Suppose there's a story with guys and gals both getting it on with both guys and gals. IOW, everybody is bì.
Is it better to code this just "Bisexual" or "Heterosexual, Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian" or "Heterosexual, Gay, Lesbian"?
Suppose there's a story with guys and gals both getting it on with both guys and gals. IOW, everybody is bì.
Is it better to code this just "Bisexual" or "Heterosexual, Bisexual, Gay, Lesbian" or "Heterosexual, Gay, Lesbian"?
I would guess "bisexual" with the gender codes going into more specifics, such as: Ma/Fa, Fa/Fa, Ma/Ma.
Really it depends... I think if there are monosexual characters, code them. If there are bisexuals, include them. Since you claim everyone is bi, then just "Bisexual, MM, MF, FF" (this is important. If only female characters are bi, that's going to be acceptable content to a much different audience than the one you're appealing to.)
If the characters are not actually Gay or Lesbian then I would not include it. As the two above have suggested, listing it as Bisexual and listing your specific codes would be best.
Agree with the others; if they're all bisexual, code 'bisexual' and all gender combinations that appear on-page. If it's only stated/implied/whatever that other combinations occur, don't code them.
If some are gay or lesbian, that's fine to code, though I personally wouldn't feel it was nearly as critical, since you've made it clear that same-sex pairings occur. To me, the important thing is to give the reader sufficient information to cover things in the codes. I suspect that only a tiny subset of people would care if e.g. some M/M or F/F interactions are 'gay' or 'lesbian' compared to 'bisexual', as long as other interactions of the same kind are 'bisexual'.
At some point overcoding becomes a worry - using so many codes that, while officially appropriate, make it hard to see the forest for the trees. And, heading off into the weeds, that's a worry for long and complicated stories.
My current story is coded: mt/ft, ft/ft, Consensual, Romantic, School, DoOver, Spanking, Anal Sex, First, Oral Sex, Petting, Safe Sex, Tit-Fucking, Slow, Violent
I could potentially add any or all of: Lesbian,Heterosexual,Bisexual,Fiction,Crime,Historical,Humor,Tear Jerker,Mult,Group Sex,Caution
(BTW: what's the distinction between 'Mult' and 'Group Sex' by the definitions on the story code page?)
If I tossed in all those codes I'd likely confuse readers and maybe disappoint some. So, on a judgment call, they drop off. For future volumes, I'll likely drop 'Petting', because it seems unlikely that people are having sex but not actually making out along the way.
BTW: what's the distinction between 'Mult' and 'Group Sex' by the definitions on the story code page?
(BTW: what's the distinction between 'Mult' and 'Group Sex' by the definitions on the story code page?)
I've always thought 'mult' meant things like MFFfff, or maybe a chick pulling a train, whereas 'group sex' is basically a orgy with multiple members of each gender.
(BTW: what's the distinction between 'Mult' and 'Group Sex' by the definitions on the story code page?)
I have wondered this same question
what's the distinction between 'Mult' and 'Group Sex'
I think group sex is multiple people pairing up like in the same room. An orgy if you like. Whereas mult is someone with multiple partners.
Mult Multiple Partner. ie MFF or mmmF, (done like this because of the endless combinations that cannot be all included)
Gang Bang Multiple men fucking same woman
Group Sex Multiple couples in the same place or a threesome
Orgy Everybody is Fucking everybody in a group
Both 'mult' and 'group sex' explicitly allow for threesomes and moresomes. Since there exist codes for 'Gang Bang' and 'Orgy', I'm somewhat assuming 'mult' and 'group sex' should be distinct from those (though, given how much overlap there is in those two, that's likely a bad assumption).
I'm still finding it very hard to tell the difference. 'Group Sex' does allow for two couples to go at it at the same time, where 'mult' maybe doesn't.
But, if you have a threesome, both seem to apply equally.
If some are gay or lesbian, that's fine to code, though I personally wouldn't feel it was nearly as critical, since you've made it clear that same-sex pairings occur. To me, the important thing is to give the reader sufficient information to cover things in the codes. I suspect that only a tiny subset of people would care if e.g. some M/M or F/F interactions are 'gay' or 'lesbian' compared to 'bisexual', as long as other interactions of the same kind are 'bisexual'.
I'm going to disagree here slightly It can matter depending on the relationships.
For example, if as a potential reader I see codes:
MF + FF + lesbian
I would assume at least 4 characters and no overlap between the couples
MF + FF + bisexual
I would expect three characters in a V relationship or a full triad.
MF + FF + bisexual + Lesbian
I would expect three characters in a V relationship only, on bisexual female, one lesbian and one straight male, with no direct sexual contact between the lesbian and the male.
MF + FF + lesbian
I would assume at least 4 characters and no overlap between the couples
However, MF+FF+lesbian+rape could be three characters only...
However, MF+FF+lesbian+rape could be three characters only...
True, though it could still be four with either coupling or both being rape.
The point is that the specifics of the coding can say more about the story than some people might think.
The point is that the specifics of the coding can say more about the story than some people might think.
Or, sometimes, less. There's a multi-story series on here (I won't single it out beyond that) where all but one book have 'Fiction' tagged. Does that mean the book without 'Fiction' is true? (clearly no)
Similarly, two lack 'Alternative History', yet it's clearly all the same Alternative History world.
