Don't understand the Editors

[LAHomedog]

this is about a personal decision of the site's administrator to curtail free speech in a rather particular way.

I find this statement perplexing. You write and act as if Literotica is a public space in the USA or a public utility where the constitutional protections of free speech exist. It is not. It is a privately owned website and a private enterprise. There are no "free speech" rights. There is only the behavior and actions allowed by ownership who have the sole right to impose whatever rules they want to.

If you were submitting to Simon and Schuster you wouldn't tell them what they could or could not publish. Why is Lit any different? Again, this is not a publlc utility.

 

[Auden James]

You write and act as if Literotica is a public space in the USA or a public utility where the constitutional protections of free speech exist.

No, I do not.

The issue at hand is, simply put, that the "rules" (or explications thereof) that the administrator seems to make up on the fly, time and again, lack in coherence. And yes, there exists a legal, constitutional, and philosophical concept of "freedom of speech," which—for particular reasons—the private sector in the US may freely restrict ad libitum. Still, the issue remains, that, as SimonDoom put it so aptly, the site administrator "has at times stated her support for freedom of speech, and I think it's fair to expect her to stand by that commitment in a reasonably fair and consistent way."

 

[ElectricBlue]

Not to a 6 year old. It just dressing like the person you think you are. Adults sexualize it. Children don't.

Anyone know how I contact admin?

You're submitting it to an adult erotica site where readers will sexualise the content. You are not writing about non-sexualised children if you are publishing here. The content as it's been described will never get published on this site, so there is no point in trying.

 

[CyranoJ]

You're submitting it to an adult erotica site where readers will sexualise the content. You are not writing about non-sexualised children if you are publishing here. The content as it's been described will never get published on this site, so there is no point in trying.

Economically put, and on reflection, I'd have to agree.

 

[MelissaBaby]

I used to post on a contact site, got a few story of the months. Then they would take stuff down a month later because someone complained that sex was not quite agreed to. Drove me up the wall, I kept having to re-write.

Gave up in the end and edited them all with the F/M link.

What I don't like is you can't question why it was rejected. They should change the rule to not include anyone under the age of 18 no matter what. Then probably 20 % of stories would disappear.

My argument is that crossdressing to a 6 year old is not sexual. It's very strange to think it is.

Then why did you submit it here?

 

[MelissaBaby]

No, I do not.

The issue at hand is, simply put, that the "rules" (or explications thereof) that the administrator seems to make up on the fly, time and again, lack in coherence.

I've only been here for a little more than four years, but the rules on underage content were well established when I signed up. Nothing "on the fly" about it.

 

[Auden James]

Did you even read the administrator's explication of the rule you find so "well established" on the first page of this thread?

 

[KeithD]

The disinformation that's being pushed on this and another thread by a couple of posters will, if believed, have the effect of giving writers the impression there are limits on their writing that don't exist. Just stop pushing this stuff. Get grounded or keep it to yourself.

 

[MelissaBaby]

Did you even read the administrator's explication of the rule you find so "well established" on the first page of this thread?

Yes, I did. It is, as far as I can tell, consistent with past policy. But as someone who does not go out of their way to bend the rules, and then have hissy fits about it, my experience in the matter is not extensive.

 

[TadOverdon]

I wish to object because my story "Arizona Ranger 47 Likes Being Cucked By His Granddad" was rejected here on the grounds that it "purports to be about a real person."

That's ridiculous. No real person is named Arizona Ranger 47. It's more like some kind of lamebrained screen name for an incel, or something.

 

[leeanna19]

With the understanding that I do not have a dog in this hunt, I am going to suggest to you that this statement, which is a comment about sexuality and sexual identity is the essence of the issue.

When you say, "went into the closet" that implies being gay and hiding it. It doesn't matter if you are 6 or 60, saying "in the closet" means someone is hiding their sexual orientation. And that I think is the critical point.

Yes as I am an adult now I am using an adult phrase . I just hid what I did. I did not get any sexual felling until I was 12, as I remember.

As someone said people come on this site for "jerk off" material. May that be torturing someone to death and having sex with the corpse. Thats ok.

God help us if a little boy wants to be a little girl because he wants to play hopscotch.My story stated there is no sex in this story on the first line.

There are a lot of readers of TG stories that like this sort of innocent story. Not every has to read about sex all the time.

I do write sex stories 6 out of the 16 on her are "Hot" at the moment. I just thought readers of my TGstories would appreciated something sweet and innocent .

I dont think anyone bothered to read it they just saw the age and rejected it out of hand.

 

[leeanna19]

I wish to object because my story "Arizona Ranger 47 Likes Being Cucked By His Granddad" was rejected here on the grounds that it "purports to be about a real person."

That's ridiculous. No real person is named Arizona Ranger 47. It's more like some kind of lamebrained screen name for an incel, or something.

I'm not the only one then. it's not been read just rejected.

 

[CyranoJ]

I'm not the only one then. it's not been read just rejected.

Also perhaps a native peril of using a site where there is literally one person vetting the stories (although sites with more editors are, as I can report from experience, by no means immune to this either).

 

[Auden James]

It is, as far as I can tell, consistent with past policy.

In a sense, indeed, it is: it is as ad hoc as ever. (For instance, just consider the arbitrariness of the includes-but-is-not-limited-to phrase.)

