Same here, although in my case, my dad is my step-dad and we’ve never gotten along. Never met my biological father.
1 Like
So nice to encounter guys who are/were not fond of their fathers. About once a week I stop for a moment and think how lucky I am that he’s no longer around to pile on the guilt.
3 Likes
Note this is just how I classify things within my head, it’s not a universal thing. Also I’m not saying that “wholesome” stories are better or worst than non-“wholesome” stories. Sometimes I’m in the mood for one versus the other.
Anyways, there are stories tagged with “wholesome” that have characters acting in various levels of “dubious consent”. I personally don’t consider them to be accurate depiction of “wholesome” (of course it’s perfectly fine to disagree)
For me “wholesome” stories requires much less dubious consent, especially with the ending.
For example: consider a classic story where person A mind controls person B. Person B resist, ends up having sex, and due to personality changes it’s enjoyable. Person B ends up accepting the relationship and everybody’s happy.
A story like that might get tagged “wholesome” but I personally don’t think it fits the tag.
To make the story more “wholesome”, have person B break free of the mind control and personality change. They go back to person A, person A apologizes, and they have happy sex. This time without any mind control or personality altering.
In this scenario, even though person A acted in dubious consent at first, the ending is a lot more “wholesome” for me.
Another way is to do the classic “you were already feeling this way, I just brought it to the surface”. Yes it’s a bit dubious, but since it’s not major personality rewriting, you can still create a “wholesome” ending
Just my own thought, of course everybody has different interpretation of the term “wholesome”.
1 Like
In my mind;
Vengence is immoral (i.e., torturing a serial killer)
This is classic 'two wrongs don’t make a right and I’m not gonna use up my word count going further into this. ‘Abusing a homophobe’ is basically this. However you do the maths, it usually winds up being immoral initially, even if it has positive results.
This is the bit I wanna get cracking on.
Content is not the be-all and end-all of morality or wholesomeness. It cannot be. If it was, then it would be immoral to raise an infant (for example) or to provide veterinary care to an animal, or save the life of an unconscious person.
If you forcibly alter someone’s destiny for the better, whom, had you sought their consent they would not have granted it, or, if they are denying you their consent actively, but you still act and your action proves morally adept (to either the person you’re acting upon, or universally). Then you have acted morally and also without consent.
Consent is a system for respecting/honouring ego. It is not an axiomatic gate of assigning goodness or evil to a person’s action.
I guess in short, what I’m trying to say is, there is no firm relationship between consent and morality, or, consent and wholesomeness even though there really seems like there is. Non-consent is more like the proverbial “insult to injury” of being abused by another person; Non-consent being the insult, and the mistreatment itself being the injury (and the bit where moral/amoral/immoral is decided).
Otherwise, you run into all kinds of tautological fallacies.
4 Likes
This leads to a fun comparison, which I include only as a thought experiment:
Person A has a mental illness and is unable to see past those viewpoints to give consent to be treated. Therefore, they’re treated without consent to help them recover, at which point they’re able to decide for themselves. This is probably deemed by many as a good thing.
Person B is homophobic and they’re unable to see past those viewpoints to give consent to be hypnotized. Therefore, they’re hypnotized without consent to help them be more open to gay experiences and viewpoints. This is…deemed by many as a good thing? 
I’m just naturally wary of people who grant themselves that level of righteousness - whether they are zealots for religion or for homosexuality.
3 Likes
Shamelessly suggesting my own work: Try 'Nathan and the Gang 1/4' by Viridian - Gay Spiral Stories? It’s usually been interpreted in a positive light.
1 Like
But surely that’s only two very limited ways in which a person can — in your words — grant themselves that righteousness?
Surely going to weariness first and foremost is rather pessimistic?
Sorry, that’s the long winded way of asking, why weariness? I’m curious to hear your thinking.
Not weary, wary.
Meaning I regard their expressed sentiment with an eye of caution. People who have granted themselves righteousness are capable of anything - after all, they are doing God’s work (or are on the right side of history or insert whatever battlecry of the righteous that particular cause has adopted).
Pessimistic? I mean, maybe but I think it’s just realistic.
Sorry, typo. Yeah knew which wary you meant, but consistently typed it wrong.
I mean, focusing on that kind of self-righteousness (pious/dogmatic self-righteousness) yes, maybe it’s realistic to be wary; More harm than good has typically been done by self-righteousness of this sort.
