Yet another "underage" question

[Alex756]

Alex 756,

I'm afraid you were misled by Gauche's quote of me, out of context.

I said,

According to your [Gauche's] approach, the author's view is not determinative; s/he could still be 'inadvertently pandering.' If your genteel piece of erotica is used (as a turn on) by a sexual sadist prior to attacking someone, then the author is catering to sexual sadistic desires, in the same 'inadvertent' way that the artists I posted are catering to 'pedophilia.'

The paragraph, as its opening sentence states is an unravelling of the consequences of Gauche's position. It's not my own position. Gauche's concern with 'inadervertent pandering'--an original, if silly concept-- leads to the consequences I described.

To wit, all sexual depictions become of concern because of the potential for 'inadvertant pandering.' This contrasts with my position that it's the author's intent and the context of a sexual depiction-- not its sometime use-- that goes toward the decision,
'is it child porn or obscenity involving children?'

Remember that the original issue is Gauche's ill advised statements about budding breasts and pedophilia and pandering --as he creatively defined it--and somehow that that's relevant Laurel's rules about stories with those under 18.

Best,
J.

I had just finished reading thorugh everyone's changing positions, shesh talk about something you need a flow chart for. There is historically and legally a differance between a written or even painted piece of art, and the atcual act. All the catagories of erotica that are 'icky' to some get painted with the wide brush of being deviant.

I'll never be able to write my first time and have it put here, becasue of the rule. Doens't mean I'm some sick person. I do completely agree with the owner's absolute right to decide what does and does not go on her site. That is a completely differant issue than the issue of what a person can and can not write.

Anything can be used for bad purposes, but its not the writer's fault. Should the person who wriote the movie Speed be held accountable that there was a majotr bomb scare a month or so back on the DC beltway where some trucker was told apparantly that there was a bomb on his truck that would go off if he dropped below 50?
Of course not ... even if there HAD been a bonmb, the writer would not have been at fault, the sick fuck that made it would have been at fault.

Alex756

 

[Pure]

Alex 756 said, in part,

//I had just finished reading thorugh everyone's changing positions, shesh talk about something you need a flow chart for. There is historically and legally a differance between a written or even painted piece of art, and the atcual act. All the catagories of erotica that are 'icky' to some get painted with the wide brush of being deviant. //

That's an important difference, and I've mentioned it. It's not addressed in Gauche's claims about depictions of budding breasts--no type specified-- pander to pedophilia.

To the ARUG FAWW folks, it might be worth stating the two positions, since only hiddenself seems clear about things.

A. Gauche and others hold that Laurel's ban on teenage sex has something to do with avoiding 'pandering to', or avoiding 'foddering' pedophilia. Any detailed ('graphic') depiction of, for instance, a budding breast, is--acording to Gauche--such fodder, and we don't want that at Lit because it 'fodders' or fuels illegal acts. [I think they also hold that:] The depiction, further, is itself illegal or legally questionable as child porn or obscenity. Laurel's ban [and possibly possibly that of the law(?), they hold]--is part of a fight to suppress evil (to avoid contributing to it).

B. I say, depictions, including those in stories, are not established as leading to any illegal or evil acts (there is no such pattern), excepting for a pathological one in a million who need be of no concern to us as readers or writers.

Further, as Hidden said, the written depictions of youth and youth sex are not illegal. They do not, in general, fall under proposed laws about 'child porn' including on the internet.

It follows, as Hidden says, that Laurel is not suppressing evil (which would be caused by certain stories, if posted) or protecting the board from anything, i.e., legal consequences, in banning teen sex depictions in stories. It's her personal taste.

=======
And to the AURUG-ers, yes, an owner has a right do anything s/he pleases; the customers merely 'vote' with their feet.

Perhaps this will clarify things, so that no one needs a 'flow diagram' as Alex has stated.

J.

 

[hiddenself]

It follows, as Hidden says, that Laurel is not suppressing evil (which would be caused by certain stories, if posted) or protecting the board from anything, i.e., legal consequences, in banning teen sex depictions in stories. It's her personal taste.

It doesn't simply "follow." Laurel has herself stated as much in a similar thread about a year ago (I have read it). KM had posted the URL at some point but I didn't save it.

That, of course, doesn't mean that Gauche or QM or anyone else cannot argue the way they try. However, neither social scientists nor legal scolars nor the law itself have accepted that reasoning. That (if nothing else) should make you wonder about how (un)sound it is.

 

[gauchecritic]

Alex 756,

I'm afraid you were misled by Gauche's quote of me, out of context.

I said,

According to your [Gauche's] approach, the author's view is not determinative; s/he could still be 'inadvertently pandering.' If your genteel piece of erotica is used (as a turn on) by a sexual sadist prior to attacking someone, then the author is catering to sexual sadistic desires, in the same 'inadvertent' way that the artists I posted are catering to 'pedophilia.'

