Definition of Underage Sexual Activity

[oggbashan]

Generally, almost all Lit authors at least try to avoid causing titillation by underage sex.

Most rejections and removals are for inadvertent incidents rather than deliberately breaking the rule.

As long as that continues, Lit is reasonably safe from the morality freaks.

 

[vastiesmith100]

what are some of the sights that

allow you to write a story of females' under the age of 18 having relations?

 

[oggbashan]

allow you to write a story of females' under the age of 18 having relations?

You don't want to know...

 

[jaF0]

allow you to write a story of females' under the age of 18 having relations?

Site rules don't permit avocation of other sites.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Indeed! It changes from an objective standard into a subjective one. I guess that's really my main objection.

Yeah, subjective standards are frustrating, but it's really really hard to write a good objective rule for something like this. Without allowing for operator discretion, how do you codify the difference between something that can be taken as titillation for pedos, and something that can't?

 

[Bodington]

Yeah, subjective standards are frustrating, but it's really really hard to write a good objective rule for something like this. Without allowing for operator discretion, how do you codify the difference between something that can be taken as titillation for pedos, and something that can't?

Once again you’ve hit the nail on the head. It is probably impossible to define objectively what constitutes descriptions of underage sexual activity. As I said in my OP, the Supreme Court of the United States has had trouble even defining “hard core pornography” having to resort to the laconic phrase, “I know it when I see it.” Perhaps that simple definition would have to suffice in my situation never mind the definition proffered by the Literotica censor.

I’m somewhat disappointed by the reaction I’ve received in this thread. Again to reiterate I’m not opposed to Literotica’s policy of prohibiting descriptions of underage sexual activity, and hell I’m not even really bothered by the legalized definition of underage sexual activity favored by Literotica. I just think that common sense should prevail in adjudging what is a description of underage sexual activity.

That is why I was so shocked that a sentence of the text I offered for publication in my latest opus was declined on the basis that it violated Literotica’s policy. For convenience I’m repeating the offending sentence:

“She sensed that there had to be a sexual component as a factor in her enjoyment, but as she was not yet sexually active, she was at a loss to explain her passion for this music. All she could discern was that she found this music was compelling.”

Since I started this thread, I noticed no one has yet offered an opinion as to whether they agreed or not as to whether this sentence was truly a description of underage sexual activity. Most of the postings herein stated the obvious fact that Literotica has its policy and you either like it or lump it. Fair enough and as I pointed out in another posting I know how to play by the rules and I’ve amended the offending sentence so that my story is now available on these pages.

I know that the reason I’ve so reacted negatively against Literotica’s initial decision has to do with my own personal biases and history. When I was in high school ergo, I was under the age of eighteen years of age at the relevant time, in our English Literature class we studied Hardy’s novel, “Tess of the d'Urbervilles”. To this day I can honestly say that there was a passage in that novel that I found compelling and has been seared in my memory. In this novel Hardy describes the seducer of the heroine was enthralled upon witnessing her milking a cow in a seductive manner in that she had the side of her face resting against the flank of the cow as opposed to her forehead as every other milker would do.

Considering that this novel was published in 1891, there was no graphic sex enunciated in the text of this novel. Still as a callow youth of 17 years or younger, I could discern the steamy sexual thoughts in the mind of the seducer that Hardy intended to convey in describing the scene. In any case I sure as hell did not think I was engaged in sexual activity as I interpreted in my mind what Hardy had written.

I’m sure this passage of Hardy’s novel was my inspiration of why I wrote the offending sentence as I did. Perhaps you can now understand my disappointment when this sentence was rejected.

 

[KeithD]

I only made it through a couple of sentences. It's all irrelevant. This is a private business. It has the right say it won't publish anything with polka dotted bloomers in it if it wants. All this railing against interpretation of standards is just irrelevant. The Web site has set the rules and can apply them as it sees fit. This isn't either a free speech platform or an equal rights one. That's just the way it is.

Bringing this up again and again is tiresome and pointless.

The issue is what will pass on any given day if you want to challenge that line. And in this you need to consult directly with the sole submissions editor and one of the site owners, Laurel, not bleed all over the discussion board.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I’m somewhat disappointed by the reaction I’ve received in this thread. Again to reiterate I’m not opposed to Literotica’s policy of prohibiting descriptions of underage sexual activity, and hell I’m not even really bothered by the legalized definition of underage sexual activity favored by Literotica. I just think that common sense should prevail in adjudging what is a description of underage sexual activity.

It'd be nice (at least, if we could all agree on what "common sense" meant - that's another can of worms). But Literotica has to deal with anti-porn laws and the threat of moral panics, and "common sense" only gets one so far there.