But sometimes people can be self-righteous for the ‘right’ reasons; Philosophy, Social equality, human compassion, scientific research.
I think there is more reason to be neutral, (or dare I say optimistic) then pessimistic.
I’m confused at this point. What are we talking about as being self-righteous?
the self-appointed authority to act in the best interest of a sceptical/reluctant other, with the goal/effect of making their lives better (or doing an act of moral goodness), without their consent.
1 Like
Okay, so that was a reply to my question, then. Just for clarification on that, the “good” side of that question was meant to apply to things like people who are suicidal or mentally incapacitated by their illness, so they can’t make informed decisions of their own. I was jokingly comparing that to hypnosis, where any “incapacity” is likely in the mind of the hypnotist alone. Cuz, you know, if you’ve never been a hypno-slave, clearly you don’t have the capacity to judge for yourself if you should become one. 
I do find it odd that with all the real life guys who would jump at the chance to be: a sex slave, a hypno-slave, and even more outlandish and hardcore stuff like gimps or whatever - protagonists are always out hunting for that straight dude who wants no part in it.
You missed my point, Spiders.
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated; but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience. - C.S. Lewis
If I do understand your point, then this is my challenge.
(It will be wordy, so I’m gonna embold the pivotal “if, and, then” of both statements).
Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victims may be the most oppressive. It would be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies.
“It would be better to” is not a fair claim because the moral quality of the torment is not known (only the intensity of its pursuit).
If they who
torment us for our own good, torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience,
and that torment proves morally indecent or evil, then yes it would’ve been better to live instead under the ‘robber barons’.
however if they who
torment us for our own good, and will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience,
and that torment proves morally upright and good, then it would’ve been better to nonetheless live under those omnipotent moral busybodies (despite the intensity of their pursuit), than the robber barons.
Convenient that in being self-righteous one has also automatically granted oneself the authority to determine that the torment is just and right and good and that the people who complain are wrong, and should submit.
I think that’s probably the difference between fantasy and reality. Often, people are turned on by what’s taboo, but in many of those cases, the taboo activity is immoral, illegal, and maybe even impossible. In fantasy, however, they can become possible, the evil person can get away with what they’re doing, and depending on the story, it may end up where everyone’s happy despite objectively being changed against their will. But that’s all it is: a fantasy. Because it’s also taboo, however, some people will be turned on by it.
Another aspect of that is the level of conflict involved. For many, it’ll be a far more erotic story if they’re converting someone who doesn’t want the change than someone who does. If someone wants it, then there’s no real challenge or conflict. Any English teacher will tell you that It’s much harder to write a good story if there’s no conflict. Hell, at least when I was in high school, we were taught that every serious story had a conflict, and they event categorized them into Man vs. Man, Man vs. Himself, Man vs. Nature, and maybe a few more that I’ve forgotten. If you take that conflict out, you end up with “Person wants X. Person gets X. The End.” I think the vast majority of people would find that boring unless you insert some other type of conflict or character development or what have you.
Keep in mind, though, that a lot of what these stories are about, even the authors wouldn’t do or would try to prevent if they knew it was happening in real life. For me personally, incest is good example of this. You tell me your story’s about a father hypnotizing his son and having sex with him, I’ll probably give it a look. If you tell me that you actually hypnotized your son to have sex with you and I’m reaching for the nearest phone to call the police before you finish the sentence.
1 Like
Convenient that in being self-righteous, one has also automatically granted oneself the authority to determine that the torment is just and right and good and that the people who complain are wrong, and should submit.
It’s more unfortunate than convenient really. This ‘convenience’ has provided a gateway for some of the most significant and evil atrocities ever committed by human beings (which I believe is your point, and it’s a point I agree with)
That said, I do consider my challenge to your quote logically sound, and not refuted above.
Proving the torment were morally sound, then no alternative of “less insistent, but less good” would make the tyrann-ee better off, than with the busybody.
1 Like
Fantasy is fantasy, of course. I’m neither kink-shaming people nor suggesting that one can’t fantasize about something without secretly wanting to actually do it.
We got off on a bit of a tangent with the discussion of self-righteousness, but I stand by my feeling that it’s a trait in people that I’m cautious of for very good reason. I definitely do not subscribe to the belief that it’s positive if only so-and-so has the right opinions. In my opinion, having the right opinions would include a healthy sense of humility!
1 Like