litphoria

So basically, a 'Forced' interest put into a Mandatory/Yes column would be An interest you Love OOCly, but your character would not enjoy, hence the forced. Likewise, you could probably repeat that same Interest, and put into "No" or "Never" the Willing version.

On another note, when adding an Interest, this should be pretty obvious, so that people who put up Sex as interest, but are not interested in Rape, can check out of Forced. Or, by default, all interests you list are "Willing" and people have to add the "Forced" part of it?

There's some interesting potential here, potentially to the point of completely removing non consensual. But I do have some concerns. Giving/willing per-interest makes sense to me because it is very reasonable for someone to be a top and only give a certain interest or be a bottom and only take. But do we need the granularity here of it being per-interest? Presumably someone into non consensual would be interested in any of their interests being 'forced'.

Well, there is context too, but there are things that would either need their own category in Interests, or they could benefit from this, like Forced Incest, Forced Adultery (to specify needing to be forced to engage in sex with someone not your spouse), Forced Deepthroat, etc. But somethings, such as Kidnapping or Blackmail don't really make much sense as anything but forced, and in most cases, just stating the interest implies willingness, so no need to do anything but flag it as Forced. So perhaps an Interest can have an internal flag of forceable and if this exists, then the Interest includes a checkbox for Forced. All that said, it kind of makes me think it is just as easy to live with some extra interests like Forced Incest and drive on.

This is a very good idea. If this could be implemented into Roleplaying ideas, it could provide a way to find roleplays involving forced bestiality (see my earlier post).

Addendum: Consider that some subs might only want to roleplay certain preferences in a forced context. Heck, this could even involve one of my favourite, but niche kinks: "Forced dominance," where the sub is forced to top a third character.

Oh, that is a personal like of mine too. Like there are two subs and a Dom.

Okay, in the light of what we do hear often enough about people already being turned away from Litphoria based on the complexity of profile creation and knowing that (by simple calculation) this is going to ad tonne of work to the profile creation - my question is, just how is this going to be handled not to make it one big bother?
I won't deny that some people will find this of big use, but I am not entirely agreeing we can afford the cost associated with something that, for the most part, is not a make-or-break when it comes to searching and communicating needs (we still have Contexts). I firmly believe this suggestion is pretty much trying to push into the system more data than it is worth it, and the negative effects of such (time spent setting everything up) is going to be problem on user's side.
Especially since we all know how the goal was, ideally, to have a whole ton of interests, and that means a whole lot of clicking and setting up. We already have a lot of it, as mentioned above and in some chat conversations.

It may be difficult to make the "not adding enough value" argument when this is one of the most endorsed things on the site, and has basically been there since it was suggested.

This will not add anything to profile creation. Profile creation will continue to be agnostic to a lot of the finer details. This will impact profile editing thereafter though, and yes, without some way to mass mark interests, will add a lot of clicking to there. We can see this problem already with how under utilized give/take is.

But probably there should at least be an option to set all of them to the same, right away. Set all to willing/set all to forced. Like there is now with preferences. It would at least mean that if you want a majority of things forced or willing, you wouldn't have to go through and set them all individually.

On this front, I have had ideas for two modes on profile editing - one that would be very good at setting broad strokes like "I really like non consensual activities and only give", and one that would have your options for fine-tuning everything to be more specific. That way, you get the broad parts right, then worry about the details later, sort of like how profile creation here works.

I am not a fan of this because of the added complexity.

Neither. I don't want several dozen more dropdowns to ponder over on editing my profile - one for every interest. I don't want every interest in every profile I read to obtain another symbol to interpret. (I would rather someone just tell me in a sentence or two in their description.) The increase in exactness is not worthwhile for me.

As we get more of these (and particularly if different versions of these can be added to different lists ...) we will need editor enhancements to make it easier to update lots of interests at once.

After some long consideration, we’ve decided we won’t be implementing this. This is probably surprising since this has sat highly endorsed and accepted for over a year - but over the course of that year we’ve learned a lot about the site, how people use it, and the issues it faces.

One of those issues is profile complexity. Profile creation involves a lot of fiddly bits. Reading a profile also involves a lot of symbols to interpret. Adding another set of options - forced/willing - to each interest is a costly proposition that had better bring proportionate benefit to make itself worth it.

And… after having considered and discussed this at length, we think this does not provide proportionate benefit to be worth the added complexity. By and large, profiles are either only interested in consensual behaviour, or they’re interested in dubious consent or non-consent, and then everything is available to be “forced”. The number of deviations from this pattern that forced/willing would resolve are relatively few. We consider the Nonconsensual, Dubious Consent, and Consensual interests to be sufficient.

Rather than implement a new toggle for interests, we suggest handling this by describing in your Nonconsensual or Dubious Consent interests’ contexts what you’re interested in having handled that way - and use the context of your interests to specify when you’d like to be forced.

We’re willing to revisit this later as the website grows if there’s enough demand for it. We are also willing to hear out if there’s problems going on with expressing consent & forced/willing specifics, and potential solutions like this one.