A Quick Question...

[snooper]

... This should not be a legal or political issue, ...

But it is political and "Laurel" has a living to make in the real world, not in some idealised one where "should" implies "is".

Facts: ONE. There are people who would try very hard to close this site down if they thought that it supported (however obliquely) paedophilia. TWO. The owners of the site set the rules, and can be as arbitrary as they like about their own site.

 

[Gary Chambers]

But it is political and "Laurel" has a living to make in the real world, not in some idealised one where "should" implies "is".

Facts: ONE. There are people who would try very hard to close this site down if they thought that it supported (however obliquely) paedophilia. TWO. The owners of the site set the rules, and can be as arbitrary as they like about their own site.

We're all aware of the extent to which a certain neofascist regime will go to impose its twisted puritanical ideas on others. Nowhere, in my post did I attack Laurel for her decision, au contraire, I provided an example of her demonstrated willingness to stand on the principle of freedom of expression when she feels it's appropriate to do so. My point was, and is, this issue shouldn't face any of us, because this has nothing to do with children having sex. Nobody has sex here, we just write about sex. The fact that extremists equate the written word with reality to such an extent that they can't separate the two is the problem. It's a problem Laurel faces as an editor, and we all face as writers.

No act of paedophilia has taken place on Literotica and I can't see how it ever will. But these things do happen in real life, and if they are not written about to show the pain and destruction that results, then people have no mirror in which to see that dark side of life, which in turn will increase its incidence in real life.

There's nothing wrong with tearing a strip off an author who writes something that offends you. There's nothing wrong with complaining about such works to Laurel, and there's nothing wrong with Laurel deciding not to publish a story that she finds inappropriate. There is something wrong with acknowledging that any of us would consider changing what we write or publish just because some band of God bothering neonazis says we should. When I write I story for a publisher my aim is to create something of value to readers and to the editor I'm submitting it to. If some illiterate, jackbooted gutter snipe like John Ashcroft, Ken Starr or Donald Rumsfeld doesn't like it, they can vote one and send me a feedback rocket, or they can fuck off, preferably the latter.

 

[BlackSnake]

Re: Re: Re: Re: A Quick Question...

Hmm, yeah I stumbled across a story series a while back that mentions that two girls very much participating is in the eight and tenth grade. I'm not 100% sure of how old that is, but I think that's way too young. Right?

Judge for yourself (It's "oh this is natual, healthy and everyone is sooo happy about it"-cliché incest):
http://www.literotica.com/stories/showstory.php?id=116937

I didn't think much of it, but should I report this to someone?

Naw, they were 18 in the eight grade. They failed because they were in the back of the classroom playing with eachother's croches.

 

[cookiejar]

We're all aware of the extent to which a certain neofascist regime will go to impose its twisted puritanical ideas on others. Nowhere, in my post did I attack Laurel for her decision, au contraire, I provided an example of her demonstrated willingness to stand on the principle of freedom of expression when she feels it's appropriate to do so. My point was, and is, this issue shouldn't face any of us, because this has nothing to do with children having sex. Nobody has sex here, we just write about sex. The fact that extremists equate the written word with reality to such an extent that they can't separate the two is the problem. It's a problem Laurel faces as an editor, and we all face as writers.

No act of paedophilia has taken place on Literotica and I can't see how it ever will. But these things do happen in real life, and if they are not written about to show the pain and destruction that results, then people have no mirror in which to see that dark side of life, which in turn will increase its incidence in real life.

There's nothing wrong with tearing a strip off an author who writes something that offends you. There's nothing wrong with complaining about such works to Laurel, and there's nothing wrong with Laurel deciding not to publish a story that she finds inappropriate. There is something wrong with acknowledging that any of us would consider changing what we write or publish just because some band of God bothering neonazis says we should. When I write I story for a publisher my aim is to create something of value to readers and to the editor I'm submitting it to. If some illiterate, jackbooted gutter snipe like John Ashcroft, Ken Starr or Donald Rumsfeld doesn't like it, they can vote one and send me a feedback rocket, or they can fuck off, preferably the latter.

