Under-18 fantasizing allowed at all?

[Svenskaflicka]

Re: Age limits like real life......

No sex happens before 18........

Flipped on the tv during lunch. Of all the channels available...
Mauri or something like that was on......
Parents giving a 15 yr-old daughter lie detector test to determine:
drugs, drinking, sex, providing drugs to her 10-yr old brother.

Results in, she confessed before the lie detector test:

38 times had sex with 11 different guys........
in excess of 100 times smoking pot.....
in excess of 10 times getting her little brother high.....
stole money, perscription drughs from parents.....
had sex for money when available......
dressed to attract more boys........

thanks to laurel, at least here we are safe!!!!

Has anyone called Rikki?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Originally posted by Sarastro
I will just say, however, that, ideally, I think it is all right, and preferable, for young people to have sex as soon as they have the physical maturity and capacity for sexual pleasure, which means at the onset of puberty. To me, pedophilia has to do with lecherous sexualization of pre-pubescent children, which I reject absolutely. The law may put things differently, but ultimately I consider nature's law higher than man's. And this opinion, believe it or not, is a political one and has nothing whatsoever to do with whether or not I am personally attracted to teenagers. Nor does that possible attraction necessarily have anything whatsoever to do with my actual sex life.

Some people tend to lose sight of the obvious difference between fantasy and reality. Almost everything that takes place in the stories on this site is obvious fantasy, and much of it is ridiculously unrealistic and couldn't really happen. Nor, I'm sure, do most stories reflect the actual sex lives or experience of the authors. So let's not get our panties in a knot here.

For the record, I agree with you. I was sexually active when I was 16 and it didn't affect my personality significantly one way or the other. Everything I said was my take on the story and the type of fantasies it appeals to, and never tried to imply you were personally partial to them. I was just trying to explain why this snippet, were it the whole story, couldn't possibly be accepted, because its own nature.

That being said, welcome.

Like Lauren and others have said, Welcome. I somewhat agree with you but not entirely. First, I would like to point out that even very young children take pleasure in sex, which is why they play with themselves, but that doesn't make them "fair game". Some people reach puberty at the age of ten but they are certainly not ready for sex at that age. I agree with your definition of pedophilia. There is nothing perverse about lusting after a sexy person, such as the girl in the story, and the fact that the person has not yet achieved a certain, arbitrarily decided age, is immaterial.

I saw some of the early porno movies starring Traci Lords and I was very turned on by her sexy body and sexual skills. Later, it was revealed that she was only 16 years old when the movies were made. Did that suddenly reveal me as a pedophile? Of course not. Dirty old man, okay, but not a pedophile. By the way, I should say that I was not attracted to Traci Lords; I just lusted for her.

Except for masturbation, I was not sexually active at the age of 16. I wanted to be, as do virtually all teenage boys but I could find no girls or women who wanted to be active with me.

However all this may be, there are rules against anybody under the age of 18 being involved sexually in a story and her description and the expressed thoughts of the other character make her involved. There are good reasons for that rule. In a perfect world those reasons wouldn't exist but this is not a perfect world.

 

[deliciously_naughty]

Sar

Congrats over your first couple stories being posted, and welcome. I'll be certain to take a look.

However, when I said well established....

I have over 40 stories and almost 3 (I think 3) years on the site under my belt and I'm not have as well established as some people.

But, as others have said...welcome

DN

 

[CharleyH]

Ok, I understand every argument posted, and have actually been PM'd the part of the story I'll debate. The only word used in that story is 'youth' which indicates nothing, as far as I'm concerned, and my advice was to use 'metaphors' that indicate youth to get youth across without giving age. Is there anything wrong in a loving recall?

Eden, green, easy, wild abondon, playful . . . I've given my take personally, and frankly, now that everyone is getting their sex life in the open, having had sex at 14, knowing everything that I was doing sort of. . . blah, blah. By 16, you are in fact, of age legally, at least where I am. Oh this burns me, YET that's not the point. 18 is the point, and how can you give a descript, without giving the age? Answer:

M-E-T-A-P-H-O-R

 

[Weird Harold]

I have over 40 stories and almost 3 (I think 3) years on the site under my belt and I'm not have as well established as some people.

