You May Not Write About This Scene

[Pure]

To answer the Earl:

The marriage is on Mon aft [II,6]. The 'bought but not enjoyed' is late Mon aft, before the 'wedding night' (Late Mon into early Tues)[III,2].
She's 'bought' because the wedding has just happened.

At the beginning of the passage she mentions the coming night.


Come, civil night, (3.2.10)
Thou sober-suited matron, all in black,
And learn me how to lose a winning match,
Play'd for a pair of stainless maidenhoods. (3.2.13)
Hood my unmann'd blood, bating in my cheeks,
With thy black mantle, till strange love, grown bold,
Think true love acted simple modesty. (3.2.16)
Come, night, come, Romeo, come, thou day in night;
For thou wilt lie upon the wings of night
Whiter than new snow on a raven's back. (3.2.19)
Come, gentle night, come, loving, black-brow'd night,
Give me my Romeo; and, when I shall die,
Take him and cut him out in little stars,
And he will make the face of heaven so fine
That all the world will be in love with night
And pay no worship to the garish sun. (3.2.25)
O, I have bought the mansion of a love,
But not possess'd it, and, though I am sold,
Not yet enjoy'd: so tedious is this day (3.2.28)
As is the night before some festival
To an impatient child that hath new robes


The following chronology is useful.

http://www.clicknotes.com/romeo/Chron.html

===
The Second Day (Monday):

Dawn: Friar Laurence gathers herbs. Romeo asks the Friar to marry himself and Juliet.
Friar Laurence: The grey-eyed morn smiles on the frowning night . . . . .
Now, ere the sun advance his burning eye,
The day to cheer and night's dank dew to dry,
I must up-fill this osier cage of ours . . . (2.3.1-7).

[...]
Juliet: The clock struck nine when I did send the nurse;
In half an hour she promised to return. (2.5.1-2)
Noon: The Nurse finds Romeo, who tells her to tell Juliet to meet him at Friar Laurence's cell that afternoon.

Nurse: God ye good morrow, gentlemen.
Mercutio: God ye good den, fair gentlewoman.
Nurse: Is it good den?
Mercutio: 'Tis no less, I tell you, for the bawdy hand of the dial is now upon the prick of noon. (2.4.109-113)

Juliet: Now is the sun upon the highmost hill
Of this day's journey, and from nine till twelve
Is three long hours, yet she [the Nurse] is not come. (2.5.9-11).

Early Afternoon: Romeo and Juliet are married.

Nurse: Go; I'll to dinner [lunch]: hie you to the cell. (2.5.77)
An Hour Later: Tybalt kills Mercutio, and Romeo kills Tybalt.

Romeo: My very friend, hath got his mortal hurt
In my behalf; my reputation stain'd
With Tybalt's slander,--Tybalt, that an hour
Hath been my kinsman! (3.1.110-113).
Shortly Before Nightfall: Juliet longs for Romeo to come to her, then learns that Romeo is banished. The Nurse promises to send Romeo to Juliet that night.

Juliet: Gallop apace, you fiery-footed steeds,
Towards Phoebus' lodging: such a wagoner
As Phaëthon would whip you to the west,
And bring in cloudy night immediately. (3.2.1-4)

Nurse: Hark ye, your Romeo will be here at night. (3.2.140)
Night: Friar Laurence sends Romeo to Juliet.

Friar Laurence: Give me thy hand; 'tis late: farewell; good night. (3.3.172)
Late Night: Capulet arranges for the wedding of Juliet to Paris three days hence, Thursday.

Capulet: 'Tis very late, she'll not come down to-night:
I promise you, but for your company,
I would have been a-bed an hour ago. (3.4.5-7)

[...]

The Third Day (Tuesday):
Dawn: Romeo, after spending his wedding-night with Juliet, departs for Mantua.
Romeo:It was the lark, the herald of the morn,
No nightingale. Look, love, what envious streaks
Do lace the severing clouds in yonder east.
Night's candles are burnt out, and jocund day
Stands tiptoe on the misty mountain tops.
I must be gone and live, or stay and die. (3.5.6-11)

 

[Guest]

Thanks, Pure. FYI, Earl's going on vacation for a couple weeks, so if you don't hear from him in the next day that's why.

I must be gone and live, or stay and die. (3.5.6-11)

I'd forgotten the context; makes it an even better pun as die can mean orgasm or death at the hands of Juliet's family.

anon, Perdita

 

[Pure]

an uplifting look at modern youth


http://www.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,30200-12366285,00.html

POLICE IN EROTIC FILM SWOOP

Australian police have swooped on a group of 500 people watching a banned sexually explicit movie.

They had gathered in a town hall in southern Sydney to watch Ken Park, recently banned by the Office of Film and Literature Board.

The controversial film, featuring actress Maeve Quinlan, deals with teenage sex, incest and scenes of auto-erotic asphyxiation.

Director Larry Clark describes the film as an "uplifting" look at modern youth.

It has been shown worldwide but was the first film in 30 years to be dropped from the Sydney Film Festival.

