Punishment porn_what's the line?

[spark]

I thought about this trope overnight.   I was reading The Regression of Kylie and it made me think of a common trope in ABDL, which is the the abusive relationship between caregiver and regressee.   In this case- (Spoiler alert), a 19-year-old girl (conveniently aged) is having bladder problems, and mom decides to have her wear pull-ups, and a realistic path to diapers  In ABDL fiction, I was ok with that bridge.  It might unrealistic- but in ABDL fiction we all know what the goal is.  That moves us closer to the goal, so I can accept that bridge.

I was good, up until the protagonist was sexually assaulted, and rightfully fought back against her assaulter.  The mom (who put her 19-year-old in pull ups) was upset that her daughter made a scene and punished her so that she messed in pull ups.  That was the point that our protagonist wa diapered- which in ABDL Fiction is a critical point.   But it wasn't until the assaulter confessed, the the  punishment was still justified that I abandoned the story.

This was not a poorly written story, because I wouldn't give it a second thought if it was just one-handed fiction.  But instead it made me think about what is that line between I can suspend my realism and where it crossed the line.  For me= the line was crossed was crossed when the protagonist was raped- and the mother was freaked out over the spectacle that she caused that the punishment resulted in the daughter soiling and vomitting and soiling her pants.   When it's found out that the guy admitted to the crime (for no real reason) admitted to crime- the mom followed through with the punishment because she 'lied' to her.   

[WBDaddy]

I mean, people use bad justifications all the time in ABDL stories.  I don't think there is a line so much as there is a limit on your suspension of disbelief.

Sounds to me like Mom's reaction was your limit.  

[PeculiarChangeling]

"What's the line" is a moving target, especially when it comes to erotic stories where the author (and presumably the readers) have kinks involving nonconsent. 
(I'm going to be discussing sexual assault and rape, so don't keep reading if that bothers you.)

While it's not something I'm remotely interested in, some people just straight-up have fantasies about being violently assaulted, raped, or otherwise abused. Within the AB/DL sphere, fantasies about having your mind completely drained of all conscious thought are common, along with other topics that would be utterly horrific and traumatizing to be engaged in. 

 

That said, I think there's still a difference between these topics in the hands of a skilled, considerate author and someone who hasn't really thought through what they're writing. To use an example not from kink, consider how many movies from the 80s (and more recently, for that matter,) where male characters sexually harass or assault women, and the movie frames it as anything from harmless to even romantic. The topic of sexual harassment isn't taboo in film, and the issue isn't that those topics were simply brought up, but the framing suggests that it's harmless and *that* is a problem. 

[kasarberang]

23 minutes ago, PeculiarChangeling said:

To use an example not from kink, consider how many movies from the 80s (and more recently, for that matter,) where male characters sexually harass or assault women, and the movie frames it as anything from harmless to even romantic. The topic of sexual harassment isn't taboo in film, and the issue isn't that those topics were simply brought up, but the framing suggests that it's harmless and *that* is a problem. 

This happens with females sexually assaulting/harassing males in media as well and it is almost always played as a joke because of the "lol men can't get raped" myth that everyone seems to think is a fact, when it is really entirely bogus.

[Alex Bridges]

First, my rule of thumb when it comes to kinky fiction (any kind of fantasy fiction, really) is you start with a premise - like there’s a diaper dimension - and that the best literature accepts the premise and then keeps everything else within it as realistic as possible within the natural logic of that premise. It makes for better stories and puts parameters that make sense around the characters and actions. There’s a logic and set of rules to guide the writing and build an otherwise believable world that resembles our own. We can relate, so we care. We care, so we’re willing to suspend some disbelief.

It’s when you have to keep suspending disbelief, and keep suspending disbelief, and keep suspending disbelief that the story has probably gone way off the rails and never had any merit anyway. It’s a tool bad authors use to create events they can’t write to otherwise, as in, ‘I want B to happen and don’t know how to get from Point A to Point B, so I’ll just rewrite the rules while pretending I didn’t.’

It doesn’t have to be adding dragons, either. It can just be behavior that doesn’t fit the character or tone or culture, a too convenient coincidence, or something so far outside the boundary of the world they created that it redefines the world and breaks the continuity. As in, o, I guess sexual assault now makes a mother want to publicly humiliate her daughter. A story can start out that way, and a story can fit within a dark reality and have sudden plot turns that make it darker, but as a writer you can’t introduce an element like that if it doesn’t already fit within the logic of the story or world without breaking the continuity. If you do break the continuity, it has to serve a purpose. It has to be done in order to do something that could not otherwise be done.
 