IIRC, you consider me as one "well established" enough to push the limits of Lit's rules -- and specifically the rule on underage sex.

However, you have ten times as many submissions posted as I do -- there is only one under the name Weird Harold, the other three are posted under a different name -- and I successfully pushed the age limit with my first story. (Not that it's a very good story, but it does contain the line "the very image of a pedophile's wet dream.")

I'm well known, but I'm hardly "well established" by your criteria.

Boxliker said:
However all this may be, there are rules against anybody under the age of 18 being involved sexually in a story and her description and the expressed thoughts of the other character make her involved.

In the sample posted above, the girl is NOT "involved" and with the graphic description of the dream deleted, not even her IMAGE particpates in any sex.

Participation is the key: Under-eighteens may not particpate in sexual acts or be depicted as participating.

The devil is in the details. Characters can remember or hear about sex under the age of eighteen, they just can't remember or hear graphic details -- graphic details are reserved for those over eighteen to remember, hear about, or experience.

 

[minsue]

The line had to be drawn, 18 is where Laurel made the mark.

So what's the difference between 18 and 17? Exactly the same difference as between 16 and 15 or 13 and 12. That's why there is the distinction.

(I'm led to believe that 13 is a consentual age in some countries if not some American states)

The highest mark keeps the site well away from the lowest.

Deal with it.

Gauche

I can't speak for other states, but 18 is the age of consent in my state. Of course, one can get married at 16 with parental consent. I've often wondered if marital sex involving at least one partner under 18 would be considered statutory rape or not.

- Mindy

 

[Boxlicker101]

I can't speak for other states, but 18 is the age of consent in my state. Of course, one can get married at 16 with parental consent. I've often wondered if marital sex involving at least one partner under 18 would be considered statutory rape or not.

- Mindy

This is something that has always seemed strange to me also. If a 30 year old man wants to marry a 17 year old girl, and her mother and father give their consent, they can get married, and, presumably, have sex, and nobody gets into any trouble. I believe the law, in CA at least, excludes married couples from the law.

If, however, the man and girl go to her parents and say they want to have sex, and the parents say to go ahead, and they do, all three adults can go to jail. It makes no sense to me that the young female would be considered, with parental consent, mature enough to become married, but not to have sex.

Maybe they believed that the guy would refrain from having sex until his bride had passed her 18th birthday.

 

[minsue]

This is something that has always seemed strange to me also. If a 30 year old man wants to marry a 17 year old girl, and her mother and father give their consent, they can get married, and, presumably, have sex, and nobody gets into any trouble. I believe the law, in CA at least, excludes married couples from the law.

If, however, the man and girl go to her parents and say they want to have sex, and the parents say to go ahead, and they do, all three adults can go to jail. It makes no sense to me that the young female would be considered, with parental consent, mature enough to become married, but not to have sex.

Maybe they believed that the guy would refrain from having sex until his bride had passed her 18th birthday.

I'm sure as the fine upstanding feminist that I am I should be offended by the automatic assumption that it is the female that is under age. Oddly, I'm highly amused. Go figure.

- Mindy

 

[Boxlicker101]

I'm sure as the fine upstanding feminist that I am I should be offended by the automatic assumption that it is the female that is under age. Oddly, I'm highly amused. Go figure.

- Mindy

I believe that in Ca, a male under 18 cannot get married, even with parental consent, while a young woman can. Not sure why the distinction is made. The other reason is that no prosecutor would ever charge a 30 year old woman with statutory rape of a 17 year old boy, except under very unusual circumstances. If any ever did, it would probably be thrown out as a waste of the court's time. I don't know why that distinction is made either. A 17 year old girl would be considered to be a victim while a 17 year old boy would be considered a beneficiary. I do know why that distinction is made.

 

[minsue]

I believe that in Ca, a male under 18 cannot get married, even with parental consent, while a young woman can. Not sure why the distinction is made. The other reason is that no prosecutor would ever charge a 30 year old woman with statutory rape of a 17 year old boy, except under very unusual circumstances. If any ever did, it would probably be thrown out as a waste of the court's time. I don't know why that distinction is made either. A 17 year old girl would be considered to be a victim while a 17 year old boy would be considered a beneficiary. I do know why that distinction is made.

