G
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
How about off the top of My head the kid from Malcom in the Middle.
SlickTony said:
It can only be excused by the possibility that BB is not from America, as The Catcher in the Rye is on the list of things you ought to be aware of in order to be considered culturally literate.
Well, I am sorry to disappoint you, but I am American.
the_bragis said:Hello sweetnpetite,
You raise some interesting points, however, as I said before I just can't bend on this one, so we may have to agree to disagree on the subject of kiddy porn.
I think as much as anything, the notion of a child or minor's innocents being taken before their time, and particularly by an adult, is what I find so repugnant. I don't want to see it, or read about it.
You at 28, looking years younger (lucky you), and dating men your own age, of course I don't have a problem with that. A sweet little 16 year old dating a much older man; well whether I'm right or wrong, I see that as being different
Tamlee said:"Sweet little 16 year old"? You seem to be under the impression that the average teenager doesn't develop naughty thoughts or actively attempt to have sex. This may be the case for some, but the (US) government's panic about teen pregnancy is based on something, and it can't all be rape and contaminated swimming pools. Yes, it would be nice to think that it was nice and simple, that on one's 18th birthday, the Good Sex Fairy bestowed the ability to fantasize. It just doesn't happen to be true in any case that I'm familiar with.
This is not to say that I think you're horrible for not wanting people to be taken advantage of. It's a role of society to protect those who are not knowledgeable or powerful enough to protect themselves. I do think that innocence is the wrong word, though. Inexperienced, unready, deserving of our protection, emotionally immature, focused on other things, sure. But no sweet little teenager is completely innocent. It's not a moral issue; it's a legal one. Quite a few people on this thread seem to believe in the myth of childhood and adolescent innocence. I don't know if the childhood innocence is true, but I know adolescent innocence isn't.
When you know that students learn about the Holocaust and Ebola in schools, how can you think that they're these mindless, trusting little zombies? Would you seriously want to think that everything they learned just bounced off and only kicked in when they turned 18? "Gee Suzy, I never thought about how horrible the world could be or how nice it would feel to get laid!" It just doesn't make sense. Most suicide attempts would be on the 18th birthday.
Protecting those underage from being exploited because they're forbidden, is responsible and caring. It says very good things about the concerned individuals here that they are worried about the welfare of those without direct legal representation. But selectively applying morals at a site blatantly portraying pornography seems a bit silly. Not publish something because it violates the law? Perfectly rational. Not publish because the site owner, for whatever reason, doesn't care for it? Totally understandable. Not publish because it's immoral? Completely illogical.
I didn't mean to make this so long, but I think these things should be said. Literoticans can be very tolerant, but sometimes I think people forget that this site is, by conventional standards, immoral. If a teenager doesn't want to have sex until well after they graduate college or get married or whatever, the laws in place to protect them should be dependable. But I'm not going to call anyone who happens to find a teenager attractive a pedophile. They act on it, not cool. They admire but keep their hands off, totally cool.
Anyhow, to wrap this up, this is an opinion thing. As long as we can all realize that no one person's opinion runs this show but Laurel's, I think things might snap into perspective. It's all very well to say that you're outraged about something, but if you don't like something you can always find a different way to spend your time. As so many have said, just don't open the durn story. <Thank you to anyone whose patience took you this far>
CrownJoolz said:I have much less of a problem with projecting into the future when a celebrity comes of legal age than I do with some of the stories that really push the envelope.
There's another story which is in the Toplist which clearly states the girl is 18, but could pass for at least 3 years younger. And I've seen this tactic used in quite a few other stories as well.
Those kinds of things bother me. They skirt the rules and they blur the line between erotica and kiddie porn. I personally don't think the Olsen Twins at their 18th birthday party fall into that category. The celebrity category, in my mind, is mostly tongue-in-cheek anyway.
JMHO.
