More 'woke' nonsense

Here is a comment for a story recently posted on this site:

“…the parents would be probably liable for dereliction of duty to care for their child by now because he’d be in some serious distress as he can’t feel safe nowhere and his “Master” is definitely NOT providing him with any sense of security or protection. If such a Master existed in real life BDSM, I hope the community would cast them out and intervene on behalf of the slave.”

What gets me about this is the fact that the reader who wrote it obviously feels that the character in the story is a victim of some kind who needs to be helped at all costs before more harm comes to them.

This is laudable in real life, but as a response to a piece of fiction, it is not appropriate. It reminds me of people who send wreaths to soap opera characters who ‘die’ in the TV programme. They are confusing fantasy with reality.

Why am I banging on about this? Because this confusion of fantasy and reality is a creeping menace which threatens to stifle creativity and effectively put an end to writers being able to entertain. I actually think that it is akin to the way the Nazis burned books in the 1930s which did not fit in with their ideology.

This hideous trend has already affected the BBC, who have recently pulled much loved comedies such as ‘Fawlty Towers’ and ‘Little Britain’ from their I-Player channel. Soon, unless people see sense, this ‘woke’ censorship will be the death of this site and that of many like it.

It seems that even in fiction - even in our fantasies - our minds - we have to be politically correct.

Right now, I feel like a lone voice calling in the wilderness, to quote a phrase. Am I the only one who feels worried about what is happening all around us?


I agree that the comment you quote is nonsense, but I’m not entirely convinced it has much to do with a creeping tendency towards “wokeness” or poltical correctness. I just think some readers are extremely literal-minded and have a hard time separating fiction from reality. And that’s always been the case.

I also follow some soap opera message boards where people regularly make similar comments; they complain that certain characters are engaging in bad behavior and that hospital scenes or courtroom scenes aren’t sufficiently realistic. And I’m like, “No shit! It’s a soap opera! It’s not meant to be a realistic docudrama about well-adjusted ordinary Americans; it’s supposed to be a heightened melodrama full of conflict and flawed characters.”


Yeah I also don’t think this has much to do with the ‘woke’ stuff and it’s important not to confuse the two.

People have been clutching their pearls over ‘inappropriate’ content in works of art, fiction, and other forms of media for a loooong time.


Now, this comment on Wrestlr’s new story actually does help illustrate M Greene’s point:
"It’s a shame you couldn’t go without slipping in the racial slur at the end. Racism in all its forms is revolting and dehumanizing.

DO NOT call POC animals no matter how fondly or colloquially you are trying to paint backwoods stereotypes. Doing so emboldens people to do it."

The offensive “racial slur” in question occurs when a white character compliments his black fraternity brother (who he’s just spent the weekend turning into a brainwashed slut) by calling him a “horny buck.”


Hypnothrill beat me to the wrestlr comment, haha. The only difference is that I didn’t actually know what the ‘offense’ was. Knowing that it’s about calling the black character a ‘horny buck’ made me sigh out loud. That’s not even a racial slur… I thought at the very least he was called a monkey or something, or even just the word ‘animal’ itself.

Anyway, even if he HAD used those other words, I would have still thought they were valid. I wholeheartedly stand by you, M. Greene, regarding creative expression. I don’t know about you, but I even think that the dreaded ‘N’ word should be allowed for use by white characters, too, especially if the character being depicted is a backwoods type, or if the story were set in a historical, colonial time period. I get that this is ‘technically’ allowed, but the negative reaction would be insane, I imagine.

I’m sure this also precludes the fact that the story would be more of the ‘race play’ kink. Then when ONE story appears, they’ll say: “congrats, now this site is gonna get flooded with racists and racism pieces!” Kinda like how in the great paedophilia debate of 2020 on here, they said that the site would be filled with pedo’s and pedo stories, after one was submitted with a 16 year old or whatever it was. Of course no such thing happened. I think after that I saw like, one other teen story, with a 17 year old. But the same would be with the race thing. The site isn’t going to become some racism propaganda machine if a couple stories with extreme race play appeared.

