Forum Rules - Please Read

[PlayfulPuss]

First don’t you have to set the perimeters of what is allowed as regards age, are you saying that there should be no person who is under 18 in a story for example?

Would this be allowed or not as it is part of a story and indicates that children exist but as someone within a family not as the point of the story?

After I put my six year old to bed I rang my phone lover ??????

Why would one have to say, "After I put my six year old to bed I rang my phone lover"? Why do they "have to" be in the same sentence, and why does the child's age have to be mentioned?

Lord knows not everyone in this world is stupid, and we know children exsist...therefore not every character out there is childless. In one of my stories, I mentioned the LACK of children in the home that night, the fact that the living room was spotless and the TV off, etc. There's tactful ways to state your characters are part of a family.

 

[MissTaken]

Good points. I am sure I will be corrected if I am wrong, but as I udnerstand it, there can be no children under the age of 18 in story that has any involvement with sexual acts or innuendo.

This question has come up over and again. We should get real clarification on it before doing too much.

 

[MsLinnet]

Why would one have to say, "After I put my six year old to bed I rang my phone lover"? Why do they "have to" be in the same sentence, and why does the child's age have to be mentioned?

Lord knows not everyone in this world is stupid, and we know children exsist...therefore not every character out there is childless. In one of my stories, I mentioned the LACK of children in the home that night, the fact that the living room was spotless and the TV off, etc. There's tactful ways to state your characters are part of a family.

sorry it was just an example

The question has come up time and time again as pointed out by MissTaken

And thanks for taking the point i was trying to make and trying to get real clarification on it is somthing we have sort for a while

keep up the good work MissTaken

 

[MissTaken]

get real clarification on it is somthing we have sort for a while

keep up the good work MissTaken

Thanks!

I needed a perk this morning, and you did jsut that



Any other ideas rolling around that we need to discuss or incorporate?

(BTW...when I post in B and W, it is just me. Sans the mod hat. )

 

[MsLinnet]

Thanks!

I needed a perk this morning, and you did jsut that



Any other ideas rolling around that we need to discuss or incorporate?

(BTW...when I post in B and W, it is just me. Sans the mod hat. )

I am glad to be of service oh mistress of the story threads

 

[MissTaken]

I am glad to be of service oh mistress of the story threads

I am a pervert prankster.

That is all!

Oh, and I love lit

 

[MissTaken]

Under 18's

Clarified! As long as the under 18's aren't involved in any scenes of a sexual nature, even as voyeurs, having under 18's are okay to include in a story. I would encourage everyone to provide only as much information as necessary to keep the story focused.

If you use an under 18 to enhance a tale concerning a married man and wife who are struggling to find the time for intimacy, eluding to the chaotic nature of parenting teen agers or whatever is okay.

NEVER are they to be included in the sexual story line or scene.

 

[Chicklet]

thumbs up

 

[Svenskaflicka]

But, say, a 15-yr-old could be watching his teacher have sex with the prinicipal? As loing as he doesn't jerk off? Am I right?

Can a 17-yr-old think about sex, as long as he/she doesn't HAVE it?

 

[MissTaken]

But, say, a 15-yr-old could be watching his teacher have sex with the prinicipal? As loing as he doesn't jerk off? Am I right?

Can a 17-yr-old think about sex, as long as he/she doesn't HAVE it?

No any connection between kids and sex is not acceptable. No watching, no being watched, no discussing it, no jerking off, no thoughts about sex. If anyone's story requires that a teen ager be involved with sex on any level, they need to either rethink the plot or not offer it for submission or discussion.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I see. Bummer.

 

[MissTaken]

I see. Bummer.

Sorry! Da rules is da rules!

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I accept the rules, and will obey them. I don't really like them, as I live in a country where sex is legal from 15, BUT, I will not break the rules.

 

[MissTaken]

I accept the rules, and will obey them. I don't really like them, as I live in a country where sex is legal from 15, BUT, I will not break the rules.

Thanks!

 

[BlackSnake]

love the AV

MsLinnet...

bump the flame

 

[NASCARaddicted]

hey BlackSnake, nice picture that you attached

Do you have anymore of her ?

 

[BlackSnake]

hey BlackSnake, nice picture that you attached

Do you have anymore of her ?

Maybe, but I would have to search for ever. I have tons. Visit thehun.net its free, no pop-ups, no tricky navigation. They select about fifty or sixty a day and their archive go back for years.

Here is another that was handy:

 

[Fyre of the Equinox]

Why do we always have such great debates about teen sex? Are so many people out there pedophiles and want to read about minors having sex? (Yes, even if they are "teens" and not "children" it makes someone a pedophile.)

Lit has these rules for a reason. It "used to be" U.S. law, but as many have pointed out, things are changing here. Underage people in "porn" of any sort is still a tricky subject. So, Laurel doesn't want to go to jail for you people? Big deal. If you "have to" jack off to a story about a 15 year old kid, pay for White Shadows (who does not update anymore, by the way).