I think partly this has to do with ruining the drama. Drama is the resolution of a challenge. If every time a challenge arises it gets resolved by an out-of-nowhere change in the logic of the story universe, there really isn’t a challenge. Hence no drama, no reason to pay attention, and definitely no reason to keep suspending disbelief.

Spoiler alert:

For example, Game of Thrones, from episode one, made it clear this was a world where dragons once lived and not that long ago. Not a stretch for them to live again later in time within that universe. Now imagine the dragons don’t even get mentioned until Daenyres needs one. “O, how about we use a dragon? Good idea, I’ll go capture one; be back in a jiff.’ Same ending, but the story didn’t earn it. The ending is ruined. The viewer can’t trust that when conflicts emerge, they won’t get resolved with some out of left field magic, and it takes away the drama.

That’s kind of what happened to Seasons 6-7 and ruined it for a lot of viewers. The logic of the show in the early seasons made it clear the world was physically large and it took a long, long time to travel. Events in the show developed in a way that made sense given those rules and what we know from our own experience how distance and time influence events. By Season 6, the show runners and actors want to move on with their lives (understandable) so to speed up the end of the series, they sped up events, and to sped up events, they literally sped up the characters. Continents crossed in an entire season before were being crossed in an episode. It violated a rule of that universe and made plot points that in isolation would be fine then seem unearned. It broke the continuity with how earlier plot points developed, which deprived them of a context in which they made sense, i.e., it would make sense if things took as much time as they used to in the series, but make no sense when everything is in a ten-mile radius and a one-day horse ride.

Same with Daenyres’s sudden bloodthirstiness. It’s not that there weren’t signs of the trait in her as early as Season 1, but that the change in her was so sudden, it wasn’t believable. People don’t go from impulsive to genocidal overnight. You could imagine a series of events over time leading her to level a city, but it basically happened in two weeks in Season 7 (in show and IRL - episodes 4 and 5). 
 

Stories need a universe with rules that are as firmly set as those of the real universe in order to work.

 

On to the bigger picture ...
 

Let’s distinguish between coercion and true violence first. Hard to define the difference, but (well adjusted) people know it when they see it. Context matters, yada yada.

I think true, outright violence in ABDL fictions serves three purposes.

Rarest of all, it serves a necessary plot point. I’m okay with that, but it has to really be necessary. Can the plot move forward without it? Is it necessary to the drama being told? Yes? Okay. No? Not so much.

More commonly, the writer gets off on it. Not saying it’s wrong by definition, but there is a point past which it repulses me. Not necessarily judging the writer - not kink shaming - but we know there are people out there who get off on violent fantasies and people who get off on violence. You can’t tell the difference in writing. In addition to not being my fantasy, the not knowing freaks me out and I just can’t.

Thirdly, some writers use it because they need a plot turn and aren’t creative enough to do it any way other than violence. Kinda like people who actually use violence IRL, not coincidentally. Also not coincidentally, the rest of these people’s writing tends to suck, whether in terms of plot, prose, or both.

I can deal with violence in fiction. I’m watching Vikings right now, in fact. But that’s not generally something I look for in ABDL fiction, it’s not something that I think is used or rendered well in much ABDL fiction, and depending on the context and specifics, it’s triggering for me. As much as I don’t judge people for their fantasies (or at least try not to, and so long as they stay fantasies), violence in ABDL fiction generally disgusts me. It’s all either agro-bro or it’s someone helpless being violated, and I just can’t stomach it.

As for where the line gets drawn from a moderating POV, I err on the side of caution. You can’t tell a writer’s personal motivation from their words alone. When I see the kind of violence you described, I assume it’s prurient for the sake of the ABDL community, and it shouldn’t be here. Not just because it triggers people or because people find it distasteful, but to protect the community. ABDL already gets way more stigma than it deserves; we don’t need the negative attention the association with violence could bring. And if it involves children? No fucking way. Not in any way, shape, or form. I don’t care if the writer says in their fantasy they’re the victim and not the offender. Nope - they can go peddle that shit elsewhere, preferably to an undercover.