That is why I was so shocked that a sentence of the text I offered for publication in my latest opus was declined on the basis that it violated Literotica’s policy. For convenience I’m repeating the offending sentence:

“She sensed that there had to be a sexual component as a factor in her enjoyment, but as she was not yet sexually active, she was at a loss to explain her passion for this music. All she could discern was that she found this music was compelling.”

Since I started this thread, I noticed no one has yet offered an opinion as to whether they agreed or not as to whether this sentence was truly a description of underage sexual activity.

I don't think it's an answerable question, because it depends so heavily on how one defines "activity". Does it mean a physical action, or does it mean anything that somebody does?

Possibly part of the issue here is that Literotica is over twenty years old (which is about a century in website years). In that time, a lot has changed about internet regulation and related politics. The moderation policy on this site has shifted in some areas, mostly towards a more cautious stance, and the documentation hasn't always kept up with those changes.

For instance, if I wanted to write a story about Albus Dumbledore getting it on with Monty Burns, that would be rejected here, because the site doesn't accept stories based on Harry Potter or The Simpsons. But that policy isn't given anywhere in the FAQs; it's just something people found out by getting stories rejected, or by reading forum posts from others who did. So it's less an issue of "does this story contravene the policy as it was documented way back then" and more "does it contravene the policy as it's evolved since?"

(And yes, that's not a great situation, and if I could wave a wand and get one thing fixed about this site, getting the documentation up to date would be high on the list.)

The other problem with "common sense" is that it doesn't scale very well. A site this big with this many readers is pretty much doomed to be dragged into the limelight now and then. Once in a while, somebody with a browser history full of Literotica stories is going to do something awful and newsworthy. Maybe a 16-year-old reads this site and gets in touch with an author who rapes her, or a bunch of pedophiles set up accounts here and use the DM function to trade child porn.

When that happens, and some journalist finds that the author involved has a line about sixteen-year-old sexuality in a story that the moderator allowed through, that's dangerous for the site. Even if it is something very mild that wouldn't rate a second glance in a mainstream fiction book.

 

[XerXesXu]

I only made it through a couple of sentences. It's all irrelevant. This is a private business. It has the right say it won't publish anything with polka dotted bloomers in it if it wants. All this railing against interpretation of standards is just irrelevant. The Web site has set the rules and can apply them as it sees fit. This isn't either a free speech platform or an equal rights one. That's just the way it is.

Bringing this up again and again is tiresome and pointless.

The issue is what will pass on any given day if you want to challenge that line. And in this you need to consult directly with the sole submissions editor and one of the site owners, Laurel, not bleed all over the discussion board.

Harsh.

This site invites submissions and sets guidelines. I don't believe the site owners act arbitrarily, I believe they set their guidelines so submissions are not set up to be rejected.

Examples of that which transgresses and that which doesn't is a matter which may interest many prospective authors. A discussion of examples, and how they are treated within the guidelines, which refines our understanding of the envelope of permissibility, is surely appropriate on a discussion group titled 'Authors' Hangout'.

 

[KeithD]

Harsh.

This site invites submissions and sets guidelines. I don't believe the site owners act arbitrarily, I believe they set their guidelines so submissions are not set up to be rejected.

Examples of that which transgresses and that which doesn't is a matter which may interest many prospective authors. A discussion of examples, and how they are treated within the guidelines, which refines our understanding of the envelope of permissibility is surely appropriate on a discussion group titled 'Authors' Hangout'.

That too is irrelevant as it applies to me--or you, for that matter. Because (a) I--and you--have nothing to do with the site's rules or their exercise of them. Just spinning of wheels impotently and (b) this wasn't (yet another) discussion of what passes and what doesn't. It got into an argument on standards beyond this website. And I repeat, the discussion is to be had with Laurel directly. It's obviously a mushy business of subjective decision making here--and it is Laurel's and only Laurel's call--not yours, mine, or anyone else's. Which makes board ad nauseum discussion irrelevant.

Let me add that some years ago when I brought up broken functions and mushy definitions here, Laurel not only posted that user thoughts like what I was expressing were irrelevant to what the website would do, as it liked, but also that I was a troll for bringing them up.

 

[XerXesXu]

That too is irrelevant as it applies to me--or you, for that matter. Because (a) I--and you--have nothing to do with the site's rules or their exercise of them. Just spinning of wheels impotently and (b) this wasn't (yet another) discussion of what passes and what doesn't. It got into an argument on standards beyond this website. And I repeat, the discussion is to be had with Laurel directly. It's obviously a mushy business of subjective decision making here--and it is Laurel's and only Laurel's call--not yours, mine, or anyone else's. Which makes board ad nauseum discussion irrelevant.

