not wanting to rain on the parade but here's a warning

[rambling man]

To reply to couture's point a while back. They were bringing up 1st Amendment and that other writers such as Anne Rice use underage subjects all of the time.
I would say, yes there is a double standard. If Anne Rice wants to push the envelope, she is given much more latitude. She can call it art and an army of lawyers can back her up.
The internet is perceived differently than print, and that is a reality. Whether or not some stories have artistic merit is moot. The FBI is here; the FBI is reading; the FBI is tracing. That's the reality and they will expose you if they do not like your posts or your story. Holding a person's lifestyle and fantasies over their head is a powerful lever so it's best to not give the government the opportunity. Besides, there is no reason for adults to fantasize about children anyway. Fantasize about college freshman who have slender body types instead if you want.

Not trying to be a jerk, but it's the truth.

Oh, and BUMP!

 

[Guest]

Once again I agree with Rambling Man. I am a fan of Ann Rice. I've enjoyed her books. But I didn't get aroused when she mentioned a sexually active 13 year old in her first Mayfair witch story. I know I was "sexually explorative" around that age, and I think many people were/are around puberty. But, to think of an adult fantasizing about young teens and kids, or even engaging in sexual activities with them... Well, I don't know. To me, it's wrong. I don't believe that a child can truly give consent to a sexual act. No matter how much it may seem the child enjoys it, there can be negative affects from this later in life. Trust me, I know.

And, Rambling Man is right about another thing. Ann Rice is far different from Tiggs, Rambling Man, Dick_n_Jane. Meaning, it's easier for her to "get away" with things like this, as Rambling Man stated. Think of the whole Candyman thing. The government is out there. They are everywhere. You may think they don't care about Lit. But, if Laurel allowed stories of 13-adult on her site, they may start poking around. (If they're not here already.)

And, again, as Rambling Man said... Why do you need to fantasize about a minor anyway? Sure "youthfulness" is "attractive", but is a 14 year old more attractive than a 19 year old? Does the "youthful" person have to look like a minor?? I think the concept of "youthfulness = attractiveness" pertains to a 19 year old young ADULT compaired to a 45 year old.

 

[Couture]

What about stories where people kill other people? Is this murder? Does it encourage murder?

This is the thought police, plain and simple. It's Big Brother and it's fucked up. I support Laurel's decision, but I'm not the sort to sit by while people support the idea of losing our rights. This is in direct violation of the first fucking amendment. This whole damned WAT thing has kicked the shit out of due process and a whole host of other rights and I don't support it. What will we give up tomorrow?

 

[Couture]

PS The Candyman thing is different. Those were actual pictures of underaged children. These children were hurt when those pictures were taken. Who is hurt when a story is written?

 

[Guest]

So, you're a fan of stories with children in sexual situations? Leave it at that and let the fight end.

 

[Ezzie]

Anything involving children that's sexual, is wrong. Be it pictures, stories or just sick thoughts in someone's head is wrong. No matter what amendment it violates or whatnot. Children should be off limits no matter what and anyone who thinks otherwise should consider getting help.

 

[Analrules]

Well said Rambling man. Besides it's illegal.

There is NOTHING illegal about words.. nothing.

Lit's rule about no characters under 18 in the stories is by CHOICE, NOT by law.

 

[GHM]

There is NOTHING illegal about words.. nothing.

Lit's rule about no characters under 18 in the stories is by CHOICE, NOT by law.

 

[Guest]

There is NOTHING illegal about words.. nothing.

Lit's rule about no characters under 18 in the stories is by CHOICE, NOT by law.

Oops sorry about above message. Hit wrong key.

I agree there is nothing illegal about words. We either have freedom of speech or we don't. There is no "freedom except". We need to be much more protective of our rights, in many areas.

However, I also agree with the right of the organizers at lit, and other organizations, to make rules for their forum. Many contributors might be scared off if they thought sending in an article might result in a visit from law enforcement agents. There are a lot of fanatics out there. They don't all blow up building but they can make life very miserable for all of us. In a recent court case in Canada it was ruled that text stories of children involved in sex, with no pictures, are not illegal and already there have been newpaper acticles about people wantinf to "FIX" the law.