[WBDaddy]

9 hours ago, Alex Bridges said:

As for where the line gets drawn from a moderating POV, I err on the side of caution. You can’t tell a writer’s personal motivation from their words alone. When I see the kind of violence you described, I assume it’s prurient for the sake of the ABDL community, and it shouldn’t be here. 

Interesting take.

I would posit the question, though:  If Stephen King wrote an ABDL horror novel and posted it here, would you take umbrage with it?  Child sexual abuse is a subject he's touched on in several of his novels.  

[Alex Bridges]

It depends on how necessary it is to the plot and how graphic it is. It’s one thing to have a character with that background and another for it to occur in passing and another for it to occur in detail.

But as a general rule, I don’t read or watch anything depicting that kind of violence even if it is tasteful and necessary to the plot. Less for a moral objection in that case than because it’s triggering. It’s one of those few things I can’t take a detached view of.

[WBDaddy]

30 minutes ago, Alex Bridges said:

But as a general rule, I don’t read or watch anything depicting that kind of violence even if it is tasteful and necessary to the plot. Less for a moral objection in that case than because it’s triggering. It’s one of those few things I can’t take a detached view of.

Completely understandable - your personal choices regarding whether or not to read something are your own and inarguable.  But I'm sure you see the difference between this statement and:  

1 hour ago, WBDaddy said:

I assume it’s prurient for the sake of the ABDL community, and it shouldn’t be here. 

 

[Alex Bridges]

3 hours ago, WBDaddy said:

Completely understandable - your personal choices regarding whether or not to read something are your own and inarguable.  But I'm sure you see the difference between this statement and:  

 

Therein lies the challenge - you can’t always tell an author’s intentions, especially when the author is not a professional writer and may not have the skill to express a deeper point behind what they’re depicting.

I’d place the emphasis in my statement on “assume.” Because I don’t know the intention, and because someone’s unsuccessful attempt to address a mature topic often looks like, and serves as, someone else’s fap material, I assume that’s what it is. I’m not saying it is. I’m saying I assume it, because I err on the side of caution, and operating under that assumption, I prefer it not be where it can lead others to associate the ABDL community with it.

That being said, we often know fap material when we see it. Nothing wrong with fap material, and nothing wrong with non-con fap material. But when it’s non-con, graphically violent fap material, I do have a problem with it.

Now, if it’s non-con, graphically violent genre fiction, okay. But very little in the ABDL library qualified as genre fiction as a proportion of the whole. What does qualify is produced by just a handful of particularly prolific authors, and they and their work are hardly representative of a random selection of what’s here and on other major story forums. 

I’m not advocating for any change to moderating policies. I’m just being a critic and offering up my opinion.

I guess to the OP’s question of where the line is, my answer is it depends on the quality of the writing and its purpose. It’s inherently subjective, but it can also be pretty obvious when it’s been crossed. Like Potter Stewart said, you know it when you see it. I think he meant that “we” as a society know it when we see it, but I prefer the literal - “you” as an individual know it.

[WBDaddy]

14 minutes ago, Alex Bridges said:

it depends on the quality of the writing

This is pretty much my take on anything like this.  

The quality of the writing speaks to the intent of the author and his/her capacity for handling mature topics in a tasteful way.  

I was just playing a little devil's advocate there based on your previous statements.  

[Cute_Kitten]

I don't think there is a 100% clear line- unless it's something like a fapfic glorifying underage rape/ non-con, sex etc. Then it is a very clear, hard hell fuck no kill it with fire!  But for non-con, or graphic punishment- I think the line is blurred more, and the answer to the author's intentions can be found in their works- the quality of the writing and how are they handling the subject material. Not that high quality writing is carte blanche to write however/ whatever. 

I've dealt with heavy subjects in some stories- and some of those scenes were quite graphic. Like in Bad Seed, severe child abuse  but the focus was on the emotional and physical scars it left on Cameron and that pain affected him past and present, and his journey in coping and moving on/ learning to deal with it. Part of that included a graphic flashback to an abuse scene, but from a story standpoint that scene was important because it was so life-defining for him and other members of his family.  It was a catalyst and I felt the audience needed to emotionally experience that to better understand and identify with Cameron's struggles. 

but getting back closer to punishment porn tropes, in general (painting with a broad brush here) and I know this has been brought up before, but audiences seem more tolerant/ accepting of a mother or female authority figure abusing a male character than they do a male authority figure abusing a female one. I know some stories featuring the latter have received a lot of backlash while the former get praise. 