So… you’re not alone M.Greene. I’m also quite against any and all moralism on this site (especially this site; of all places, the mind control site! shaking my head). I don’t like any of it, whether it be about skin colours and ethnicities, cruel slavery stories, questionable and harsh motives, etc, etc.


Comments like the above is what discourages me to write sometimes, it just makes me feel like I’m walking on eggshells, it gives me anxieties.

I know exactly where the comment that mgreene70 quoted came from and I felt bad for the author because it was his first story so I tried to give him some reassurance so as not to discourage these new writers from contributing to the site

1 Like

See this discussion in Discord and my reply to it:

My opinion is that while its not good for an author to be racist or homophobic or whatnot there is nothing wrong with a character being racist or homophobic or whatnot.

I’m a gay man. I don’t use fag or faggot. I just don’t.

But I will have a homophobic straight guy use it in a story. With one word the reader knows the mindset of the character. I don’t need to spend hundreds of words to evoke his personality, one word does it.

So yeah, I totally think characters can be what they need to be to get the point across of the story.


With respect to Hypnothrill and Swizzington [whose stories I always thoroughly enjoy], I believe that the rise in the frequency of ‘moralistic’ comments confusing fact and fiction is a direct result of the woke culture which is currently threatening our liberal civilisation. Swizzington says that people have been complaining about ‘inappropriate’ content in art for a long time, and that is true. However, historical complaints would have been about men fucking other men, which used to be seen as grossly obscene. Starting in the 1960s, things gradually became easier for us and, by the 1990s, such complaints became rare indeed and mainly the preserve of a few religious fundamentalists.

What is happening now is more subtle and is linked to the victim culture so dear to the woke movement. Stories are now being criticised not because they involve gay men, but because one character is perceived as being ‘nasty’ to another. The oppressed character is a victim who must be protected at all costs from the other.

In my opinion, such attitudes are frighteningly similar to what is happening now politically in America and Europe, where the slightest criticism of [or even disagreeing with] racial minorities, trans people, gays, physically challenged people, etc, etc, is seen as a racist / sexist / fascist attack by the dark forces of reaction / white male supremacy. Such is the zeitgeist of our times.

The result, if such attitudes are allowed to grow unchecked, is strict censorship. Soon, no one will be able to write anything about any character who falls outside their own particular ‘victim’ group. No protagonist in any story will be able to say anything or perform any action which is deemed to be politically incorrect. As I said before, this process has already started with quite blatant censorship on mainstream media. It will not be long before sites like this will have to drastically sanitise their content or be shut down. Do you think that it is a coincidence that GaySpiral lost its Patreon funding? Sadly, I think that we are already in the twilight of free speech and expression.


While I think you’re right on a number of points, I also think you’re seeing more than what’s actually there. Taking Patreon as an example, they’ve had rules against dubious or coerced consent for years, now. It’s just that we happened to come to their attention recently, for whatever reason. It’s not even them who are to blame, at least not directly—it’s the payment processors (aka, credit card companies). Most of them are in the US and they’ve decided that they’re entirely within their rights to dictate their own particular brand of puritanical morality to everyone who uses their services. This has been an ongoing problem for a decade now, at least…I think probably even longer.

The pattern we’re seeing with the left-wing becoming, ironically, more conservative is one that’s been played out in various forms for centuries, and it will probably play out for centuries or millennia to come. WWI led to very strict attitudes for a while; the 1920s were a very wild time by the standards of the day, then along came the second great war and the 50s were suddenly all super-conservative with the whole nuclear family and so forth. Then, the hippies rebelled against that. Slowly, despite a lot of social progress, or perhaps because of it, we’re shifting to very conservative views again. Gen Z and younger have started to push back against some of that, though, because that’s not what they want to be. So, if not them, the next generation will probably tell the conservative-liberals, for want of a better term, what they can go do with themselves. And on and on it will go. Such is life.