Joolz
SexyChele said:Well, first, in one story, he begins by stating it is the twins 18th birthday. The other he doesn't mention age at all. As far as I can tell. (Unless I don't have the right stories)
Besides, instead of posting this here, why not just simply PM Laurel and have her deal with it? By posting it here, it only feeds curiousity, and I would think if you were "outraged" you would not want curiousity-seekers to be looking up the stories in question. Also, as the writer didn't mention age in one of the stories, he very well may have meant it to take place in the future. By posting here, it would appear that you are attempting to smudge his name without letting Laurel deal with the potential problem in private. And if I were the writer in question, I would certainly appreciate the discretion.
maggie2002 said:I agree with master V and with the others who think deleting this is a grand idea. ENough is enough and rightfully so new members drawn into this thread have no idea its not the norm Give it a break and let it stop now. Besides I think with his last post it might be interfering with his ability to write although reading his latest horror selections neck still tingling from the visual of his vampire it has definately brought out his dark side and that is to the good He is great in these stories.
Child Pornography: material that visually depicts children (real children as well as computer-generated depictions of children) under the age of eighteen engaged in actual or simulated sexual activity, including lewd exhibition of the genitals. Child pornography laws were recently amended to include computerized images or altered (morphed) pictures of children, and counterfeit or synthetic images generated by computer that appear to be of real minors or that were marketed or represented to be real child pornography
Source: http://www.protectkids.com/dangers/porndefinitions.htm
Legal Definition of Child Pornography: An unprotected visual depiction of a minor child (federal age is under eighteen) engaged in actual or simulated sexual conduct, including a lewd or lascivious exhibition of the genitals. See New York v Ferber, 458 U.S. 747 (1982), Osborne v Ohio, 495 U.S. 103 (1990), U.S. v X-Citement Video, Inc., 115 S. Ct. 464 (1994). See also U.S. v Wiegand, 812 F.2d 1239 (9th Cir. 1987), cert. denied, 484 U.S. 856 (1987), U.S. v Knox, 32 F.3d 733 (3rd Cir. 1994), cert. denied, 115 S. Ct. 897 (1995). Note: In 1996, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A was enacted and § 2256 was amended to include "child pornography" that consists of a visual depiction that "is or appears to be" of an actual minor engaging in sexually explicit conduct. See Free Speech Coalition v Reno, No. C-97-0281 SC, judgment for defendants, Aug. 12, 1997, unpublished, 1997 WL 487758 (N.D.Cal 1997).
Source: http://www.protectkids.com/dangers/pornlegaldefinitions.htm#childporn
Marxist said:Laurel,
Then the obvious question must be asked, why not? Is it for fear of incitement to action (my original point)? How is that vastly different than "Lot Lizard?"
I'm playing devil's advocate, I'm on neither side of the argument as it pertains to Lit. I have written scenes that involved an element of non-consent myself. Governmental censorship regarding speech is patently wrong and everyone here probably agrees on that point.
But regarding murder fiction, you must answer your own question, why is fictionalized murder fiction and fictionalized adult felony rape OK but not fictionalized child felony sodomy?
It's all fantasy, or is it?
Why draw the line unless there is a thought, no matter how obscure, that it will be a cause to a specific action?
Laurel said:Not so fast, buster. I asked YOU first.
It has nothing to do with incitement to action. It has to do with personal tastes. I don't want to read stories involving young children. They offend me - not because I think they're harmful, but because I think they're distasteful. It being a privately run site, we can make up whatever rules we deem fit. We also don't allow stories under 750 words. (Not for the same reasons, of course. )
Pookie_grrl said:Just to clear up something, fictional stories about people under 18 years of age having sex are not illegal in the USA. However, child pornography is illegal. But "stories" are not child pornography in the eyes of the Courts.
Clearly, fictional stories are not visual depictions. Laurel has chosen to not post stories involving characters under eighteen for personal reasons, not legal. It's her website and she can do as she pleases. If someone doesn't like it, they can go elsewhere to post their stories.
Laurel has stated her opinion on this issue at least once:
Source: https://forum.literotica.com/showth...&perpage=25&highlight=child porn&pagenumber=3
BooMerengue said:Pookie This is clearly the most intelligent , well thought out response I have seen yet. If I go to a bar and I don't like what I see... I go to another bar. If I open a book and don't like what I read, I close it. The woman who started all this brouhaha should have stopped reading and moved on. Let's hope she learns from this... and you who said you were gonna stop posting here? Then you let her win!! Don't do that! Instead write a story about Lil Orphan Annie and Daddy Warbucks... should be interesting cuz Annie never gets old, tho she was born in 1930 something!!