Extremists aren't the only one who equate the written word with reality ... try scores of pedophiliacs out there who read it. Who twist words in their own sick brain and use them to act out their perverted fantasies.

The stories on Lit didn't show pain and destruction. They showed young girls being portayed as sex hungry tramps, ready to climb in bed at the drop of an older man's pants. In the eighth grade I was 13...I hadn't even started my period. If that's not a child... if that is something of value I'm missing it somewhere.

 

[Gary Chambers]

Extremists aren't the only one who equate the written word with reality ... try scores of pedophiliacs out there who read it. Who twist words in their own sick brain and use them to act out their perverted fantasies.

The stories on Lit didn't show pain and destruction. They showed young girls being portayed as sex hungry tramps, ready to climb in bed at the drop of an older man's pants. In the eighth grade I was 13...I hadn't even started my period. If that's not a child... if that is something of value I'm missing it somewhere.

I don't understand, Cookie, you seem to accept that the pedophile acts out his or her own wretched fantasies, but then you seem to argue that the poor pedophile would not be a pedophile if it wasn't for writers. It's the writers who are the criminals? The pedophile is their victim? I do not accept that we who write about sex are responsible for sex criminals and their actions. It so happens that I do see pedophiles as victims of a mental or emotional illness, but I believe that a pedophile exposed to quality literature on the subject may find it helps to control and overcome their illness. Perhaps by enjoying their sick fantasies through reading or enjoying some other form of art, they may slake their thirst and avoid succumbing to their twisted passions for another day. The shock of enjoying the fantasy may even encourage them to seek professional help. We can only hope.

I didn't read the stories in question. I assume you read them, and I accept your word that they made no attempt to deal responsibly with the subject of underaged sex. I am simply raising the issue of writing about the subject in general. I doubt whether any writers on Literotica would intentionally write something that would scar someone's sexual persona; pass someone an emotional illness rooted deep in their sexuality, assuming it's even possible to write such a thing, which I seriously doubt. If someone did write and submit such a thing I have some confidence the system here would spit it back to the errant writer. I just don't believe in giving censorship the weight of law, and whenever I see censorship taking place I tend to make that point.

Personally, I have no particular desire to write about underaged sex. If it comes up in the nromal course of writing a story, however, I try not to shy away from it but rather to deal with it in a responsible manner. As for others who do specialise in portraying the sexuality of young people, I freely admit I've been a fan of David Hamilton's work for many years. He is a photographer who is famous for his portraits and figure studies of young women and girls. Here's a quote from an academic study of work by Hamilton and some others:

"Though we know children do have sexual impulses, we prefer not to be brutally confronted with evidence of these. Still less do we like to be confronted with images which may, at some deep level, arouse unacceptable feelings in ourselves. We cannot, despite our familiarity with Freudian concepts, deal with the idea that parental love or its surrogates may contain a barely controlled sexual element. Our extreme self- consciousness about images of this kind has had a curious result. During a decade when the boundaries of tolerance, certainly in the English-speaking world, have gradually loosened to the point where almost any sexual image can be published or exhibited, they have become noticeably tighter where photographic representations of children are involved. It is not Robert Mapplethorpe's photographs of male S&M activities that now cause concern, but his picture of a little girl throwing up her skirt to reveal her pudenda: the record of a spontaneous moment of exhibitionism of a sort very common in small children. Even Edward Weston's beautiful frontal torso of his young son has become the kind of image that publishers are reluctant to deal with. In these cases, the standard excuse is made: 'It is not, you understand, that I am disturbed by this particular image myself. It's just that other people might take it the wrong way.' "

'Defacing Mann and Others'*, is a short graduate essay on the USA controversy over the girl photography of Sturges, Hamilton, Mann and others.