I agree with everything all of you’ve said. It’s frightening on so many levels. Especially with the corporate morality taking over the whole society. Especially as this morality is NOT driven by liberal democracy but simple monetary motives.

I still have this thorn in my side. I was a member of the Gaymers Magazine community, which I was quite fond of, especially the site’s owner and manager.

A couple of months ago, when the whole J.K.Rowling thing was hot, I tried to started an open-minded discussion about that statement of hers where she tried justified her position. I wanted to give her the benefit of the doubt, that she’s probably got good intentions, even if you don’t agree with her or if she’s said and done the wrong thing.

Before I could even start to talk about what I thought might be her problem, I was shunned by that site’s owner. After only two sentences he said “People have killed themselves, and people like JKR and you” (i.e. me) “are part of the problem”. And “This is a safe space for all kinds of LGBTQ+ people, especially trans-people, so I won’t allow this kind of talk in here”.

So just talking about JKR and her motivations were endangering the safe-space and reason enough to blame her and myself for people killing themselves.

That stung like hell. I lost that community, and I was really down because of that, especially since I questioned my own positions. It seems to be wrong to talk to people, to look at their pov, to try to understand them. And also, TO QUESTION your OWN position on every step you make.

These are horrible times. And they’re only going to get worse.


I think this is a very interesting conversation. I don’t anyone will disagree that racism, homophobia, (etcetera) exists, but how it is effecting the stories and writes on this site.

By nature, the concept of this site is problematic as it deals with mind control, slavery, and rape. We also accept that it is fiction to begin with, so that is okay, but I think there should also be a broader conversation about what should be acceptable.

Some of the controversial topic I remembered from being on this site include, underaged characters, racism and slavery, and gay to straight fiction on gay spiral stories. I think each of these topics can be addressed in fiction, but there are people who do not or rather can not distinguish the difference.

As a POC, I’m not a huge fan of racism in the stories I read, but I love reading about skinheads (which generally are associated with racism), and forced conversion. I think it was Malskin that once wrote somewhere on writing that there is a sort of catharsis when reading or writing about stuff that does offend, but also to note how others may not find it cathartic, and rather put off by it.

With that in mind, I think it is useful and beneficial to have proper tags in places instead of people trying to grab 25 different tags. For example, using the tag fat or chubby helps inform people of the topic. If you don’t like it, don’t read it, but it doesn’t stop people who do fetishizes it. There will still be people who will be upset, and I’m sure there has been, and there will be, trolls that will say homophobic things on this site, but it shouldn’t take away from the stories. People will have their preferences.

1 Like

With respect to RobinHood70, I have to disagree with you. What we are seeing now is very different to the moral ‘see-saw’ of history which you accurately described and which I agree appears to be like a recurring cycle of strictness and laxity in social morality. The present circumstances are not the same. If they were, we would be seeing traditional notions of the place of women being championed, more countries outlawing homosexuality and gay marriage and divorce becoming more restricted. Outside countries with fundamentalist religious tendencies, this is not the case.

What appears to be happening is a concerted attempt by the extreme left to hijack the agendas of various different groups who identify as ‘victims of white patriarchy’ to challenge our cultures, histories and sense of self-worth in North America and Western Europe.

Talk to university academics in those parts of the world and you will find that for the past decade, any who dared to speak out against this censorship of free-speech have already lost their positions. The rest are either enthusiastic supporters of ‘woke mentality’ or too scared to make their views known. Many of the products of these ‘woke’ campuses now work in the media, most channels of which have become unashamed mouthpieces of ‘woke victim-hood’.

If you do not believe me, just turn to the BBC news website and have a look. There, you will find dozens of stories extolling the virtues of various ‘victim’ groups. All such items explicitly or implicitly preach that white Europeans should feel guilty about the actions of their ancestors and that they are somehow to blame for all the ills of society. You will find nothing about the struggles of ordinary white working class people because the extreme left has given up on them as a potential vanguard of future revolution. You will also find nothing in the slightest bit critical of the BLM movement, which has led to riots across the US all summer. These simply have not been reported by the BBC, despite the fact that they usually carry a wealth of stories about American society and politics. To find out about them, I have had to look at American news channels online.

