Remarkably helpful rejection notice

[Writer61]

IMO, Your story was manually rejected. The rejection template had an addition made by a human. It is highlighted in red with double brackets on each side

The red + bold text was added by me to highlight the offending sentence.

 

[SmilingLez]

The red + bold text was added by me to highlight the offending sentence.

My bad

 

[Writer61]

There is no reason for that type of passage or reference to be there at all, in any form.

Because 18-year-olds emerge, butterfly-like, as blank canvases untrammelled by previous experience?

 

[BeechLeaf]

Yes, unfortunately, they do, according to Lit rules. The normal, healthy sexual awakening of 16-year-olds, or the earlier less clear forms in 14-year-olds, or the sexual experimentation short of sex in people who are 17 and 10 months - they're not allowed. It's a clear rule, and restricts some writing by even the best and most compassionate writers.

But for a site trying to obey laws and avoid prosecution and closure, under the laws of their applicable jurisdiction, it's not a decision they can spend time on, looking sensitively at each individual case. They put a line down. That makes sense to me.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Yes, unfortunately, they do, according to Lit rules. The normal, healthy sexual awakening of 16-year-olds, or the earlier less clear forms in 14-year-olds, or the sexual experimentation short of sex in people who are 17 and 10 months - they're not allowed. It's a clear rule, and restricts some writing by even the best and most compassionate writers.

But for a site trying to obey laws and avoid prosecution and closure, under the laws of their applicable jurisdiction, it's not a decision they can spend time on, looking sensitively at each individual case. They put a line down. That makes sense to me.

That's not really what the Lit rules say. There have been plenty of conversations here in the past where people have discussed characters discussing their pre-18 experiences. It has been green lit when it was factual and non-titilating.
This will be an interesting test case, but it isn't as clear as some are implying that simply saying, "I saw naked people when I was a kid" runs afoul of the rules.
This could go either way, and neither would surprise me.

 

[SmilingLez]

Yes, unfortunately, they do, according to Lit rules. The normal, healthy sexual awakening of 16-year-olds, or the earlier less clear forms in 14-year-olds, or the sexual experimentation short of sex in people who are 17 and 10 months - they're not allowed. It's a clear rule, and restricts some writing by even the best and most compassionate writers.

But for a site trying to obey laws and avoid prosecution and closure, under the laws of their applicable jurisdiction, it's not a decision they can spend time on, looking sensitively at each individual case. They put a line down. That makes sense to me.

One of the things I am playing with is csam filters that distinguish between this

Without warning, Gus remembered his first kiss. He was 14 and she was 12. His first erection. The CNA wheeled him to his 100th birthday party

and this

Gus knew she was 12 but wanted ...

So far, can't get my filter to accept the first and reject the second. Both end up being rejected.

 

[BeechLeaf]

No, there's a little bit of leeway in it, but only a very little bit. In general, authors can't show 17-year-olds with sexual feelings or events, and authors have to accept that. It is true that you might be able to squeeze in a very small amount of somewhat sexual, general, non-explicit interaction or thought, but basically authors here have to accept that there is a bright line you can't cross. You can't negotiate your way across it.

 

[NotWise]

Because 18-year-olds emerge, butterfly-like, as blank canvases untrammelled by previous experience?

Your 18-year old character can be as experienced as you want them to be. You can say they are, but you can't describe how they got that way.

My current contest story has a 20-year old character who ran away from home at fifteen. It's clear in dialog that she got along for the first two years by trading sex for food and shelter, but the way I just said that is more graphic than anything in the story. There are bonus points for subtlety.

This is not an easy line to draw and there are cases where you have to go with the line as Laurel draws it. There was a time before the AI policy when the underage policy was the constant topic of discussion in AH. It's been discussed at great length.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

No, there's a little bit of leeway in it, but only a very little bit. In general, authors can't show 17-year-olds with sexual feelings or events, and authors have to accept that. It is true that you might be able to squeeze in a very small amount of somewhat sexual, general, non-explicit interaction or thought, but basically authors here have to accept that there is a bright line you can't cross. You can't negotiate your way across it.