Well you don't have to join in.

 

[KeithD]

Well you don't have to join in.

So, you don't like people continuing to point to issues that aren't going anywhere.

 

[XerXesXu]

So, you don't like people continuing to point to issues that aren't going anywhere.

I find it interesting. There's another thread going on at the moment where the other forbidden topic - bestiality, has arisen. Now I don't write or wish to write about underage sex or bestiality, but I'm interested to know how the rules can be finessed.

 

[KeithD]

I find it interesting. There's another thread going on at the moment where the other forbidden topic - bestiality, has arisen. Now I don't write or wish to write about underage sex or bestiality, but I'm interested to know how the rules can be finessed.

You should see what Literotica lets me do with vampires--and not because I'm trying to get around rules here but because that's basic to what my erotic vampires do to maintain their existence.

 

[ChloeTzang]

.....but I'm interested to know how the rules can be finessed.

You'll only find that out by finessing them, and that's up to each writer who wants to. One or two of my stories stray close to the Literotica border, but I couldn't explain how I finesse them at all - I just write them in such a way that I don't cross the line, except in the readers mind. Try explaining that, it's far to subtle. LOL. If you want to try, go for it, but you have to be good, and you have to be very very subtle in how you do it.

In short, it ain't easy.

And what Keith says below.

 

[XerXesXu]

You should see what Literotica lets me do with vampires--and not because I'm trying to get around rules here but because that's basic to what my erotic vampires do to maintain their existence.

Can these vampires engage in underage sex?

 

[KeithD]

Can these vampires engage in underage sex?

Not at Literotica, no. I don't try that here.

 

[XerXesXu]

Not at Literotica, no. I don't try that here.

What about a 12 year old space octopus; could that engage in sexual activity?

 

[Rustyoznail]

What about a 12 year old space octopus; could that engage in sexual activity?

Only if you state that 1 year on Xerclong is the equivalent to 52 earth years. And then you’re running along that edge Chloe was referring to.

 

[KeithD]

What about a 12 year old space octopus; could that engage in sexual activity?

Not something I'd bother thinking about it since it's sort of stupid to worry about the space octopus's age. I wouldn't write any such story. Be silly on your own time.

 

[XerXesXu]

Not something I'd bother thinking about it since it's sort of stupid to worry about the space octopus's age. I wouldn't write any such story. Be silly on your own time.

Peter Pan and Tinkerbell?

 

[KeithD]

Peter Pan and Tinkerbell?

I wouldn't write about either of those either, so I wouldn't waste my time wondering how a specific use of them would be accepted here or not. If you are interested in writing about them, suggest you either take your chances or ask Laurel directly (or didn't you get that it's only Laurel who matters in a decision and that depends on how the specific use hits her on a given day?). Seems to be a bit hardheaded not to get this point.

 

[XerXesXu]

I wouldn't write about either of those either, so I wouldn't waste my time wondering how a specific use of them would be accepted here or not. If you are interested in writing about them, suggest you either take your chances or ask Laurel directly (or didn't you get that it's only Laurel who matters in a decision and that depends on how the specific use hits her on a given day?). Seems to be a bit hardheaded not to get this point.

Harsh.

This site invites submissions and sets guidelines. I don't believe the site owners act arbitrarily, I believe they set their guidelines so submissions are not set up to be rejected.

Examples of that which transgresses and that which doesn't is a matter which may interest many prospective authors. A discussion of examples, and how they are treated within the guidelines, which refines our understanding of the envelope of permissibility, is surely appropriate on a discussion group titled 'Authors' Hangout'.

A circular discussion. Why do you want to pester Lauren? Don't you think she has enough to do? Why not pool wisdom?

 

[KeithD]

I think you might need to look up the definition of "harsh."

You're certainly welcome to your opinions.

I am a bit amused that you seem to think the editor here is "Lauren." And, yes, I see that you are just unable to grasp the concept that the edges of acceptability here indeed get mushy and are determined by Laurel, and only Laurel, based on the specific story and her mood on the day. Which makes discussion board chatter by folks who have absolutely no power over anything here and have shown an extremely varied experience on what actually happens in the gray areas, as I posted, irrelevant.

You also are missing the point of the irrelevance of what happens in the greater world has to do with what happens on this privately owned website.

I'm not having a circular discussion on this--you are, I assume because you think you're cute.

 

[XerXesXu]

I think you might need to look up the definition of "harsh."

You're certainly welcome to your opinions.

I am a bit amused that you seem to think the editor here is "Lauren."

At last! A smile. It's all been worthwhile.