[ValentinesStuff]

2 hours ago, Cute_Kitten said:

but getting back closer to punishment porn tropes, in general (painting with a broad brush here) and I know this has been brought up before, but audiences seem more tolerant/ accepting of a mother or female authority figure abusing a male character than they do a male authority figure abusing a female one. I know some stories featuring the latter have received a lot of backlash while the former get praise. 

This is actually true in a lot of fetish fiction. I wrote a story about a crossdressing girl. It was well received except for the scene where she was forced to strip out of her brother's clothes in front of him, by her mother. There was outrage and condemnation. I pointed out that outrage and condemnation never occurred when a crossdressing boy is forced to strip in front of his sister.

 

To the point at hand, a good part of whether punishment porn is appropriate, is context. Even before it goes over what ever line the reader sets. Does it make sense in the story?

A loving CG that suddenly starts with harsh punishments, for no apparent reason is bad. But the CG that dislikes the MC from the start and builds up the punishments over the story fits. Not that I want to read about graphic physical punishments.

Second is the punishment realistic? You can't paddle someone with hundreds of full strength blows in 10 minutes without causing severe injuries, or muscle strains to the paddler. Also is the aftermath realistic? After being paddled to a bloody pulp, is the victim just diapered and sent on their way? Or rushed to the ER for treatment?

Lastly how does the rest of the world react? CG just forced the victim to publicly mess themselves, how do the people around act? Or CG drags obvious adult dressed as a baby to the mall, how does the public react? Especially if there are obvious signs of distress? I can think of very few stories where the public reacts in an anyway realistic manner. Usually every woman treats the AB as if they were a baby and nothing unusual is going on.

[spark]

On 12/8/2020 at 6:27 PM, ValentinesStuff said:

To the point at hand, a good part of whether punishment porn is appropriate, is context. Even before it goes over what ever line the reader sets. Does it make sense in the story?

 

I have a personal preference for stories where the CG is firm and strict, but not cruel.  It could be considered cruel under certain circumstance, but in the context that I like it- it is actually meant to support the little in a loving way.   For example, I don't mind stories where a little is placed in diapers and treated like a small child, but I don't like stories where the CG purposely humiliates the little.  I don't like where stories where the little is forced to use the diaper, and then punished for using the diaper.    

Part of it is where the conflict is in the story.   Most of the stories that cross the line are stories where the conflict is between the CG and little, where I prefer stories to be primarily a conflict within the little's mind.  If it is written well, big/little conflict can work, but there still should be an element of self-conflict.

[WBDaddy]

9 hours ago, spark said:

I don't like where stories where the little is forced to use the diaper, and then punished for using the diaper.   

There's a great example of "it doesn't make sense", just saying. 

[ValentinesStuff]

15 hours ago, spark said:

I have a personal preference for stories where the CG is firm and strict, but not cruel.  It could be considered cruel under certain circumstance, but in the context that I like it- it is actually meant to support the little in a loving way.   For example, I don't mind stories where a little is placed in diapers and treated like a small child, but I don't like stories where the CG purposely humiliates the little.  I don't like where stories where the little is forced to use the diaper, and then punished for using the diaper.    

Part of it is where the conflict is in the story.   Most of the stories that cross the line are stories where the conflict is between the CG and little, where I prefer stories to be primarily a conflict within the little's mind.  If it is written well, big/little conflict can work, but there still should be an element of self-conflict.

 

Humiliation works, if it's mostly in the Little's mind. Thick diapers and age semi appropriate clothes, and the Little believing everyone can tell he's diapered. He's utterly humiliated, but no one has noticed anything out of the ordinary, except maybe an odd taste in clothes.

 

Yes forcing the Little to use their diapers, then punishing that is stupid and makes no sense! (Unless the Big is a Sadist, and I'm not interested in that.)

 

Conflict between the Big and Little works for me as long as it's of the nature of coercing, tricking, or otherwise getting the Little into Little Space, and diapers, and cute clothes, and fun but awkward situations*. I'm not into Big/Little violence.

 

*Tricking the Little into opening the door for someone that knows and accepts he's a Little, but hasn't seen him that way before.