 

[KeithD]

I'm not the only one then. it's not been read just rejected.

That, of course, has nothing to do with your issue.

 

[LAHomedog]

No, I do not."

Yes, you do, actually. And rather pedantically. You post on here as if you are the only one who knows anything. There are a lot of people on here who know a lot about Lit, and are truly experienced. I'm not saying I'm one of them, but there have been a number on this thread and on others you have also posted on. I have found them to be an invaluable resource.

Also, I'm curious, when did you get your Ph.D in constitutional law? Did you study under Laurence Tribe at Harvard? I'm always impressed with him.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I dont think anyone bothered to read it they just saw the age and rejected it out of hand.

Even so, if the content gets unpacked and read on an adult erotica website, the outcome is a given. It won't get published on this adult website, no matter what the author's intent might be. The site looks at content and context before any idyllic intent. You're flogging an underage horse.

 

[Anthonysdaughter]

I've only been here for a little more than four years, but the rules on underage content were well established when I signed up. Nothing "on the fly" about it.

I first published just over 20 years ago. Back then there were two categories filled with red 'H's and a few select green 'E's that are verboten to mention today. One day I had 43 stories a third of them with red 'H's-- admittedly it was a lot easier to get an 'H' then, I don't think the haters had figured out how to torpedo stories yet-- the next day they were deleted. The minimum age had risen by two years.

These weren't stories about adults abusing anyone. They were first-time stories that were taking place when the National Health Services of Canada, Europe, Great Britain, and the United States say people first become sexual. Which is three years older than Romeo and Juliet were.

The owner has the right to make the rules, and she has the right to change the rules. She giveth my only green 'E' and many red 'H's and she can taketh away. I'm not complaining about that, but some selected people were given the opportunity to edit their stories and age up the characters. I bump across some old stories that were written to the old standards that are still up on this site from time to time.

The way I see it, each new piece of software that is introduced interprets the rules differently. There is nothing in the rules that says an author cannot use younger characters as a "foil" interfering in the ability of "of age characters" to play, but the software records certain words and how far they are apart and it rejects stories that don't meet secret criteria.

It also rejects stories with certain words outright, and many of these words have multiple meanings.

I have no idea what to do. The haters would love to destroy this place. And my understanding is that this is the owners livelihood. IMHO the OPs story never stood a "snowballs chance," unless, maybe, maybe, maybe it was submitted as a personal experience in Essays-- probably not. But the rub is that the site wants to be more than "just" an erotic site.

I saw that destroy another site so this is just a warning. Readership increased as people came to read softer core stories and non-erotica and they started complaining about some of the topics that had been around since the beginning-- including the two now banned topics here. Those stories were put in a special segregated "extreme" area with the promise they would not be banned. As the mainstream group got bigger the "extreme" section was eliminated.

Having won this "mainstream" group pressed to have all "over-18" stories segregated. But enough of the authors left-- because they knew the administrators promises were temporary-- that the site imploded.

 

[Anthonysdaughter]

[Someone said] "I'm curious, when did you get your Ph.D in constitutional law?"[/QUOTE]

Generally people get an LLD or a JD in law.

 

[leeanna19]

because many readers of Tg stories like that type of story.

 

[leeanna19]

I think you're all just putting us on here.

In all those photos pedos take of six-year-olds in sexual poses, the six-year-old has no idea they are sex shots either. That's irrelevant to what's going on.

This is just not the Web site for this material.

yes you're right sickening material.

“Quickly take your shorts, shirt and jumper off.”

As I was getting undressed she produced a blue sailor dress with white piping from the bag. I had just finished taking off my jumper. Mum helped me with the buttons of my shirt and dropped the dress over my head.

I had a dress on! I looked down and saw the dress came level with my knees. I felt mum pull the zip up, and the dress tightened around my chest.

My dress.

“We haven’t got time to waste, quickly turn around and I’ll put your wig on.”

As I turned she placed a blond curly wig on my head, and took a few moments to straighten it. Just then the train started to slow. Mum said quick take your shorts off. As I slipped them down my legs, I felt the dress brush my legs. I felt almost naked. The feeling of the air under my skirt was extraordinary.

I saw my reflection in the window, I was a girl! Finally I was now a real girl.

Mum hugged me. I must have had the biggest smile in the world. She stuffed my clothes into to bag and we stepped out of the carriage, mother and daughter. I felt the breeze ruffle the hem of my dress. I could not have been happier.

This was better than birthday’s, Christmas and summer holiday.

“Are you alright Debbie? We’re going shopping for another dress for you. Would you like that?”

“Yes please, you’re the best mummy in the world.”

And to Debbie, at that moment she was.

 

[Auden James]

Yes, you do, actually.

No, indeed, I do not. See above.

 

[LAHomedog]

[Someone said] "I'm curious, when did you get your Ph.D in constitutional law?"

Generally people get an LLD or a JD in law. [/QUOTE]

Yes, I know. I'm married to a lawyer. I was being sarcastic.

 

[KeithD]

yes you're right sickening material.

. . .

You're getting tiresome. If the editor won't post your story to the story file, you sure as hell don't have site permission to post a chunk of it to the discussion board. Three paragraphs is the limit anyway.

Just stop this. Your story isn't appropriate for an erotica story site. You've been told why.

 

[lovecraft68]

Two in one day.

Get used to it.