Literotica censorship

[KeithD]

I am perfectly relaxed.
I was refuting a point, made by rowanwrites that it was okay to remove a post, not because it breached any rules , but because the mob said so.
We are apparently back in the pitchfork and torch era...

You were reacting to what I think is a false issue here. I've seen no indication that this is a real issue here. You're getting worked over something rarely reported as happening and never to my observation proven to have happened. That too is a sign of the times. No one has demonstrated a "pitchfork and torch ere" here on this issue.

 

[XerXesXu]

Here's one of my many problems with this: If 2 17-year-olds have sex with one another, and it's consensual, then how can there be rape? Have they both raped each other? The notion that the male has raped the female is based on the sexist idea that sex is something that a man does to a woman. That's a horrible and false and antiquated idea. Shouldn't she have been convicted as well?

Quite, the 14th Amendment states that, put shortly, All Men are Equal, and Men in that context is a term of art embracing women regardless of whether or not they have a penis. That's one of the reasons the Supreme Court struggles with obscenity. All US citizens cannot be equal for the purposes of the 14th, unless they're equal under the 1st, but obscenity is a matter reserved to the states, and different state 'community standards' means citizens of the various states will have more or less freedom of speech. But the citizens of the states are citizens of the USA and the federal constitution declares they are all equal. The Federal Constitution does not accommodate the concept that all pigs are equal, but some are more equal than others. It's a conundrum it doesn't know how to reconcile, cross your fingers and hope no one raises it again seems to be their current approach

 

[XerXesXu]

Depends how rape is defined in law. In England&Wales, rape requires penetration of an orifice - used to be just vagina/anus, now mouth also counts, and penetration by object was also added in 2003 (huge review of the Sexual Offences Act). But anything a woman does to a man, except for penetration with an object, can't be rape. There are now sexual offences of equal weight she could be convicted of, but there's still a crowd whinging that it's not fair.

Before the age of consent laws were equalised and various homophobic clauses struck out, there were a lot of men on the Sexual Offences Register for consensual adult sex. The fact that a hotel room was defined as a 'public place' enabled a lot of that (mm sex was decriminalised over 21 only in private...)

Indeed, the statutory immunity conferred on two persons in private didn't extend to any of three persons in private.

 

[lilshymynx]

Here's one of my many problems with this: If 2 17-year-olds have sex with one another, and it's consensual, then how can there be rape? Have they both raped each other? The notion that the male has raped the female is based on the sexist idea that sex is something that a man does to a woman. That's a horrible and false and antiquated idea. Shouldn't she have been convicted as well?

Unlawful sexual intercourse https://codes.findlaw.com/ca/penal-code/pen-sect-261-5.html