Plenty of stories suggest otherwise. In one of my stories a character tells another that the first time he masturbated he was thinking about her.
It's a factual statement with no details.

The bright line is "your characters can't have sex described in your story until they are 18".
Other than that, things aren't clear at all.

 

[Voboy]

There's a well-known and well-regarded story I've read here more than once where the main character explicitly mentions he lost his virginity at 15. No description, no laborious backstory, no reverie about how nice it was or how great it felt, just a "since he lost his virginity at 15."

A simple statement like that is generally regarded as being okay, since it's just an attempt to give exposition without titillating. I think the OP's implication goes beyond that.

You can be poetically opaque (like I suggested earlier) or you can be simply declarative, it seems. I don't think it's wise to try to split the baby.

 

[Kumquatqueen]

The question is really whether Lit defines any nudity as sexual. UK law says it isn't (it's legal to wander about naked as long as you don't intend to 'alarm or distress' anyone, naturist resorts include families with children), but no idea what legal or other standard Lit uses.

 

[Britva415]

The question is really whether Lit defines any nudity as sexual

Well, that's what the discussion has turned into. The question was about seeing nude sex acts, not just seeing nudity.

 

[LunarSpawn]

Because 18-year-olds emerge, butterfly-like, as blank canvases untrammelled by previous experience?

It's ficking weird how that works out innit?

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Well, that's what the discussion has turned into. The question was about seeing nude sex acts, not just seeing nudity.

No, his question was if removing the reference to sex acts and just saying they saw naked people would be adequate.

 

[Writer61]

As many of you expected, it has been rejected again.

Back to the drawing board.

 

[Writer61]

Deleted the (new) sentence "I saw my mother and her lovers naked, but Mum made sure that I was never involved in anything sexual."

Hopefully that will be enough.

 

[Voboy]

Deleted the (new) sentence "I saw my mother and her lovers naked, but Mum made sure that I was never involved in anything sexual."

Hopefully that will be enough.

The problem, I suspect, is the "and her lovers" part.

If the kid saw a naked man, that's one thing. If he describes them as lovers, that means the kid knows it's sexual.

 

[TheLobster]

If he describes them as lovers, that means the kid knows it's sexual.

Presumably this is written from a post-facto perspective, so while the now-adult narrator knows it in retrospect, he wouldn't have known it at the time.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

And yet there is a story up that includes a 12 year old whacking off.

Review the new stories in T&I about an Interview.

 

[deathlynx]

And yet there is a story up that includes a 12 year old whacking off.

Review the new stories in T&I about an Interview.

Which really should be reported. Although laughable, the age guidelines are there to protect Lit. And thereby our ability to publish nice "safe" smut.

 

[Voboy]

Presumably this is written from a post-facto perspective, so while the now-adult narrator knows it in retrospect, he wouldn't have known it at the time.

I get that.

Laurel might not.

 

[SmilingLez]

And yet there is a story up that includes a 12 year old whacking off.

Review the new stories in T&I about an Interview.

IMO, one cannot help but marvel at the extraordinary laissez‑faire spirit that seems to preside over this for profit commercial porn site, a kind of grand, unhurried permissiveness in which even the most conspicuously questionable material drifts serenely into public view. It gives the distinct impression that the unseen custodians have adopted an almost transcendental philosophy of non‑intervention, allowing the catalogue to swell in whatever direction the tides carry it, untouched, unexamined, and curiously immune to the sort of stewardship one might expect from vigilant hands. YMMV

 

[qidniz]

And yet there is a story up that includes a 12 year old whacking off.

Actually, it's someone at age 20 admitting to whacking off when he was 12.

Which could be a distinction without a difference.

 

[Writer61]

Actually, it's someone at age 20 admitting to whacking off when he was 12.

Which could be a distinction without a difference.

In my story, an adult recalls seeing her mother naked with her lovers and makes it clear that she was never involved in sexual activity. Which feels less of an offence. Indeed, IMHO, another of my stories goes further but was not rejected.

Of course, humans are involved in the review process, so inconsistencies are to be expected.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

And this one is still posted.