Wow. That's a truly inane law. In AZ, either sex can get married from 16-18 with parental consent. There have also been some cases of statutory rape charges brought against women, but generally teachers a la Mary Kay Laterno (was that her name? I can't remember).

- Mindy

 

[Boxlicker101]

Wow. That's a truly inane law. In AZ, either sex can get married from 16-18 with parental consent. There have also been some cases of statutory rape charges brought against women, but generally teachers a la Mary Kay Laterno (was that her name? I can't remember).

- Mindy

Her name was something like that. She was a teacher and he was 13 years old and one of her students. I believe she was sentenced to six months in jail and probation. A male teacher with a 13 year old girl would have gotten a lot of time in the state pen but never mind that just now. When she got out, she went right back to the kid, and was caught again, and was found to be pregnant and she ended up doing more time.

 

[MathGirl]

Woo woo woo

I'm glad to see this thread. We haven't had this discussion in a couple of weeks, and it was worrying me.

There are so many other sexual things to write about, I don't see why there is always such a hue and cry about the one and only rule that's enforced around here.

MG

Ps. One could always write a nice, noncontroversial dictionary. Even an encyclopedia, thesaurus, compendium, formulary, gazeteer, index, bibilography, synopsis, etc.

 

[Sarastro]

Lauren Hynde, Boxlicker101 and DN wrote:
> welcome.

Thanks, all!

Boxlicker101 wrote:
>I somewhat agree with you but not entirely. First, I would like to point out that even
>very young children take pleasure in sex, which is why they play with themselves

I haven't looked into the matter in detail, but I am skeptical that they have what can be called sexual feelings in the usual, mature sense. And if they do feel pleasure, what does that really add to the debate? It's still not a valid argument for their having full-blown sex (esp. not with adults). On the other hand, I successfully masturbated (by which is meant that I achieved climax) a couple of years before I actually produced sperm, and would almost certainly have enjoyed real sex at that time, but I guess that was a transition period between the beginning and completion of puberty.

>Some people reach puberty at the age of ten but they are certainly not ready for
>sex at that age.

Physically or mentally, you mean?

>I agree with your definition of pedophilia. There is nothing perverse about lusting
>after a sexy person, such as the girl in the story, and the fact that the person has
>not yet achieved a certain, arbitrarily decided age, is immaterial.

I concur.

>I saw some of the early porno movies starring Traci Lords and I was very turned on
>by her sexy body and sexual skills. Later, it was revealed that she was only 16 years
>old when the movies were made. Did that suddenly reveal me as a pedophile?
>Of course not.

Good and gratifying point! Thanks for making it. I haven't seen her movies, but I've seen a couple of pics from them. She was pretty hot!

>In a perfect world those reasons wouldn't exist but this is not a perfect world.

One day, though. One day...

DN wrote:
>Congrats over your first couple stories being posted, and welcome. I'll be certain
>to take a look.

And I shall certainly reciprocate!

Weird Harold wrote:
>Participation is the key: Under-eighteens may not particpate in sexual acts or
>be depicted as participating.

Right - the question then becomes, does a prose fantasy (which intends to remain just that) constitute depiction and participation? I can't see it constituting participation, but it may (and may not) be interpreted as depiction. Depends on the authority doing the interpreting. I do know that if such depiction took place in a "serious" (/mainstream) movie or novel, it would be acceptable, and comprise a part of a work of art. Apparently, the standards for online erotica are different. Of course I understand the necessity for protecting children from implied abuse, but to just make a rigid, sweeping law against ever mentioning under-eighteens in any sexual context is to go to an absurd extreme.

We live in paranoid times. There's an over-zealous pedophilia scare running rampant which would have been ridiculed as hysterical fifteen or twenty years ago. In my country, nude page 3 girls in tabloid magazines could be as young as 15 until the late '80s or early '90s. Never caused any controversy that I'm aware of. Nowadays, that child in a man's body, Michael Jackson, is being publicly condemned for having sleep-overs with other kids. That *is* paranoid, and worse. To criminalize common friendship between adults and children is atrocious, bordering on evil.

~Sarastro

 

[Boxlicker101]

Lauren Hynde, Boxlicker101 and DN wrote:
> welcome.

Thanks, all!