As a middle-aged black British man, I was brought up with the notion that, of all news channels in the world, the BBC was the epitome of journalistic fairness and objectivity. Sadly, this is no longer the case. The fact that this kind of distortion can happen to such a bastion of truth, shows just how serious the present situation is.


So let’s try to address this point by point.

First of all, “political correctness” (as we know it today) was a term coined by Right Wing pundits in America in the 80s/90s. It was meant to be derisive and ridicule the changing of language. Specifically, it was ridiculing activists from minority groups who had decided the majority (in power) didn’t get to come up with terms to describe or label them, but that the minority group themselves should have say in what they are called. So for example the phasing out of “negro” and “colored” for “African American” and “Person of Color” (PoC). “Black” (capitalized) is also used, but the history of that term is long and complicated and I’m not getting into it here. These groups are not a monolith, so what’s acceptable for one person or sub group might be different from another and changes back and forth over time. That’s why we have “Indian” being replace with “American Indian”, “Native American”, and “First Nation(s)”. You also have the phasing out of “homosexual” for gay, LGBTQ+, and the reclaimation of the word “Queer” by academics (though that also varies by person). That’s not even getting into Disability politics, which i am less familiar with.

To sum that all up, it was a broad collection of attempts for groups with less power to decide their labels and take back some of that power from the majority. It was less an attempt to police what people said and more to get them to respect the minority and actually ask them for their input. The politicalization of the concept came from those in power who resisted it. As an old man I once interviewed said “I don’t care what you call me as long as it’s not insulting” and that’s really what it comes down to.

A good thing to remember about “PC culture” is that it is not one unified group it is many smaller fractured groups who are all lumped together and differ in goals and methods.

Now we come to censoring. Censoring is when the government, and/or the group in power, decide to delete or change information to suit their needs. The majority of censoring comes not from activists or people in the minority groups themselves (though they are sometimes involved).

In the case of the the shows you mentioned, that’s not traditional censoring. For one, it’s not done by a government, but by a corporation, as is the majority of the things referred to as “censoring” these days. Why would they do this? The government doesn’t mandate that they do. They do it because Capitalism. Their goal is to make money, and companies like to avoid bad press or negative attention. So very often they decide to just bury it. To take the offensive thing from the past and hide it under the bed like a child who broke something. The people who make these decisions are also often not in the minority groups nor do they consult them. See “Song of the South” which Disney does its hardest to pretend never happened.

In general (though not always because they’re not a monolith) activists don’t actually want the removal of the past thing. They also usually don’t want it changed or altered. Instead they prefer that past thing is 1) not actively promoted, and 2) shown with a contextualization of the time and place it came from. This is what happened with Warner Brothers World War 2 era propaganda cartoons. They were proceeded by a disclaimer and someone explaining the context around them. This move was pretty well received with calls for this to be done for other properties, like “Song of the South”. This has been done again recently for some older anime, with a positive reception from activists and minority groups.

Now let’s address the story and the conflating of reality and fiction. After the Columbine Shooting there was a lot of conversation blaming the school shooting on violent video games and similar media. Studies have consistently shown however that this isn’t the case. Shooting people in video games doesn’t make you want to go out and shoot people, just like seeing something in a movie doesn’t necessarily make you want to do that thing. Media is actually pretty bad (in general) at motivating specific action. What it actually does is shape worldview and reinforce existing beliefs. So it doesn’t make you want to do something, but it can get you to believe something.