Officers confiscated the DVD and took down the details of four people who had organised the aborted screening.

A police spokeswoman said there had been no arrests but further action was being considered.

"I'm not going to lose heart and I'm not going to lose energy because I speak for the overwhelming majority of Australians," said TV film critic Margaret Pomeranz, an organiser of the attempted screening.

Ken Park has stirred controversy since its showing at the Venice film festival almost a year ago.

Australian censors refused to classify the film last May because of its under-age sex theme.





Last Updated: 10:11 UK, Friday July 04, 2003

 

[tenyari]

It's time for me to debunk all this COPA hysteria again isn't it?


See below:

PART ONE:---------------------------------


The law -and the Supreme Court ruling on it, along with the discussions of the justices- is all available on the Supreme Court's website.


What follows is from two posts I made here on this topic in september:

----------------------------------------------

This seems to be a good resource on this:
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/copa/


From the Supreme Court ruling here's Literotica's immunity clause:

Unlike the CDA, COPA applies
only to material displayed on the World Wide Web, covers only com-
munications made for commercial purposes, and restricts only “mate-
rial that is harmful to minors,”

URL: (PDF file)
http://www.supremecourtus.gov/opinions/01pdf/00-1293.pdf

As far as I know, the stories here are not Commerical in nature.

That quote is right in the opening paragraph.
-----------------------------------------
Here's a summary of the official ruling:

Held: COPA’s reliance on “community standards” to identify what ma-
terial “is harmful to minors” does not by itself render the statute sub-
stantially overbroad for First Amendment purposes. The Court,
however, expresses no view as to whether COPA suffers from sub-
stantial overbreadth for reasons other than its use of community
standards, whether the statute is unconstitutionally vague, or
whether the statute survives strict scrutiny. Prudence dictates al-
lowing the Third Circuit to first examine these difficult issues. Be-
cause petitioner did not ask to have the preliminary injunction va-
cated, and because this Court could not do so without addressing
matters the Third Circuit has yet to consider, the Government re-
mains enjoined from enforcing COPA absent further action by the
lower courts.

If a worse case evolves, Usenet will become a popular place again...

I already post to news://alt.sex.stories.moderated
Even the archives of that could escape via FTP.


A key quote on COPA's scope:

After our decision in Reno v. American Civil Liberties
Union, Congress explored other avenues for restricting
minors’ access to pornographic material on the Internet.
In particular, Congress passed and the President signed
into law the Child Online Protection Act, 112 Stat. 2681–
736 (codified in 47 U. S. C. §231 (1994 ed., Supp. V)).
COPA prohibits any person from “knowingly and with
knowledge of the character of the material, in interstate or
foreign commerce by means of the World Wide Web,
mak[ing] any communication for commercial purposes that is available to any minor and that includes any mate-
rial that is harmful to minors.” 47 U. S. C. §231(a)(1).

Apparently responding to our objections to the breadth
of the CDA’s coverage, Congress limited the scope of
COPA’s coverage in at least three ways. First, while the
CDA applied to communications over the Internet as a
whole, including, for example, e-mail messages, COPA
applies only to material displayed on the World Wide Web.
Second, unlike the CDA, COPA covers only communica-
tions made “for commercial purposes.”3 Ibid. And third,
while the CDA prohibited “indecent” and “patently offen-
sive” communications, COPA restricts only the narrower
category of “material that is harmful to minors.” Ibid.

Original Posts:
http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=105331

PART TWO:---------------------------------

There was at the time of that ruling, a portion which was important to the art community, and also highly relevant to authors.

The Supreme Court at the time -limited- the definition of Child Pornography to -images- that used real children.

This was in specific reference to such things as paintings, 3D art, Cupid Statutes, and so on.

What it means is that a -story-, unless it somehow uses a real child, is not child porn. Not until the Supreme Court changes that clause.

That descision is in here:

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/....supremecourtus.gov/opinions/01pdf/00-795.pdf
(If you don't believe me that the above is a Supreme Court document, go to http://www.supremecourtus.gov/ and searh for CPPA. That's how I got it.)

Read the summary. It is too long to repost here, but it hammers home the point:

It ain't Child Porn unless there's a real child in it.

By definition, stories are not child porn, no matter how old the characters in them are scripted to be. It only becomes child porn the moment somebody tries to live act it...

This site could never face a legitimate legal challenge from a US court for a story about minors because that story was about minors.


As for COPA, that only covers material that is BOTH on -the web- AND -commercial-.

Literotica meets one of those criteria, but not the other. So it is again immune.


Read the documents on the Supreme Court's website... It's all there.



As for what gets on this site and what doesn't... that is a matter for the tastes of the site owner. Not a legal issue. I'm just stating here that there is no legal issue.


END ------------------------------------------

 

[Rainbow Skin]

Well, I've always presumed I'm doing nothing illegal writing or reading here, so just now I thought I'd better check my standing.