Boxlicker101 wrote:
>I somewhat agree with you but not entirely. First, I would like to point out that even
>very young children take pleasure in sex, which is why they play with themselves

I haven't looked into the matter in detail, but I am skeptical that they have what can be called sexual feelings in the usual, mature sense. And if they do feel pleasure, what does that really add to the debate? It's still not a valid argument for their having full-blown sex (esp. not with adults).

RESPONSE:

Earlier, you said:

I will just say, however, that, ideally, I think it is all right, and preferable, for young people to have sex as soon as they have the physical maturity and capacity for sexual pleasure, which means at the onset of puberty

I SAY

I wanted to point out that the ability to enjoy sex, in the form of masturbation, predates puberty by many years. Your own experiences bear that out, as do mine. I don't remember how old I was when I first jacked off, knowing what I was doing but I was probably about eight. That is also about the age I was when a slightly older boy and I took turns fucking each other in the ass.I enjoyed it (both aspects) but I was certainly not old enough for serious sex.


On the other hand, I successfully masturbated (by which is meant that I achieved climax) a couple of years before I actually produced sperm, and would almost certainly have enjoyed real sex at that time, but I guess that was a transition period between the beginning and completion of puberty.


AND I ALSO SAID:


>Some people reach puberty at the age of ten but they are certainly not ready for
>sex at that age.

AND YOU ASKED:

Physically or mentally, you mean?

I AM RESPONDEDING:

Neither physically nor mentally.


>I agree with your definition of pedophilia. There is nothing perverse about lusting
>after a sexy person, such as the girl in the story, and the fact that the person has
>not yet achieved a certain, arbitrarily decided age, is immaterial.

I concur.

>I saw some of the early porno movies starring Traci Lords and I was very turned on
>by her sexy body and sexual skills. Later, it was revealed that she was only 16 years
>old when the movies were made. Did that suddenly reveal me as a pedophile?
>Of course not.

Good and gratifying point! Thanks for making it. I haven't seen her movies, but I've seen a couple of pics from them. She was pretty hot!

>In a perfect world those reasons wouldn't exist but this is not a perfect world.

One day, though. One day...

DN wrote:
>Congrats over your first couple stories being posted, and welcome. I'll be certain
>to take a look.

And I shall certainly reciprocate!

Weird Harold wrote:
>Participation is the key: Under-eighteens may not particpate in sexual acts or
>be depicted as participating.

Right - the question then becomes, does a prose fantasy (which intends to remain just that) constitute depiction and participation? I can't see it constituting participation, but it may (and may not) be interpreted as depiction. Depends on the authority doing the interpreting. I do know that if such depiction took place in a "serious" (/mainstream) movie or novel, it would be acceptable, and comprise a part of a work of art. Apparently, the standards for online erotica are different. Of course I understand the necessity for protecting children from implied abuse, but to just make a rigid, sweeping law against ever mentioning under-eighteens in any sexual context is to go to an absurd extreme.

We live in paranoid times. There's an over-zealous pedophilia scare running rampant which would have been ridiculed as hysterical fifteen or twenty years ago. In my country, nude page 3 girls in tabloid magazines could be as young as 15 until the late '80s or early '90s. Never caused any controversy that I'm aware of. Nowadays, that child in a man's body, Michael Jackson, is being publicly condemned for having sleep-overs with other kids. That *is* paranoid, and worse. To criminalize common friendship between adults and children is atrocious, bordering on evil.

~Sarastro

THE PEDOPHILIA SCARE IS NOT PARANOIA. There really are men out there who lust after children. In the Bay Area, children as young as seven and maybe younger have been kidnapped, raped and murdered. There really are men who molest children, their own or the neighbors' and this should be known, and we should be alert.

I will concede that there are excesses committed, one of the most notorious is the McMartin School scandale of some years ago. Probably, nothing ever happened but lives were ruined and innocent people spent long times in prison. There is a man from a city near here, who is a kindergarten teacher who loves children. He was convicted of child molestation, and all he ever did was things like hugging, tucking in shirts, giving piggy-back rides and similar things that caregivers (and a teacher IS a caregiver) do. He didn't deny doing the innocent things I have described, and he is doing 15 years in the state pen.