For example, a majority of Americans believe torture works and is a useful method for getting information from captives. However, multiple studies and most intelligence experts find that’s not actually the case. Prisoners will say whatever they need to to get the torture to stop, and this is rarely useful or true. What really works is forming a rapport with them and much slower methods. So why do Americans believe this? Because torture DOES work: on television. In 24 and most cop shows the protagonists have to torture or violently interrogate prisoners or suspects to get them to give up the information quickly. It works this way on TV because they only have so much time to tell the story and it’s exciting. It has little basis in reality, but people believe it because it forms most of their ideas on torture.

One thing we’ve also seen is that it is common for people to relate to characters in fiction (particularly television) the way they would to real people. In particular, studies have shown that seeing characters from groups the viewer is not a part of, be it race, gender, sexuality, ect., actually helps them relate to those groups and breeds empathy, similar to the way knowing them in real life would. So for people who grow up surrounded by others like themselves and who might never meet a Jewish gay man, seeing one depicted positively on TV can help them empathize with someone they might otherwise have no interaction with.

So when we get to stories like the one that comment was posted on, we know from studies that porn and erotica actually shape viewers/ readers beliefs on how sex is supposed to be. 50 Shades of Gray was blasted by the BDSM and kink community for its bad and unsafe depiction of BDSM, which was influencing the preconceptions of people wanting to try it out and the general public at large.

I was on a site for pups and handlers, and as a handler/ trainer/Master I would often have pups messaging me. When I responded that I thought pups should be treated with kindness, that good pups got rewards, and basically repeated the general motto of BDSM, “Safe, Sane, Consensual,” I was often surprised when the pup would be super happy and ask me to be their handler/trainer/Master. Especially the ones who had previous owners, the constant refrain was them wishing they could find someone who treated them with respect and asked what they wanted out of the relationship. Often times what they wanted was degrading or for the owner to be tough, but they wanted it to be a relationship where they had a paw in deciding that instead of it being one way. There was one pup who was convinced he couldn’t have an owner or even get into headspace because he was dominate, and all the owners he met thought that pups could only be subs. Last year we met and had a great session where he felt comfortable enough to get into the headspace and he told me afterwards that he had had a great time. This was because I didn’t have the conception that he needed to act a certain way and met him where he was at.

That isn’t to say that there is no place for kinky, possibly demented stories. That sort of thing turns people on and is a mainstay for sites such as this. But if every story is like that, people read them believing that that is all there is and that that’s how Master/ slave relationships should go. Common sense disclaimers at the top of stories can go a long way towards helping this, just like how some authors warn about STDS being a danger in real life that you should watch out for. You might think this is hand holding or coddling, but “common sense” isnt actually that common and people come in with different experiences, backgrounds, and bases of knowledge.

Another is acknowledging that not all the stories on this site need to be like that. Pretty much everything by Happy Endings ends with the characters happy and grown from their experiences, but there are dozens of stories that focus on healthy relationships or have a positive/happy ending on this site. Just like some people prefer the darker stuff, some people prefer lighter stuff, and both are equally valid. Personally I’m here for muscle growth and tend to avoid heavy mind control or darker stories. As the saying goes, “your kink is not my kink and it’s ok”. Just be aware that your stories, even your fantasy stories on a fetish site, have an impact and influence the reader. And those readers in turn will tell you how they felt about it, especially when they’re blindsided by the things they come to fiction to get away from.


BlindSeer0, I was totally with you until I reached this paragraph.

First of all, I’m not sure if there’s a clear scholarly consensus on this issue. But more importantly, your statement and your subsequent example from the BDSM pup community got me wondering if there’s a disconnect between GSS readers and authors who are members of real-life kink communities and those who aren’t. Personally, I’ve never been interested in exploring BDSM or any other sort of kink in my real life, and when readers use terms like “dom” and “sub” to talk about my stories, I feel like they’re speaking a foreign language; I’m simply not thinking in those terms.

Maybe it would do us all some good to be aware of this gap: members of real-life BDSM communities might naturally be filtering the stories they read through their own sexual experiences, but those of us who don’t belong to those communities might be thinking of the stories on GSS in very different terms, perhaps as fictions far removed from our real-life desires. Some mutual respect regarding those different life experiences and perspectives would probably go a long way!