The paragraph, as its opening sentence states is an unravelling of the consequences of Gauche's position. It's not my own position. Gauche's concern with 'inadervertent pandering'--an original, if silly concept-- leads to the consequences I described.

To wit, all sexual depictions become of concern because of the potential for 'inadvertant pandering.' This contrasts with my position that it's the author's intent and the context of a sexual depiction-- not its sometime use-- that goes toward the decision,
'is it child porn or obscenity involving children?'

Remember that the original issue is Gauche's ill advised statements about budding breasts and pedophilia and pandering --as he creatively defined it--and somehow that that's relevant Laurel's rules about stories with those under 18.

Best,
J.

No more will I take a part of this conflict.

When the addressed will only respond to particular parts of statements and misdirect other readers in unstated conclusions, will take only the course that s/he sees fit, ignoring contributory arguements and demeaning trains of thought with words like silly and nonsense without even bothering to qualify, unfortunately (because I was beginning to enjoy this) you earn only my contempt.

If you cannot hold to the same position throughout your 'arguement' and seek to show even a semblance of logic, then you lose the point of arguement for it's own sake (which is what you intend) and you become mundane instead of interesting.

Arrogant as always,

Gauche

 

[Pure]

Gauche said,

//When the addressed will only respond to particular parts of statements and misdirect other readers in unstated conclusions, will take only the course that s/he sees fit, ignoring contributory arguements and demeaning trains of thought with words like silly and nonsense without even bothering to qualify, unfortunately (because I was beginning to enjoy this) you earn only my contempt. //

That's pretty opaque, Gauche; you might want to run that by your writing instructor. In all those words, there's no reference to any points you've asserted or which are at issue, hence, a brief summary:

[G:]
Budding breasts and hairless (not shaved) pubic areas and general childish physiques whether remembered, in the past, brought forward in a time machine or reverse ageing all pander to what the 'law' (Lit. or otherwise) class as paedophilia.

Contrary to what you say, [a depiction of] a budding breast does not 'pander' to anything. A _writer_ may pander or not depending on who is addressed--deviates or science students-- and what the writer's intent is; for example, to sexually arouse, as compared with to educate. The former might be pandering, the latter, not.

Regarding your statement:

//G: Once again, it matters not the reason for writing the story, my original (dictionary) definition of pandering still holds true. The prurient interest is there, the written work is there, therefore someone is being, however inadvertantly, pandered to. //

The intentions in writing a story are certainly of relevance both to Laurel and in the law.

You provided no dictionary definition of 'pander', even when asked.

The concept of 'inadvertent pandering' is nonsense; To pander is to do something with a specific intent, the intent to meet someone's corrupt desire; it cannot be 'inadvertent'. Thus there cannot be 'inadvertent pandering' just as there cannot be 'inadvertent procuring' or 'inadvertent robbery'.

Your concerns about readers' use of materials, are not reflected in your own writing practice. It's not so much a matter of
'inadvertent pandering' --assuming for the sake of argument that there is a phenomenon of unwittingly fuelling criminal acts. One of your own stories --Across the Street--panders quite wittingly to the incest crowd. Isn't incest illegal?

Gauche said:
"Lots of authors here would be shocked to find you referring to their work as pornographic. "

OK, let's look at this little gem of yours:

"Sometimes it would be my girlfriend I’d catch fucking my mum with a strap-on across the kitchen table then I’d imagine fucking my girlfriend up the arse (which she likes) while she fucks my mum. Recently I’ve been imagining catching my sister with her fingers up my girlfriend and I’d just spunk over both their naked bodies. Hmm now, what about catching Jenny licking out my mum while my sister fucks her with a strap-on… Or Jenny’s’ daughter fucking Jenny with a strap-on, my sister fucking Jenny’s arse with a strap-on, my mothers hairy cunt planted across Jenny’s’ daughters’ face and squeezing my sisters lovely juicy tits in her hands… I need a wank. "

http://www.literotica.com:81/stories/showstory.php?id=68737

Not only is it porn, it's bad porn**. Shocked?

Best regards,

J.

**Not that I object to porn writing, just to dumb porn and hypocrisy.

 

[snooper]

Boooooring

Gauche said,

//When the addressed will only respond to particular parts of statements and misdirect other readers in unstated conclusions, will take only the course that s/he sees fit, ignoring contributory arguements and demeaning trains of thought with words like silly and nonsense without even bothering to qualify, unfortunately (because I was beginning to enjoy this) you earn only my contempt. //

You appear to have problems in grammar and style, as well as those already evidenced in spelling and logic

Readers will see, in the verbose maundering, an absence of reference to any points you've asserted or which are at issue,

Here we are again. These "under age" threads are frequent, valueless and boring. Furthermore they always degenerate into ad hominem arguments and usually downright yah-boo slanging matches.