What I am against is trying to make rules and pass them off as "THE LAW". I have always been annoyed by people who say "we have no choice it's the law" when in fact it is not.

By this time everybody probably wonders whose side I'm on in this debate. To bad we always have to take sides.

To the people at lit I do want to say "thanks for a great site". As long as I use it I will try to repect your rules. If someone wants to post a story that does not meet your standards they are FREE to go elswhere. I'm always in favour of freedom.

Just remember their are a lot of people out there who would shut down this site if they could!

 

[Couture]

I don't like you trying to put words in my mouth Tiggs.

I had sex when I was seventeen, and I thought it was great. I may have been less mature that I am now, but who isn't after ten years. The fact was, I knew what I was doing and understood the implications of my actions. I was not a child.

Your assertion is that if I wrote about this experience it would be wrong. I don't think it is. Even the act wasn't illegal in the state I live in and we could have married here if we wanted to.

I haven't read any of the stories you've written, but you can bet there are people out there would think they were indescent. So you better think twice before you start pissing on your freedoms you take for granted.

 

[lexium]

... Even the act wasn't illegal in the state I live in and we could have married here if we wanted to...

A lot of people have sex way before they reach the age of consent, what ever that is. The age of consent in my state was 14, and only up to about seven years ago the age was raised to 16. But, a 14 y/o can still choose to marry and if she does then she has the legal right to consent. It gets crazier, marry your cousin, but not your uncle unless he is not your mother or your father's brother. Young boys (16 & 17) can only have sex with girls that are 16 or 17 unless they get married. Only girls can marry at 14.

Don't get cought up in the law, just do what you know is right. You have to be at least 18 to post on Lit., and kids can not offer as much as a man or a woman anyway.

Keep the stories posted on Lit about people at least 18 y/o, you can still express your fantasies and share them with us all that way

 

[lexium]

... No matter what amendment it violates or whatnot....

I agree that stories don't have to involve anyone under the age of consent, but not carrying what amendment is being violated is a different matter.

I'm sure you feel strongly about your position and I agree with it, but I suggest you think it over before tossing out constitutional rights.

If you can give up one, then you can give them all up. Think about it a little more.

Just say no to any story containing sex with children, but don't even think about giving up your constitutional rights.

 

[Guest]

Your assertion is that if I wrote about this experience it would be wrong. I don't think it is.

Not true. Now you're putting words in my mouth. Never did I say older teen is the "same" as a child. Never. Shit, I lost my virginity when I was 17 to my b/f I dated throughout most of HS. He was 18. The "age of consent" was 16 in Nebraska, but he could have gotten into serious trouble had my parents gotten pissed.

Anyway, I am tired of this piddly shit. If anyone wishes to read a sexual story of a person UNDER 18, they can read elsewhere.

 

[Ezzie]

I think the amendments themselves need to be amended. This is a whole new ball game compared to where it was when the amendments were written.

I feel very strongly about anything involving children in a sexual manner. Being a single mother, I know for a fact that if someone were to hurt my daughter, they wouldn't have to worry about the law coming after them, they'd better be worried about me. I'll break every constitutional right the son of bitch is given and change him from a rooster to a hen in no time.

 

[Guest]

I know for a fact that if someone were to hurt my daughter, they wouldn't have to worry about the law coming after them, they'd better be worried about me. I'll break every constitutional right the son of bitch is given and change him from a rooster to a hen in no time.

Amen to that. Where's the children's rights when the adult's "rights" are being protected so he/she can enjoy kiddie porn of ANY sort?

I know Jonah would be behind you 100% on this one, Ez. He protects his daughter like gold as well.

 

[lexium]

I think the amendments themselves need to be amended. This is a whole new ball game compared to where it was when the amendments were written.

Here is some laws for you:

Electronically Furnishing Obscene Material to Minors
16-12-100.1
(1) "Bulletin board system" means a computer data and file service that is accessed by telephone line to store and transmit information.
(4) "Harmful to minors" means that quality of description or representation, in whatever form, of nudity, sexual conduct, sexual excitement, or sadomaschistic abuse, when it...
(5) "Minor" means an unmarried person younger than 18 years of age.