Some people may make snide remarks about the U.S. (as Charm did asking if we "banned" the Bible or Romeo & Juliet), but remember these rules are Laurel's rules. Literotica is her site. She is kind enough to offer such a wonderful FREE site. Hell, we didn't even need a credit card to come in.

If you don't like Lit's rules, find a new story site that will let you have children.

 

[Svenskaflicka]

Relax, Fyre!

If anyone is dumb enough to break the rules, Laurel's just not gonna post the story!

I wouldn't say having sex with a 17-year-old would make anyone a pedophile, though - in Sweden, the age is 15. Me, I was 16 when I had sex the first time, and I was ready for it.

BUT, that's beside the point. No matter what the age rules are in each state/country, on Lit, the minimum age is 18, and I seriously doubt that anyone is stupid enough to try and sneak in minors into their stories once told they need to age them.

 

[Guest]

Underage partners in stories--new info?

Folks, I am a pervert.

I mean that quite literally. Through some strange inability to be brainwashed by American society and two-faced 'mores', I find myself unable to find any fault with any CONSENSUAL (I'm such a pervert that I love the way that's spelled) SEXUAL ACTIVITY. Period, if that's not too redundant.

I know this is going to draw some flak, but hear me out before you attempt to shoot me down. Read through the entire note, paying close attention to the word CONSENSUAL, and then begin screaming, please.

I heard, just recently, in a landmark decision on obscenity and juvenile-based pornography the Supreme Court of the United States of America upheld the right of moviemakers and authors to feature partners of less than legal age in sexual and inferential roles in their FICTIONAL STORIES. The majority of the justices hearing the motion to BAN any depictions of underage/minor partners in written fiction, movies or other works of art(at least, I think it includes painting and sculpture--I'd have to check that to be sure)found the motion overly broad and impossible to enforce within the framework of the Constitution of the United States of America. One for freedom, at last--even if it is a rather warped one. . .

I became convinced after actually reading and considering the lessons of history that juvenile partners in sexual liasons with any other kind of partner has always been relatively common. With other juvenile partners, of course, but also, historically, with older partners of either sex, animals, toys homemade and professional, etc.

Whether you find this revelation astounding, blase, shocking, or a known fact, you have to admit that it's true. In some situations and socio-ethical systems disgusting, admittedly--but there are very few societys both world-wide and historically THAT DO NOT HAVE, OR DID NOT HAVE, SAFE HAVENS AND READY SUPPLIES OF DISADVANTAGED CHILDREN FOR WEALTHY, UNSCRUPULOUS PEDOPHILES.

As far as I'm concerned, forcing anyone else to have sex with a partner or in a way they do not willingly agree to is WRONG. Not only wrong, but morally bankrupt as well, and I personally will not have any part of it.

However, writing stories that featured violent rape of many different kinds has always been done. I personally do not condone it, but I understand that most of those stories are just fiction. I don't read them--but I accept that some people need that stimulation, for whatever reason. The kind of person who'll read it and try to reenact what they read would be equally dangerous after watching Beavis and Butthead play frog baseball. That type exists--but there aren't that many of them, all things considered.

The kind of person who really advocates and uses violence against others on a daily basis probably doesn't read nonconsensual erotic fiction, and in the same way a committed, practicing pedophile doesn't usually read pedophilia-based erotic fiction. Their stimulation comes from a more direct source--the majority of them don't need juvenile porn of any kind. If they possess it, it's generally for the purpose of convincing a new target child that it's 'okay'--not because the pedophile gets any particular enjoyment from the pornography itself.

There are exceptions everywhere, I admit--but they are the exceptions, not the rule. And, as much as I disagree with some of the Supreme Court's rulings in the past, this last one was ABSOLUTELY right!!!! No censorship means exactly that--no matter what the self-styled Christians think they want. I wonder how many of them have ever realized that a zero-tolerance pornography law would ban the Bible as well--or if they really believe that we'd go along with "everything but the Bible, no, really, folks, but you can't take my Bible away. . ."

The Supreme Court's ruling allows me, as best I can tell, to relate the story of a female gym coach and three of her 14-15 year old students getting ambushed in the shower by a polymorphous being older than the dinosaurs. I believe I relate the story well, I give credit for the basic idea where the credit is due, and have gotten several very enthusiastic reviews--most of which ask for the rest of the story!!! If you don't believe this, go to the Grey Archives and check out DEVIL2.TXT--it's been on their site for the past two years.

