>Neil GaimanRapist>John NormanNot rapistEveryone should apologize right now.
Many such cases
Sounds like a skill issue
>I dissociate myself from BDSM, at least as I understand it. I may, of course, misunderstand it. I wonder if one would settle merely for 'real-life Gorean slavery', because, as I understand it, BDSM is not Gorean. If something is not beautiful, it is not Gorean.What did he mean by this?
>>24116983He meant "I'm a midwit, and this is the best I can do to explain the 3000 pages of fap fiction I wrote trying to justify my fetish".
>>24116983BDSM isn’t epic Conan slavery aesthetic, it’s porno aesthetic
>>24116983>If something is not beautiful, it is not Gorean.Holy fuck... genuine kino.
>>24117015>BDSM isn’t epic Conan slavery aestheticNeither is Gorslop. I mean, it tries to be, very, very very hard. It's a pastiche of Burroughs, Howard and other pulp tropes, done less well and much more boringly, with excessive exposition on the author's not barely disguised but in fact central motivating fetish that brings the story to a screeching halt every time.
>>24116983The quote is from the full interview, here:https://gizmodo.com/john-norman-the-philosophy-professor-who-created-the-b-5783833Truly a man who respects women (unlike Neil Gaiman):>Some men, I gather, dislike women, and enjoy hurting them. That makes no sense to me. Women are wonderful, and precious. It is a delight to own one; why would one hurt her? What would be the point of that, mere sadistic pleasure? I think we might distinguish between, say, S/M sex, or sadomasochistic sex, and M/S sex, or Master/Slave Sex. In a sense they seem opposite. Love is important. It is not to be confused with cruelty. Gratuitous cruelty seems to me uncalled for, and ugly, morally and aesthetically. Too, it seems unworthy of a true master. The point is loving and serving, and owning and mastering, not hurting.>>24116991John Norman is a philosophy professor (emeritus) at CUNY, happily married with three children.https://www.ratemyprofessors.com/professor/82090
>>24117031In his own words:>I think, pretty clearly, the three major influences on my work are Homer, Freud, and Nietzsche. Interestingly, however obvious this influence might be, few, if any, critics, commentators, or such, have called attention to it. Perhaps it is so obvious that it is simply taken for granted. In Homer you have the primitive, hardy, aristocratic warrior ethos; in Nietzsche you have the rank, distance, and hierarchy, concern with the etiology of belief, the trenchant culture criticism, and such; and, in Freud, of course, you have the depth psychology, and a sense of the radical centrality of sex to the human condition.>As a boy, as I recall, I read some of the Tarzan books. If I was influenced by them, I shall hope it was benignly. Certainly I have an affection for Edgar Rice Burroughs, and his work. I think he was a wonderful man, and had one of the great imaginations with which our species has been blessed. As mentioned, too, I was not familiar with his other work, or at least I think not, until I was an adult, fully employed, teaching, in a college, and such. I think I was doing research at Berkeley, on a fellowship, or such, when the Burroughs “explosion” took place, and a number of his works, the copyrights supposedly having expired, struck the paperback market. I think, as it turned out, the copyrights had actually been renewed on the original magazine publications of some of the work, which presented, as I recall, some touchy legal concerns. As I recall, I was particularly impressed with several of his series, and, doubtless, in particular, with the Martian series. Given my earlier reading in Planet Stories, and such, you can see how that might be. As before, if I have been influenced by Burroughs, I shall hope that the influence has been benign, and has redounded to the benefit of a wonderful genre of literature.1/2
>>24117054>Two remarks are probably in order now. First, Burroughs, I would suppose, had his own influences, which is natural and to be expected, and, certainly, did not invent the genre in which he reveled, and which he did so much to distinguish, nor, obviously, does he own it. Adventure fantasy does not belong to any particular human being, unless perhaps to the author, or authors, of the Gilgamesh epic, and his, or their, copyright would presumably have expired by now. Second, one may simply read Burroughs, and read my work. It seems very clear to me, and to most people, that the two corpuses, for better or for worse, are considerably different. The test is simple. Go, read. I have read some Robert E. Howard, as I recall. And, once again, if there is any influence there, I would hope it would turn out to be benign. Writing springs out of a human life, and a vision of the world, and there are thousands of influences, over the years, which contribute to the nature of any given individual, whether a writer or not. All in all, it would be very difficult for a writer to comment illuminatingly on this sort of thing.>There is at least one thing here I would like to credit to Mr. Burroughs, and that has little to do with what he did, but more with how he did it. He, in an era of snobbery, style, pomposity, arrogant sophistication, and such, had the courage to deal honestly and directly, boldly, movingly, straightforwardly, with simple, primitive feelings and emotions. To put it disparagingly, he had the “courage to be corny,” or to put it less disparagingly, and as I would rather put it, he had the “courage to write with spirit and heart, without apology, letting the chips fall where they might.” Did he not touch the hero and the heroine, the warrior and the princess, the scribe and the poet, in us all? He seems to have occasionally felt diffident about the quality of his own work. He is entitled to his views, of course, but I find that a bit sad. He will be read generation after generation, after generation, while one crop after another of the witty and disdainful, the shallow and clever, the polished and sophisticated, the celebrated winners of prizes, and such, comes and goes. People feel, life feels. He felt. We are grateful, and feel, too.2/2"Courage to be corny" seems the guiding mantra of genreslop.