I never once used the term ‘political correctness’ in any of my responses.

I am not talking about that - I’m talking about the wilful censoring of content that in any way implies anything negative about so-called ‘victim’ groups.

As to the quotation which Hypnothrill rightly took exception to: “we know from studies that porn and erotica actually shape viewers/ readers beliefs on how sex is supposed to be.” I think his point is a good one. Reality and fantasy HAVE to be separated. Fact HAS to be separated from fiction.

We are writing stories on here - not BDSM manuals.

Even as a long-time BDSM practitioner, I don’t look for the stories on GSS to reflect those practices in any way. I think my partner said it best when I was telling him about the hoopla (paraphrased): 50 Shades of Gray took flak from the BDSM community because it portrayed abuse as though it were realistic BDSM; the stories on GSS are fantasy-fulfillment and don’t purport to be about reality in any way. Given the subject nature, if anything, they’re almost entirely not about reality.


On the subject of how people view BDSM and torture:

This is also the case for guns and police procedures. Here in the US, we see countless things depicting guns as tools to protect ourselves from bad guys and ridding the world of evil. It should be no surprise then that gun culture is such a big thing here and that we have more guns than people.

As for police procedures, almost every cop show rags on the “red tape” and “bureaucratic nonsense” cops have to do. They’re almost always portrayed as inconveniences that add tension to the plot rather than rights that are there so the police don’t terrorize the citizens. As a result, many people think cops are always right even when they’re obviously in the wrong. Loose cannon cops are a fave trope of the 70s and 80s, after all.

Recent events have certainly soured my taste on the cop shows I used to love. They always did “very special episodes” rather poorly in that either every cop we don’t get to see is terrible or we’re supposed to empathize with the cop that shot an unarmed kid a bunch of times because “it was chaotic” or “he’s been suffering too!” while finger wagging other cops that say the same thing. It’s just so hard to watch that stuff now.

But well, my point is, is that fiction definitely shapes our reality and how society views issues. Of course, this is just some little niche kink site and not some big blockbuster movie or a multiple season tv show. It also doesn’t hurt that most stories here are blatantly fantasy unlike action movies, cop shows, or erotic romance novels. Usually people don’t have their view of how our world works changed by such things. Did you watch Harry Potter and think wizards and magic were real? But you better believe people watched Lethal Weapon 2 and thought diplomatic immunity was crap.

PS: also, don’t equate one comment with many people thinking it. It is usually just the one person. It’s when multiple people starting to get on your case or worse that you should probably talk about this sort of thing.

PPS: It wasn’t said outright but I feel like it’s implied that it’s just the liberals and “woke culture” in general doing this stuff when I can count many times the so-called “free speech” people wanted to cancel stuff just because they said stuff they didn’t like or associated with people they didn’t like. Again, no one said “this is all on the libs” but I felt like it was kind of implied at times.


My message probably contributed to the concept that it’s just the left that are doing this, but I certainly didn’t intend to. I focussed on that because I am left-wing myself, but a bit older than many here, and I’ve seen the shift in the left over the years, and frankly, it scares the hell out of me. But you’re absolutely right, there are people of all political persuasions who want to stifle things they disagree with.

(PS, in case you’re wondering why I shifted to use the word “left” instead of “liberal”, it’s because I’m Canadian, and we have a Liberal party, so we usually don’t use small-l liberal because it’s too easily confused with capital-L Liberal.)


I definitely follow you. I definitely lean left myself (gee…when one party says “gay rights are human rights” while the other party debates such a thing while ruled by those who say no, I wonder which way to lean?). I find even among the lefties, the discussion seems to overlook stuff like “violent video games are bad!” or “It’s Merry Christmas not Happy Holidays!” and mostly just talking about the usual “SJW” stuff. Recent events have just caused me to stop wanting to see such one-sidedness when both sides do it (it’s just that one tends to win because that’s just how society tends to go).