story' are successive values on a quantity scale, but to me the difference is on the story focus.

Which is a mistake Lazeez made. The original "stroke" was a story with no plot. It might be a single scene. To me that makes more sense.

Which is a mistake Lazeez made. The original "stroke" was a story with no plot. It might be a single scene. To me that makes more sense.

Still, despite how much sex there is, there's a bid difference between "some sex" and "stroke". What's more, many stroke stories have a plot (typically a couple running through a continual parade of new partners), but there aren't many extended stories without any plot at all. They may not be fine literary examples, but let's not dismiss them entirely.

What's more, many stroke stories have a plot

The original definition of "stroke" was no plot (and maybe no character development, not sure of the latter).

When you don't have a plot (or much of a plot) and no character development, you don't have the no sex scenes. All you have is sex, sex, sex. That's stroke. The "stroker" doesn't want the breaks in the sex to interfere with his "progress."

Stroking the man in a boat - that's female masturbation ;)

AJ

When you don't have a plot (or much of a plot) and no character development, you don't have the no sex scenes. All you have is sex, sex, sex. That's stroke. The "stroker" doesn't want the breaks in the sex to interfere with his "progress."

I guess I always had a different perception, as I always preferred the 'slow build' as it led to more intense happy endings. Thus I'd look for sex stories with mild character development that would develop a scene jump into the sex, then just to the next situation, which would decrease the urge to 'blow my was', allowing me to continue building my 'enthusiasm' for hours (kind of a literary version of 'tantric sex'). 'D

I guess I was conflating "much sex" with "stroke".

Well, I can't shoot anyone sitting behind my screen. Caps and bold lettering don't feel satisfying to me either, so I stay polite.

Okay, you can shoot someone with a cap gun (can you still buy them?) but I've never heard of shooting someone with a bold-lettering gun :)

AJ

I'm a fervent admirer of DS's style of logical reasoning: it's served me very well in my chosen field. But, knowing that most of the posters here are arty types rather than practitioners of science, maths and logic, I try to tone it down.

FWIW, on this particular topic, I agree more with robberhands than DS. I think that what constitutes sex is a grey scale rather than an absolute, and often depends on context.

AJ

You forgot me

You can have my place in Ross's list.

I wrote technical manuals describing the operation and maintenance of computer-controlled electronic systems used for intelligence gathering applications and I developed and presented training courses that were used to train our military customers' representatives in how to operate and repair their new systems. I also managed the group that supported the contractual, mil-spec technical writing/training effort.

At the time of the DOT.com collapse, my company was broken up and my workload dropped to zero. Since I was the manager of the technical writing/training department they wanted to keep me. At the time, we were a 50-person satellite operation with no IT department. So they put me to work helping to support our computer network with the assistance of one of our system design engineers. While I gained a great deal of knowledge during my 3-month sojourn in the field of IT support, I do not consider myself as an IT worker. I barely knew what I was doing at the start and was certainly not a qualified IT worker at the end of the effort I supported.

those who work/worked in IT include me, CW, EB, DS, and REP.

And me. However, I remember how hard it was moving from technical to management because the "right" answer (to a technician) wasn't always the "right" answer for the company.

In management, you learn there isn't always a black and white answer. It often depends on other factors.

I'm a fan of the Socratic Method, questioning any and every assumption. A very unpopular technique here :(

AJ

I'd like to grow Hemlock in my poison garden but can't find a suitable source. Ironically, it's almost certainly growing wild quite near to me, only I'm not sure of the identification :(

Perhaps I should settle for Elderflower to piss off the French with home-made Elderflower Champagne. Perhaps we'll be allowed to call it by its proper name post-Brexit.

AJ

If you ever accidentally swallow some Hemlock, just read a few paragraphs of one of my stories.

(In joke - only Ross will understand this.)

AJ

But, knowing that most of the posters here are arty types rather than practitioners of science, maths and logic, I try to tone it down.

As a person who started life in the banking industry and ended up with a number of accounting related qualifications over the years, then moved through logistics and on into IT with 2 IT diplomas and several other IT certificates, I'm not sure I qualify as an arty type.

[Smiley face not used because I mean that literally.]

Translation: You're fuckin' screwing with me, and you know it!

I know this one - it's Latin for six! :)

AJ