Michael Jackson's "sleepovers" are nude sharing of his bed with young boys. I think anybody would agree there is something perverse about a 45 year old man sleeping nude with children. I don't know if there was sexual contact or not, but that will come out if there was.

As for fantasies about a young girl, the line is drawn. All the stories are fiction although some are based on fact. Your story about fantasizing about the sexy 16 year old might be harmless but, consider: I could write a story in the first person in which I have a ten year old daughter who has a pajama party for some of her friends. I say goodnight to these innocent children, and then fantasize about sex with them, and the fantasy is the main part of the story. In the fantasy, I think of doing things like the narrator does with adult women in most of my stories, and I describe it in as much detail as my stories include, except I make frequent mentions of lack of pubic hair and breasts, and I am not going to go any further in that direction. Under no circumstances would I ever, ever write such a story and even the thought of it repulses me, but I could do it, and say it is okay because it is "not about sex; it is just a sexual fantasy"

 

[Sarastro]

THE PEDOPHILIA SCARE IS NOT PARANOIA.

Sorry, I must have been unclear. I didn't mean to lessen the horror of pedophilia, nor to suggest that we should be less vigilant about it - not at all. Actual pedophilia is an atrocity.

I meant that we shouldn't let things get so out of hand that we criminalize *perfectly innocent* behavior. The example you provide bears out my point. If this guyg didn't do anything out of the ordinary, why the hell is he doing 15 in the slammer?

When I say there's a scare on, I mean that all the media attention to pedophilia is scaring the crap out of a lot of people, probably making them reject a lot of complete normal contact with children. This is not a good idea. There is such a thing as too much protection.

~Sarastro

 

[CharleyH]

all the media attention to pedophilia is scaring the crap out of a lot of people, probably making them reject a lot of complete normal contact with children.

~Sarastro

I am a pretty open individual S, but I do have to reject your wording on this. I think you mean completely normal contact with people around our own age while we are maturing etc. otherwise . . . the statement doesn't really seem all that 'normal..'

We all have experiences growing up, and some of those affect the way we behave sexually now, so getting back to the original question and going way beyond it . . . is it cool to recount a formative experience as a child that is anti-sexual, in order to get to the psyche of the sexual character in the 'now'?

Much more poignant I think.

 

[Weird Harold]

Weird Harold wrote:
Participation is the key: Under-eighteens may not particpate in sexual acts or be depicted as participating.

Right - the question then becomes, does a prose fantasy (which intends to remain just that) constitute depiction and participation? I can't see it constituting participation, but it may (and may not) be interpreted as depiction. Depends on the authority doing the interpreting.

My statement applies only to Lit's underage sex rule.

Every depiction of sex on Literotica is a "prose fantasy" -- so, YES, a prose fantasy does constitute "participation" in that context.

There are numerous sites on the internet with less restrictive age limitations than Literotica where stories about statutory rape and pedophilia and even sex with infants abound.

However, those sites are NOT Literotica and Literotica's rule banning sex under eighteen doesn't apply. My comment above is based on both experience and discussions with Laurel on how SHE enforces HER editorial choice.

In short, at Literotica, a character in a story may not engage in sexual acts "onscreen" with graphic details. That includes underage particpants in character's fantasies or memories.

That does NOT preclude references to underage sex. A character can remember losing their virginity at a young age or a parent can catch a child in the act. But you can't describe the Details of underage sex -- especially not in a prurient or graphic manner. You specially canot ake underage sex the FOCUS or THEME of the story or a scene within the story.

Your extract above is about desire and not about active participation. Desire for an underage character is allowable, but acting on those desires or fantisizing about acting on them in detail is not.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Originally posted by Sarastro
all the media attention to pedophilia is scaring the crap out of a lot of people, probably making them reject a lot of complete normal contact with children.

~Sarastro


I am a pretty open individual S, but I do have to reject your wording on this. I think you mean completely normal contact with people around our own age while we are maturing etc. otherwise . . . the statement doesn't really seem all that 'normal..'

We all have experiences growing up, and some of those affect the way we behave sexually now, so getting back to the original question and going way beyond it . . . is it cool to recount a formative experience as a child that is anti-sexual, in order to get to the psyche of the sexual character in the 'now'?