Of course, I wasn't involved in the suit, as best I know. But I've read 'Lolita', and it is a masterful novel dealing with a very young woman and a much older man. As a matter of fact, I believe it's considered a classic--as is Romeo and Juliet, the collected works of the Marquis de Sade, The Summer of '42, and a host of others that deal with juvenile sex in all its--well, glory! And those works are part of the reason the Supreme Court ruled to support the freedom of speech in all mediums, not just the speech some bigoted, shortsited, narrow-minded bipedal mammals who consider themselves to be sapient agree with. Knowing that those works and others like them exist caused my certainty that my story was within my right to write and publish in any media I chose. And the man who runs the Grey Archive agreed with me!

Okay, I'm almost done--you can start with the flames now, I'll try to deal with all of them that I can in an equable and rational manner. I only ask that the flames be rationally presented, if that's not an oxymoron for this group. You're all erotic fiction writers, so I hope not. . .

Cast off your chains of unreason and think! You have nothing to lose but another block to your talent! I challenge you to look into modern and historical fiction and find me a topic that is so taboo to every single society, past or present, that it has never been the subject of serious or irreverant fiction! Just one!!!

If you do, I can guarantee that it won't be juvenile erotica!

Henry D. Rinehart

 

[Tatewaki]

Re: Underage partners in stories--new info?

Nope, no new info here.

No one is denying the fact that people under eighteen have sex in the present, or have in the past in every society. Many people will agree that Shakespeare and Nabokov wrote masterful pieces of fiction, many of the subjects under 18 and portrayed in a sexual or sensual context.

So what?

The bottom line is it doesn't matter what I like, you like, or the Supreme Court of the US (or Canada, for we had a similar case up here last year.) will tolerate.

The owners of this site have expressly banned stories dealing with sex acts with people under the age of 18. They don't want that material on their website.

That's all there is to it. If you hate the rules that someone imposes while you're visiting their home, decide to make it a short visit.

I've written many stories that I can't post here at Lit. I'll post them elsewhere one day. I have no right to ask Laurel to remodel her home to suit my tastes or preferences.

Check out ASSTR if you wish. They allow everything.

-T

Folks, I am a pervert.

I mean that quite literally. Through some strange inability to be brainwashed by American society and two-faced 'mores', I find myself unable to find any fault with any CONSENSUAL (I'm such a pervert that I love the way that's spelled) SEXUAL ACTIVITY. Period, if that's not too redundant.

<SNIP!>

 

[Guest]

I would have to agree with what Tate and others have said here. The owners of this site can do what they wish with it. They can accept and deny what they wish here, and if someone doesn't like it they can simply leave or start their own site. No one is going to change Laurel and Manu's minds but themselves personally. It doesn't matter how often or how much "kiddie porn" is debated.

And, as for what hdrinehart said:

Through some strange inability to be brainwashed by American society and two-faced 'mores', I find myself unable to find any fault with any CONSENSUAL SEXUAL ACTIVITY.

I know this is going to draw some flak, but hear me out before you attempt to shoot me down. Read through the entire note, paying close attention to the word CONSENSUAL, and then begin screaming, please.

I see you stressed the word "consensual" more than once. Many people will argue that children, and even teens, "cannot" consent to sexual acts yet. Many will argue that they are not emotionally ready for sex, even if they think "it feels good" and they "like it".

I was 17 when I lost my virginity. Almost an "adult". Senior in high school. My boyfriend was an "adult", but still a high school senior as well. The age of consent is 16 where I am from, but my parents could have pressed statutory rape charges on him had they (known) wanted to.

I know I was close to being a "legal adult", but I also know I should have waited still. Hell, maybe I wasn't even ready for sex at 18 or 19...?

I know I am rambling on now. I'm just trying to state that age does not mean much when it comes to "maturity" and/or "being ready for sex" (consenting). I know many teens and young adults who are far from mature...be it emotionally, sexually, mentally, etc.

 

[MissTaken]

The Bottom Line

Da rules is da rules. Thank you, T for saying so in my absence this weekend. I will only add that any discussion concerning the webmaster's veiwpoints concerning underage sexuality on literotica or the Supreme Court's decision needs to take place at the General Board. The discussion here was only to clarify the rules. Thanks all!, Now, back to our regularly scheduled programming.

 

[Guest]

"I was 17 when I lost my virginity. Almost an "adult". Senior in high school. My boyfriend was an "adult", but still a high school senior as well. "


Damn. I am a male, 27 years old and still a virgin, because I am too shy to talk to girls. Of course I could go to a whorehouse, but I want to have sex with a woman because likes me - not because she likes my money.

 

[NASCARaddicted]

just yesterday I saw this one movie "Kids". For anyone who is lucky enough not to know this movie: It is about kids starting at the age of 12, consuming drugs, having sex, spreading AIDS ... it was pretty irritating - when I think back how I was the age of 12 ...

What was especially disgusting for me, was how this 2 guys talked about deflowering girls - "the younger the better"

I saw about 20 minutes of this movie, before I changed the channel.