 

[cookiejar]

I don't understand, Cookie, you seem to accept that the pedophile acts out his or her own wretched fantasies, but then you seem to argue that the poor pedophile would not be a pedophile if it wasn't for writers. It's the writers who are the criminals? The pedophile is their victim? I do not accept that we who write about sex are responsible for sex criminals and their actions. It so happens that I do see pedophiles as victims of a mental or emotional illness, but I believe that a pedophile exposed to quality literature on the subject may find it helps to control and overcome their illness. Perhaps by enjoying their sick fantasies through reading or enjoying some other form of art, they may slake their thirst and avoid succumbing to their twisted passions for another day. The shock of enjoying the fantasy may even encourage them to seek professional help. We can only hope.

I didn't read the stories in question. I assume you read them, and I accept your word that they made no attempt to deal responsibly with the subject of underaged sex. I am simply raising the issue of writing about the subject in general. I doubt whether any writers on Literotica would intentionally write something that would scar someone's sexual persona; pass someone an emotional illness rooted deep in their sexuality, assuming it's even possible to write such a thing, which I seriously doubt. If someone did write and submit such a thing I have some confidence the system here would spit it back to the errant writer. I just don't believe in giving censorship the weight of law, and whenever I see censorship taking place I tend to make that point.

Personally, I have no particular desire to write about underaged sex. If it comes up in the nromal course of writing a story, however, I try not to shy away from it but rather to deal with it in a responsible manner. As for others who do specialise in portraying the sexuality of young people, I freely admit I've been a fan of David Hamilton's work for many years. He is a photographer who is famous for his portraits and figure studies of young women and girls. Here's a quote from an academic study of work by Hamilton and some others:

"Though we know children do have sexual impulses, we prefer not to be brutally confronted with evidence of these. Still less do we like to be confronted with images which may, at some deep level, arouse unacceptable feelings in ourselves. We cannot, despite our familiarity with Freudian concepts, deal with the idea that parental love or its surrogates may contain a barely controlled sexual element. Our extreme self- consciousness about images of this kind has had a curious result. During a decade when the boundaries of tolerance, certainly in the English-speaking world, have gradually loosened to the point where almost any sexual image can be published or exhibited, they have become noticeably tighter where photographic representations of children are involved. It is not Robert Mapplethorpe's photographs of male S&M activities that now cause concern, but his picture of a little girl throwing up her skirt to reveal her pudenda: the record of a spontaneous moment of exhibitionism of a sort very common in small children. Even Edward Weston's beautiful frontal torso of his young son has become the kind of image that publishers are reluctant to deal with. In these cases, the standard excuse is made: 'It is not, you understand, that I am disturbed by this particular image myself. It's just that other people might take it the wrong way.' "

'Defacing Mann and Others'*, is a short graduate essay on the USA controversy over the girl photography of Sturges, Hamilton, Mann and others.

I'm sorry, maybe I'm not entirely rational on the subject. As a 5 year old I was forced to jerk off a man. I can't begin to tell you the emotional baggage that carries. We will never agree on this and yes my experience had nothing to do with what the man read or the pictures he may have looked at. (At least I don't think so) In a perfect world, a naked child is a beautiful sight but God knows this world is far from perfect. My daughter is 7 and all of this hits close to home. Maybe I'm looking at this from a jaundiced eye. Again , if so I apologize.

BTW, you make me sound like I spend my days rooting out what I deem offensive. Nothing could be farther from the truth, it would be a little hypocritical on a sex chat line. I found the story entirely by chance and I thought it was worth posting about.


Have a good day...and nice to meet you...

 

[Gary Chambers]

...In a perfect world, a naked child is a beautiful sight but God knows this world is far from perfect. My daughter is 7 and all of this hits close to home. Maybe I'm looking at this from a jaundiced eye. Again , if so I apologize.

BTW, you make me sound like I spend my days rooting out what I deem offensive. Nothing could be farther from the truth, it would be a little hypocritical on a sex chat line. I found the story entirely by chance and I thought it was worth posting about.

Have a good day...and nice to meet you...