To misquote: When will we ever learn ...

 

[Quint]

Hi.

So sorry to forcibly drag so many people into an overdone thread; also, there is no pie. I lied about that. I started this thread not because I was ignorant of or against Laurel's Legal Limit. I started it because I did not feel that the context used by the author in this story was explicit or prurient. I felt it was explanatory to the degree of "this is where it all began." Taking out that much, it's another whack-off story, devoid of all the significance that it had to the character. Kind of heartless for an editor to tell her author to give up on a story.

So this was a clarification thread and I thank those of you who endeavored to clarify--it isn't always an easy line between pedophilia-pandering and whatever-this-level-of-flashback-can-be-called. I personally find nothing offensive about the material written in this story and, despite whatever ad hominem arguments may be raised about my taste in literature, I don't support pedophilia stories. But I'm not Laurel. I've already shown this thread to the author and I'll let her make the next call.

Again, sorry for the brazen disrespect of all the Underage Threads That Have Gone Before. I'll try to go have an original thought now.

 

[MathGirl]

also, there is no pie.

Dear Quint:
No pie? I've been slogging through this endless, often mindless, and always boring thread, just waiting for dessert. Now you tell me there's no pie! Well, all I can say is *&&^*()&^^%)(_@@!!
Disappointedly,
MG
Ps. I hate to say this, but I feel a thread about reader voting about to happen. Cringe.

 

[Pure]

Math Girl says,


I've been slogging through this endless, often mindless, and always boring thread, just waiting for dessert. Now you tell me there's no pie! Well, all I can say is *&&^*()&^^%)(_@@!!
Disappointedly,

From an outsider, I'd listen to characterizations.

Here is your own contribution, Math Girl-- isn't it perhaps the most mindless posting of this whole thread.? and hardly atypical.

MG:
Dear Quaz, Let me finish that thought for you:

Tooo!
Noootttt!
Fuck you
No, fuck YOU
You asshole
No, YOU'RE the asshole
Fuck you
Awww, go fuck yourself
No, You go fuck

You're now the proud winner the Authors' Forum Glass House Award, but you may still reap extra 'mindless' bonus for your continued further inanities, here.

Best,
J.

*Given your intelligence, you're a strong contender in the Most Underachieving Postings division, 2003.

 

[Chicklet]

Again, sorry for the brazen disrespect of all the Underage Threads That Have Gone Before. I'll try to go have an original thought now.

I hate when threads turn into debates.

I hope you got your question sort of answered, Quint.

 

[MathGirl]

Ewwwwww

*Given your intelligence, you're a strong contender in the Most Underachieving Postings division, 2003.

Dear Pure,
Are we initiating a pissing contest here? Hummmmmmmm...
Let me just finish this six pack.
MG
Ps. Thank you for supplying the impetus to post further inanitites.

 

[BlackSnake]

Hi Gauche,

In further reference to your claim,

//Budding breasts and hairless (not shaved) pubic areas and general childish physiques whether remembered, in the past, brought forward in a time machine or reverse ageing all pander to what the 'law' (Lit. or otherwise) class as paedophilia. //

Check out the following 'paedophiliac' pictures easily available on the 'net. You'll probably find the first one especially hot since a boy and girl are involved.

...

Hey, I like Bouguereau Got the one of the girl by the water fountain being dressed by two little naked angels over my headboard.

 

[Pure]

Hi Black,


Pure said:
//Check out the following 'paedophiliac' pictures easily available on the 'net. You'll [GC will] probably find the first one especially hot since a boy and girl are involved. //

...
Black Snake:
Hey, I like Bouguereau. Got the one of the girl by the water fountain being dressed by two little naked angels over my headboard.

Omigod! Maybe you don't realize you've been inadvertently pandered to ? that this Bouguereau, like others on the 'net, is foddering your sick pedophilic tendencies?

Have you thought of this: You may put that picture in your front window in Crawford, Texas. But if you simply _write_ a detailed description of its contents, in a literotica submission, the 'powers that be' will censor** it as offensive? that some of the posters to this thread will be hooting and hollering their approval?

Well, OK, the author Across the Street may not be joining in; there may be another Jenny-fucks-mom-with-a-dildo tale to finish. Then those same 'powers' publish it in a trice for the delectation of thousands.

Hey, morality can be so confusing....

J.


**prevent its publication through Literotica

PS. I myself am partial to B's "The Nymphaeum."

 

[BlackSnake]

...
Hey, morality can be so confusing....

J.


**prevent its publication through Literotica

PS. I myself am partial to B's "The Nymphaeum."