>>24117050>Some men, I gather, dislike women, and enjoy hurting them. That makes no sense to me. Women are wonderful, and precious. It is a delight to own one; why would one hurt her?lmfao this sounds like dialogue from one of S.M. Stirling's Draka books. "I love my serfs, I would never hurt them unless they disobeyed me."
>>24117071The books themselves are filled with beating, branding, whipping, raping, chaining, dominating, breaking and otherwise enslaving women. The author also takes delight in building up a proud and comely young earth woman who is transported to Gor and put into her "natural" place in chains. It's twilight for incels. The author's attempts to distance it from BDSM and to wrap it in some sort of philosophy comes off like a pedophile trying to rationalize their mental illness. In other words, you guys will love it.
>>24117085I don’t know if fantasies about coarse domination are mental illness unless most women have mental illness.
>>24116936sorry j norman
>>24117031Conan is slop (pulp). A Conan porno isn’t any more slop
>>24117092Having the fantasy isn't. Creating an entire philosophy to rationalize it, while being disingenuous about it is. Even just from what's posted in this thread.>Why would one hurt her?>Every book has scenes of branding women with hot irons, whipping, using them as beasts of burden etc...He's an asshole. Not for what he writes about, it's amusing. But because he insists it's not what it so obviously is.
>>24117031Even the fetish content Gor is known for is done better by the old pulp masters. Howard would have the heroine lose all her clothes or get stripped and whipped by a suspiciously sapphic villainess, but he didn't dwell on it. He would just briefly, casually slip it into the narrative with a few lines and let the reader's imagination do the rest. Burroughs doesn't often mention Barsoomians' nudism after the first third of the first book; he knows the reader won't forget. Gor on the other hand constantly beats you over the head with the BDSM slave girl stuff.
>Some men, I gather, dislike children, and enjoy hurting them. That makes no sense to me. children are wonderful, and precious. It is a delight to own one; why would one hurt them? What would be the point of that, mere sadistic pleasure? I think we might distinguish between, say, S/M sex, or sadomasochistic sex, and M/C sex, or Master/Child Sex. In a sense they seem opposite. Love is important. It is not to be confused with cruelty. Gratuitous cruelty seems to me uncalled for, and ugly, morally and aesthetically. Too, it seems unworthy of a true master. The point is loving and serving, and owning and mastering, not hurting.Seriously.
>>24116983Holy based this convinced me to finally read this series
>>24117110Are you suggesting he brands women irl?
>>24117170You must be very young if you are unfamiliar with this fetish, which plenty of women are into. Hell there are more extreme ones like keeping her on a leash. My ex wanted me to say I own her even publicly, and she was a virgin when we started dating. She wanted to be my slave and I “made” her cook for me naked after throat fucking her in the morning
>Starting from the 1990s, the Gorean subculture has become attractive to a number of male teenagers through role-playing in chat rooms. The teenage role-playing Goreans who concealed many of their personal aspects such as age or lack of experience, thanks to anonymity, managed to appeal to a considerable number of married and middle-aged women as kajirae in role-playing contexts.[27]
>guy who writes fantasy where woman are kept as slaves and raped, is a decent guy, with a family, who gets cancelled IRL by feminists>guy who writes feminists works is a creep IRL who rapes womenwho would have thunk it
>>24117144>Burroughs doesn't often mention Barsoomians' nudism after the first third of the first book; he knows the reader won't forgetI still think about the free dicks flopping around in low martian gravity to this day.
>>24116936Go back to /sffg/ where you belong, nerd faggot
>>24118326turns out it's actually important to have a release valve for the id that you don't censor or restrict
>>24118344/sffg/ is no different than outer /lit/, nigger.
>>24118359But there is no ID. Except in Idiot.
Reminder that Rance was also written by a woman.
Since when did being a healthy heterosexual male become a fetish? What man doesn't fantasize about women submitting him to the degree that a slave submits to a master? What normal man doesn't think that in a sexual context obedience and a desire to please are one of the primary feminine virtues?
>>24117185Based!
>>24116936Norman: dominant male who is secure in his masculine existence while also respecting women with their different wants and needs. Wants the challenge of conquering a tough independent female and making her not only serve him but enjoy it too.Gayman: seething incel who alternately worships women and hates them for the power they have over him. Wants to take away women's freedom so he can do whatever he wants, regardless of her feelings, without any effort or conflict.