It's nice to meet you too, Cookie. Rest assured that it was not my intention to suggest that you acted out of obsession or that you spend your life campaigning to impose a jaundiced view on others. I suppose I too have a jaundiced view, but mine is the view of those in positions of vast power and authority who use that power and authority to control our thoughts through censorship. I'm not sure I want to modify that jaundiced view, however. Emotive issues raise our passions, and I rather like seeing and hearing people express themselves passionately about anything. That's what I hate about censorship: it dampens our ability to think and express ourselves with passion on a broad range of subjects.

I admire you for being so open about your own sexual experiences, especially the dark and unpleasant ones. I wish everyone could be that honest with themselves and others. Instead we too often bear the scars in silence.

 

[cookiejar]

It's nice to meet you too, Cookie. Rest assured that it was not my intention to suggest that you acted out of obsession or that you spend your life campaigning to impose a jaundiced view on others. I suppose I too have a jaundiced view, but mine is the view of those in positions of vast power and authority who use that power and authority to control our thoughts through censorship. I'm not sure I want to modify that jaundiced view, however. Emotive issues raise our passions, and I rather like seeing and hearing people express themselves passionately about anything. That's what I hate about censorship: it dampens our ability to think and express ourselves with passion on a broad range of subjects.

I admire you for being so open about your own sexual experiences, especially the dark and unpleasant ones. I wish everyone could be that honest with themselves and others. Instead we too often bear the scars in silence.

I really do understand where you are coming from and I wish there was one simple answer to it but unfortunately it's a complicated issue.

I'm open about my abuse because I was lucky enough to have parents who made sure I saw a qualified counselor who helped me understand it wasn't my fault. He had told me if I told I would be taken away from my parents ... I was a "bad" girl. I'm glad I trusted enough to tell them. I stress to my daughter to always be open with me, to tell me anything.

Cookie

 

[Dirt Man]

Actually, it doesn't matter what grade they were in as long as they were 18 or older. They could have been in kindergarden for all that matters is the age.


As Always
I Am the
Dirt Man

 

[Boxlicker101]

Where do I officially adress my bitching?

Linbido,

I would guess to Laurel - you can e-mail her from the link below:


https://forum.literotica.com/member.php?s=&action=getinfo&userid=7

Lime

PS - I would agree 16 seems OK to me, but 13 is definitely over the line.

I would say 13 is UNDER the line.

 

[Gary Chambers]

I would say 13 is UNDER the line.

Sex with a thirteen-year-old sounds hard to take. I suspect people that young are too emotionally fragile to handle an adult, and if not their conversation apres amour would make me giddy. However, it needs to pointed out that 13 is the legal age of consent in Japan.

 

[the shadow of a boy]

Sex with a thirteen-year-old sounds hard to take. I suspect people that young are too emotionally fragile to handle an adult, and if not their conversation apres amour would make me giddy. However, it needs to pointed out that 13 is the legal age of consent in Japan.

Well, I might as well jump into the deep end with my very first comment on literotica.

In Canada, the conventional wisdom is that our legal age of consent is seventeen, or eighteen, or something. Except for those who's jobs or roles put them in a position of authority over young adults, it isn't. Some of us, for one reason or another, know that it isn't. I've participated in group conversations where someone repeated the misinformed view, and seen one or another person's face as they decided, like myself, not to correct the misunderstanding. I suspect similar situations occur in a few American states.

What tends to be forgotten is that, in Canada and in most places, the 'age of consent' under discussion was originally legislated as the age of consent to marriage in a time when (official) social mores were monolithic and more forcefully enforced, when most communities were smaller and less transient, and when everyone, but most especially young women, had fewer options and less freedom regarding sexual intimacy.

Not to mention that marriage was seen as a woman's primary and natural recourse against predation.

This, of course, becomes ironic (in the darkest sense) when a law is seen as a declaration of legality (rather than illegality), legality is seen as justifying and permitting, and litigation and legislation are seen as everyone's primary and natural recourse against everything.

I know this isn't where the thread started, but it seemed to have crossed the line from fictional to real acts at some point. I hope my comment was appropriate.