I have just about his entire collection around here some where. I love the Satyr and the Nythms, but too much nudity for my walls. The girl by the fountain. I look into her eyes every morning (the dresser is at the foot of my bed.

Now, back on track: We still can't police the world, but we can control what we do.

 

[Pure]

Hey Black,

Here are couple real beauties. Incredible composition skills. I really do see the links with David, and others. PLUS that inimitable Victorian whiff of prurience. (Oooh, [slaps self] don't say that, it's ART!)

Love takes flight
http://www.artsender.com/gallery/details.asp?PaintingID=643

Young girl defending herself against Eros
http://www.getty.edu/art/collections/objects/oz584.html

(^--I like the little whiff of SM)

What is the name of the painting you keep speaking of? a url?
I've seen a couple possibilities?

Just about the entire collection? well, you've hopelessly corrupted I can tell... they say he made about 700 paintings.

J.

I have Leighton's 'Flaming June' on my wall. Do you know it?

 

[BlackSnake]

Hey Black,

Here are couple real beauties. Incredible composition skills. I really do see the links with David, and others. PLUS that inimitable Victorian whiff of prurience. (Oooh, [slaps self] don't say that, it's ART!)

Love takes flight
http://www.artsender.com/gallery/details.asp?PaintingID=643

Young girl defending herself against Eros
http://www.getty.edu/art/collections/objects/oz584.html

(^--I like the little whiff of SM)

What is the name of the painting you keep speaking of? a url?
I've seen a couple possibilities?

Just about the entire collection? well, you've hopelessly corrupted I can tell... they say he made about 700 paintings.

J.

I have Leighton's 'Flaming June' on my wall. Do you know it?

I know I have both of those. I don't have 700, but I like the work. Corrupted as I may be, I will just have to deal with that one...

I don't think I know 'Flaming June'.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

So, let me get this straight: in order to make sure people understand that the woman in the story is over 18, there mustn't be "Budding breasts and hairless (not shaved) pubic areas and general childish physiques", right?

Does that mean that I can't write about a 27 year old woman with a girly face and tiny breasts, even if she's had pubic hair since she was 12?

Darned, there goes my autobiography out the window!

 

[BlackSnake]

...

Darned, there goes my autobiography out the window!

Hey, I think you have nice tits, beside isn't anything more than a mouth full a waste?

 

[ag2507]

Hey, I think you have nice tits, beside isn't anything more than a mouth full a waste?

Maybe we should trim the snake a bit?

AG

 

[Pure]

SF said,

//So, let me get this straight: in order to make sure people understand that the woman in the story is over 18, there mustn't be "Budding breasts and hairless (not shaved) pubic areas and general childish physiques", right?

Does that mean that I can't write about a 27 year old woman with a girly face and tiny breasts, even if she's had pubic hair since she was 12? //

Consider the case of an adult, Chinese woman, slender, flat, little body hair. Her occupation is to play the 15 year old school girl, in school uniform and braids, for certain people. Can there be a story thereof at Lit?

The child porn crusaders had a devil of time with this, and even wrote a law about "depicting a child, or anyone who appears to be a child, in a sexual way." More recently the issue of a computer image of an adult, 'morphed' into a child came up. The crusaders lost on the latter, and iirc, on the former.

It's almost impossible to formulate a rational rule, if you're too zealous. I favor the simple formula: no pictures of children in sexual activities --where actual children were involved in the making of those pictures. **
J.

**This leaves the question of fiction stories/texts, untouched, since they are imagined and the relation or depiction of something actual (i.e. a real kid) is impossible to tell.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

This is actually a very funny topic to debate! What if I write a story about a grown man with the fetish that he likes to dress up as a baby, in diapers, and have a woman feed him milk from a bottle - would that be banned?

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Hey, I think you have nice tits, beside isn't anything more than a mouth full a waste?

 

[Pure]

This is actually a very funny topic to debate! What if I write a story about a grown man with the fetish that he likes to dress up as a baby, in diapers, and have a woman feed him milk from a bottle - would that be banned?

Definitely kiddie porn, SF! Esp. is the fellow's gurgling and baby sort skin, pooping diapers, etc. is highlighted!

 

[Svenskaflicka]

What about a story where the woman is in her mid 40'ies, but is retarded and has the mind of a little girl?

What about Dougie Howser?

Or what if one of the characters is a dwarf?

*mind bubbling with dirty ideas*

 

[Pure]

What about a story where the woman is in her mid 40'ies, but is retarded and has the mind of a little girl?

I think a young mind is OK, but this lady better have hairy and not bare pubes, or Gauche and a bunch of rule-enthusiasts are going to have a cow.

Censorship rules and laws are always mindboggling; hodgepodge lists of things not liked (hence forbidden) with no rational structure.



PS Keep that lascivious stuff bubbling. There are not enough of us who are truly depraved to the core.