"I'm from a southern state..."

(B) Is patiently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community as a whole with respect to what is suitable material for minors...

 

[lexium]

Amen to that. Where's the children's rights when the adult's "rights" are being protected so he/she can enjoy kiddie porn of ANY sort?

As far as I know, kiddie porn is illegal everywhere. Your rights do end where another person's begin.

 

[Ezzie]

Those may be laws, but, those laws are violated everyday. I was a "minor" when I lost my virginity, in fact I was 15 and he was 18. I was totally willing and knew what I was doing, though. It's the smaller children that I want to protect.

I don't see how anyone could get off from looking at a naked picture of a child or reading about a child either being molested or losing her/his virginity. I know that when I think about losing mine at 15, I know now that it was the wrong thing for both of us to do.

Anyway, I'm done with this thread. It's become something I don't like. I don't like to even think that people who condone or look at/read about child porn have rights. They don't care about the rights of the children that they're violating, why should I care about theirs?

 

[lexium]

[B
Anyway, I'm done with this thread. It's become something I don't like. I don't like to even think that people who condone or look at/read about child porn have rights. They don't care about the rights of the children that they're violating, why should I care about theirs? [/B]

You're absolutely correct about that. I lost my virginity at an even younger age, but he was a year older than me. That is not the same thing I think we are talking about here.

I don't understand either, what someone can get out of child pron. I don't see a place in this world or the next for that stuff.

Keeping hold of my rights do not mean that I or anyone else have the right to violate the rights of children or anyone else.

Keep it clean. I'm done.

 

[Mr.Luv69]

JUst wanted to Bump for quality control reasons.

 

[Guest]

I believe in free speech, but I saw a post on Mr. Double a few months ago that made me sick. It was a thread full of people talking about wanting to have sex with prepubesent girls who they had seen recently. Mr. Double himself said that he saw a girl at 711 and she was only 12 but he wanted to fuck her and he wished that he could get her alone for a while. he even described her body and said he was staring at her boobs while she talked to him at the store. there were a alot of posts from old guys who said they met a 7 year old girl or saw a 10 year old girl somewhere and they wanted to fucked them. This was not fiction, they were talkin about real girls they had met. It made me sick and I wondered if they should get investigated before someone got hurt. If they can arrest peopel for talking about wanting to blow up some buildings then why can't then arrest them for talking about wanting to rape a 7 year old girl. Even Mr. Double himself said he wanted to have sex with a girl who was 10 or 12. I hope none of you are spending time at that site because you might get investigated when they arrest mr double and the other pedphiles over there. I will never go back to that site after what I read. it wasn't a story, it was real people on teh forum who wanted to abuse young girls.

 

[lexium]

That's just prev'd

 

[Quint]

Most of the "Incest" category stories I've read (admittedly a small number, that REALLY isn't my thing) seemed to involve underage siblings. I have no idea how they got through it, except that I think they didn't mention age at all, just vaguely hinted at young teens. I've very rarely read that the kids in question were legal. I'm gonna have to go back and search to find for sure, cuz those need to be gone.

Incidentally, not caring about a rapist/child molester's rights is equivalent to taking away all of ours. Those rights are what guarantees a fair judicial system which hopefully will put the fucker in jail. To hell with the person, but DO care about their rights.

Bump!

 

[lexium]

I've posted a lot of incest stories, but none of them a have to do with any minors. The thought is sick.

I don't even want to why someone would even think about a minor, let them burn in hell, but don't screw with our constitutional rights, and remember the children have the same rights as we do.

Bump!

 

[Guest]

minor?

what age is offically a minor?
in the state i live in 17 is the age of consent, in arkansas its like 14. i agree the idea of a 10 year old having sex is very wrong because it isn't natural, but if you think that a teen aged girl or boy aren't having or at least thinking about sex you must have skipped the entire teen thing. i understand its the law but i don't agree with the definition. just a idea anyway.