The Protection of Children Act 1978 and Criminal Justice Act 1988, both as amended by the Criminal Justice and Public Order Act 1994, are (in this matter) specifically about the creation, exchange, and possession of photographs and pseudo-photographs of children. (A pseudo-photograph is a creation so as to appear to be a photograph - under-16 heads on over-16 bodies, etc.) These are serious criminal offences, but we're safe with stories.

The Obscene Publications Act 1959 (as amended 1964) and the Telecommunications Act 1984 make it an offence to transmit or publish obscene articles. This does cover writing.

Obscene means that 'its effect is such as to tend to deprave and corrupt persons who are likely, having regard to all relevant circumstances, to read, see or hear the matter contained or embodied in it.'

If underage stories were allowed here, I'm sure many or most of them would fail the obscenity test.

 

[Pure]

Hi Tenyari

Great, thanks for re-posting. The story about Lit protecting itself from these new laws, seems to repeated endlessly and mindlessly, despite all we do.

Are we agreed, that although several acts are directed at 'porn' i.e., pictures of actual underage persons, that COPA (1998)embraces, as 'harmful to minors,' texts also.??



You propose that the 'commercial purposes' will apply to this area and to literotica (i.e. exempt literotica).
Consider the text reproduced below. (I don't dispute that usenet and non commerical networks can 'trade' or desseminate materials if other avenues fail.)

url for COPA text,
http://www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/copa.html



``(2) Commercial purposes; engaged in the business.--

``(A) Commercial purposes.--A person shall be considered to make a communication for commercial purposes only if such person is engaged in the business of making such communications.

``(B) Engaged in the business.--The term `engaged in the business' means that the person who makes a communication, or offers to make a communication, by means of the World Wide Web, that includes any material that is harmful to minors, devotes time, attention, or labor to such activities, as a regular course of such person's trade or business, with the objective of earning a profit as a result of such activities (although it is not necessary that the person make a profit or that the making or offering to make such communications be the person's sole or principal business or source of income).

A person may be considered to be engaged in the business of making, by means of the World Wide Web, communications for commercial purposes that include material that is harmful to minors, only if the person knowingly causes the material that is harmful to minors to be posted on the World Wide Web or knowingly solicits such material to be posted on the World Wide Web.

Now, I argue: Literotica is not a 'paid' or 'members only, with fee' site. But its owners certainly have the objective of making a profit; and afaik, do make a profit. Literotica is 'free' like the 'free newspapers' in many cities; they are supported by advertising, and make their expenses and a profit, that way.

Of course, COPA is 'on the shelf' for the time being, but if I'm correct, its broad def. of 'harmful to minors' and definition of 'commercial purpose' would include sexual stories, at Literotica, about minors.

Please continue your well researched postings.

 

[destinie21]

No-one 'defines' art, but that doesn't mean there aren't standards, canons, tastes, agreements. In the last resort you might have to spell out borderline cases in a law, or go to court. The Lady Chatterley case made the standards of the prosecutor look ridiculous and acknowledged that society had moved on.

I can't see how or why writing should fall under any different standards to any other depiction. Stripping a child naked to photograph it is one offence, but others sharing or using a depiction (written, photographic, whatever) are committing a different one, and that's the one the obscenity test is for.

Romeo and Juliet has a 13-year-old having sex, but is in no danger from the wording of that act, or from any sensible member of contemporary society's moral standards. The act was inoffensive for the time, its depiction was inoffensive for its time, not designed to appeal to prurience; these days it's a valuable work of art, the depiction isn't patently offensive, it doesn't harm minors, etc. etc.

Any of the authors regularly posting here could easily write a tasteful, non-prurient depiction of 13-year-old sex. The reason we don't (if we wanted) is that Literotica doesn't pick and choose the very best, but allows anything that meets basic standards. Open the floodgates, and the vast majority of underage depictions would be filthy, prurient, obscene, and therefore illegal. It's not worth trying to pick out tomorrow's Romeo and Juliet or Jean-Baptiste Greuze from the sewage.

Okay hopefully we can all agree on the fact that Romeo and Juliet is a work of art and while it does involve 13 yo having sex w/a 15 yo by todays standards both of these kids are underage so the story itself does not denote pedophilia like say Lolita does. also lets not forget that in Romeo and Juliet it was perfectly natural for a girl of 13 to be getting married so the story speaks of the times
There is no doubt in my mind that some of the authors here could write a wonderful stories that include "underage"couplings but I would wager that the bad would far out weigh the good in this case. Besides although the lit has it's guidelines, many of the stories the are about young girls disguised behind the guise of age. ie: not many girls develop at the age of 18(budding breasts narrow hips)nor are there that many 18 yo girls at least in the US who have had no sexual experience at all not even a kiss.
Also as an artist I can advise that while photographs of underage children are not allowed paintings are acceptable so long as the children are not being defiled nor ingaged in sexual acts. for instance I could do a painting of a cherub which for all intents is a nude winged child but I could not afix an actual nude child with fake wings and take photos of them then sell them as art.