Much more poignant I think.

Hey, Charley, I think Sarastro was referring to something I said in a previous post about a normal care-giver hugging children, kissing their boo-boos, giving them piggy back rides, etc. These are perfectly normal things and not at all reprehensible but a man from a city near here, Pleasanton, CA, I think, is in the slammer for doing just that.

There is nothing wrong in loving children and demonstrating that love in a non-carnal way, Some people, however, would call the cops or the CPS if I even hug my grandson.

As an afterthought, edited to add:
Under no circumstances should this to be taken as a defense of Michael Jackson or other perverts.

 

[gauchecritic]

As an afterthought, edited to add:
Under no circumstances should this to be taken as a defense of Michael Jackson or other perverts.

OK it's meant as a bit of fun in an aside but I am seriously shocked, dismayed and I'll even go so far as to say outraged at the amount of posts referring to Jacko as guilty as implied or accused.

Had to say it sooner or later. $0.02 .

Gauche

 

[Boxlicker101]

OK it's meant as a bit of fun in an aside but I am seriously shocked, dismayed and I'll even go so far as to say outraged at the amount of posts referring to Jacko as guilty as implied or accused.

Had to say it sooner or later. $0.02 .

Gauche

Hi, Gauche.
I'm not saying that Jacko is guilty of any specific offense; I'm just expressing the opinion that he is a pervert. It is up to a jury to decide on guilt or innocense.

 

[pop_54]

Yep

Hey, Charley, I think Sarastro was referring to something I said in a previous post about a normal care-giver hugging children, kissing their boo-boos, giving them piggy back rides, etc. These are perfectly normal things and not at all reprehensible but a man from a city near here, Pleasanton, CA, I think, is in the slammer for doing just that.

There is nothing wrong in loving children and demonstrating that love in a non-carnal way, Some people, however, would call the cops or the CPS if I even hug my grandson.

As an afterthought, edited to add:
Under no circumstances should this to be taken as a defense of Michael Jackson or other perverts.

It's gone way beyond a joke here too, no photo's of fully clothed kids in their school play, they could be used by paedophiles we're told.

Don't dare hug your daugter in the street or get overly familiar with her like sharing a giggly joke, Whoa! No, fucking pervert.

Our kids are going to wind up twisted to fuck as they get older by all this anti love political correct crap instigated by dried up spinsters and vote seeking fucking politicians.

 

[gauchecritic]

You tell 'em dad. Seriously.

Gauche

 

[Sarastro]

Yup, pop_54, that's *precisely* what I mean. Those who believe that there can't be healthy (non-sexual, of course) friendships between kids and adults - apparently a lot of people here -, are *victims* of the scare I'm talking about. Simple as that.

I'm not a fan of Michael Jackson, but, having seen the Martin Bashir (sp?) interview, I think his sleep-overs with kids are perfectly harmless, and would have been recognized as such in more enlightened times (like the '70s).

Jackson may be perverted in a number of other areas, though. I think it's very very sick to cover up his own kids' faces just because Jackson himself was hurt by his father's calling him ugly, and I most likely couldn't disagree with a verdict that would remove his children from him on those or similar grounds. This is what ought to get all the attention, not the way he behaves because he eccentrically likes to pretend he's still a kid, which is what the sleep-overs are all about.

But if some of us disagree about this, then we just disagree. Not much more to say about it.

~Sarastro

 

[Svenskaflicka]

I was never in the bedroom with Michael Jackson and those kids, so I don't know what he did or did not do to them.

Until he says plain out: "I fucked with them", I'll think of him as not guilty.

 

[LipstickKiss]

Mental maturity comes at different stages, but the general public seems to agree that most people are mature at age 18. Hence the laws, because you cannot make law for each person specifically.

Pedophilia is a different matter than attaction to a 16 or 17 year old. When I was 15, I was mistaken for being 18 all the time. When I was 13, I was mistaken for being 15. And not because I wore tight skimpy clothes, because I just find those uncomfortable for the most part.

I am a very affectionate person. I hug my friends. I kiss some of my friends on the cheek. Most people like affection (once they get used to it) and so it should become more commonplace.

And I love children. Children need affection, if they feel neglected or unloved then it will grow to greater problems later in life.