And so on, and so on. Those might be clues - but they're not. But it points out that this stuff can go wrong sometimes (I fully expect unintentionally, since there's no value in omitting those codes on some volumes).
(I fully expect unintentionally, since there's no value in omitting those codes on some volumes).
I suspect it's from one of those people who worry about 'using too many codes'. I firmly believe that the codes likely to be objected to need to be included when they apply - the problem is identifying which codes qualify for that treatment. I can think of fifteen to twenty that probably do, at least for some people. The problem is, there's only a few in that list that I don't have any issue with, so there's likely more that I just wouldn't think of including (since I have no objection to them, and haven't heard of anyone objecting to them) but which could have serious squick value to someone. So... best to include everything that applies, just to preclude anyone from having any right to complain.
I firmly believe that the codes likely to be objected to need to be included when they apply
Completely agree there. I can see paring back the codes somewhat in later books in a series, when the things coded have already happened (e.g. if there's spanking in book 1, it's not much of an issue if it happens again in books 2-X). Not completely; some coding is important, and coding that is new is very important.
Or, sometimes, less. There's a multi-story series on here (I won't single it out beyond that) where all but one book have 'Fiction' tagged. Does that mean the book without 'Fiction' is true? (clearly no)
Yeah, there are a couple of story type tags that almost seem to be meaningless.
Fiction is one, True Story is another. It seems to get used more as "True to life story that would be plausible in real life, but didn't really happen".
There is obvious fiction tagged as True Story.
This sent me off to 'Category Search', which is either broken or I'm using it wrong (side note there, but I'll post it in bug reports).
There is at least one story posted as 'Do-Over' and 'True Story', though. I am ... skeptical.
The other usage you see for "True Story" is "loosely based on a true story but all the names have been changed and many details have been fictionalized"
There is at least one story posted as 'Do-Over' and 'True Story', though. I am ... skeptical.
Would you still be skeptical if the guy telling it tossed in a couple of 'no shit's leading into the story?
Would you still be skeptical if the guy telling it tossed in a couple of 'no shit's leading into the story?
skeptical
"Skeptic is the preferred spelling in American and Canadian English, and sceptic is preferred in the main varieties of English from outside North America. This extends to all derivatives, including sceptical/skeptical and scepticism/skepticism."
Somebody may have said, "great nations, divided by a single language." There is some controversy about who said it. It probably wasn't Winston Churchill, George Bernard Shaw or Oscar Wilde. If someone finds a reliable source please feel free to let us know who is responsible.
It probably wasn't Winston Churchill, George Bernard Shaw or Oscar Wilde.
Churchill apparently said it, but credited Shaw. And the earliest variation is from one of his plays (England and America are almost the same, except for language... or something like that.) Then Shaw was cited as having made one of the more famous variations of the quote in the preface to a interview of him.
There is at least one story posted as 'Do-Over' and 'True Story', though. I am ... skeptical.
I would share your scepticism, except that the meanings of each code are only that as defined by Lazeez in the tag definitions, no matter what you, I or anyone else thinks they mean, the only definition applicable is the site version.
Obviously there are authors and readers who desperately need codes to tell them if a story is safe or whatever to read. I can understand someone having an aversion to a certain activity, snuff, rape, pedo etc. However all those codes would be needed if one were to apply codes to the bible, to which no age group is excluded and in fact all are often encouraged to read, no matter their person squicks. So whilst correct coding is a good thing, there really is no need to worry about the intricacies.
SoL readers are supposed to be adults, I see no reason to treat them otherwise, or indeed forgive them for not acting as such.
There is only a vowel shift and a space between adult and a dolt.
I'll be glad of the space when you shift your vowels...
:)
The meaning of each code is why I would be skeptical.
DoOver Getting to do one's life all over again
True Story A true story, according to the author.
So, 'DoOver' + 'True Story' means the author is claiming someone got to do their life all over again. That would be pretty big news, and likely posting to SOL wouldn't be the preferred way to share that experience.
Maybe... but, skeptical.
'DoOver' + 'True Story'
I could write about my true story do-over. In golf it's called a Mulligan.
So, 'DoOver' + 'True Story' means the author is claiming someone got to do their life all over again. That would be pretty big news, and likely posting to SOL wouldn't be the preferred way to share that experience.
Strictly speaking almost all DoOver stories don't comply since the definition is "Getting to do one's life all over again" and most start with the MC in their teens. But as previously stated, who really cares?
As for a DoOver being true, there have been facts passed off as fiction to hide their existence. Just as fiction is presented as fact. Both are oft used forms of 'maskirovka'.
Then again, there are plenty of supposedly true stories written in the first person claiming to be hung like a horse...
Yes, sceptical seems an appropriate attitude.
I can completely buy that. Right now I'm simply coding MF, FF, no bisexual or lesbian. There is an encounter in a V (your last example); it's not ongoing. I completely agree that I could code to that, but I'm not sure it'd add anything much given the scope of the relationship in the story, nor do I think anyone who'd read 'MF, FF' would be upset if there was a bi/lesbian couple and the bi female wound up doing something with a guy.
But that's the nuance part of coding - trying to give the reader all the important information, particularly around turnoffs, without spoiling everything and without putting so many codes on the story that the reader is a bit overwhelmed.
but I'm not sure it'd add anything much given the scope of the relationship in the story
And I wasn't suggesting that is should be mandatory to code the story that way. I was just making the point that the lesbian and bisexual tags aren't necessarily redundant.