Underage stories, a cautionary tale

[FluffMeatsStory]

My tale is about a unique character. She has an origin story. This is what I learned.

Her beginning is as a child. Knowing there were limits, I looked up the “Submission Guidelines”. This is what I found:
3. No sexual activity involving bestiality (you can write stories about supernatural beasts like ghosts, unicorns, werewolves, etc.) or underage persons will be considered. For the purposes of this site, the minimum legal age is 18. This site does not publish stories, articles, essays, or other material supporting, encouraging, or defending child abuse and/or exploitation.

Let me state for the record, I have no problem with the site having a policy. I like this one.

Checking my origin story, I saw I had some sexual activity. So I rewrote it.
Checking again, I thought I passed. I submitted it.

Rejected.
I was half expecting this, because I knew I was near the edge of okay.
Apparently, I was well over the edge. Not of the guidelines, but of the following policy:
• Was there an underage (under 18 years old) sexual relationship in my story?
• As our submission FAQ states, we do not accept stories involving people under the age of 18 in sexual situations:
http://www.literotica.com/faq/05235347.shtml#05319407 This includes but is not
limited to talking explicitly about sex, voyeurism, exhibitionism, fantasizing,
masturbation, and graphic sexualized descriptions, in addition to actual sexual
intercourse. This also includes explicit flashbacks/past remembrances, descriptions
of an underage person’s body/physical development and/or the reaction of other
people to it; references to people under the age of 18 “playing doctor” or “sex
education”, and any similar situations.

The guidelines have “No sexual activity involving ,,, underage persons”.
This policy has several things not in the guidelines.
I had a skinny-dipping scene, and some other things, but no sexual situations.

So I rewrote it. Again.
Checking, I thought it passed. I submitted it.

Rejected.
I had overlooked a scene. Rewrite. Submit.

Rejected.
This time I was given a different standard:
The checklist below may help you in re-examining your manuscript.
* Was there an underage (under 18 years old) sexual relationship in my story?
* Hello again, and thank you for sharing your work! There is still too much
discussion involving a person under the age of 18 talking explicitly about
her body parts (particularly her breasts). Generally, if the words put an
image of an underage person's body and/or sexuality into the mind of a
reader, we do not publish it. If this description is crucial to your story,
then it may be that this story is not a good fit for Literotica. We look
forward to publishing your other work. Thank you for your understanding!

Sigh. So I made yet another rewrite.
Checking, I thought it passed. I submitted it.

Accepted.
Yeah.

I realize that many of you may get rejected and then resubmit many times. So why do I write this?

I write this to inform you that the standard you need to write to is stricter than what is in the guidelines, and to know that you may fall afoul of this.

My editor passed each submission, knowing the rejection reason before I submitted it. On the last rejection, he noted:
People under the age of eighteen do nothing but eat, sleep, and go to school.
Got it.

While kids can do more, don’t expect much.

/FluffMeatsStory

 

[Todger65]

The fact that you were rejected first time around, probably by a bot, will flag up the story on re submission for Laurel to read it properly. It is then down to her interpretation of her rules, so yes, it will be given a much stricter going over.

Under 18’s must not be mentioned in the vicinity of anything sexual going on, even accidental overhearing is verboten.

There are plenty of other sites that will accept virtually anything that are banned here.

 

[Writer6324]

I too received a rejection which I think was due to the person not actually reading the story.

My crime was simply saying that an employee, who was subsequently involved in a sexual encounter looked sixteen. It got dumped even though I stipulated in the following paragraph that the employer had a policy not to hire individuals under eighteen.

I had to rewrite that out completely to get passed.

 

[Stopokochac]

LOL. I really don't understand how they approve and reject such stories, because I literally saw an essay published on here, where the girl was talking about how she lost her virginity at 16, and no one said anything.

My friend wanted to put a scene where a guy peeks at a woman while she's breastfeeding. I haven't attempted to publish it yet. IDK if this would violate the guidelines since it's technically sexualizing an activity involving a child. I usually try to play it safe and avoid any under 18 characters completely, because they seem much more strict about this than anything else. But I can't really blame them, because consent laws in this country are so confusing and vary from state to state.
Personally, I think they should just not allow ANY under 18 characters period! This would avoid any future issues, because at this time there seems to be no consistency, and it seems to be completely at the discretion of whoever happens to be reviewing your story.

 

[FluffMeatsStory]

Let me reiterate. I have no problem with having a policy.
I knew I was running close to the edge, so the initial rejection was just finding out where the lines were.

No, my warning for all was that I encountered three different standards to be measured by. Two of which I didn't see until after I failed them.

/FluffMeatsStory

 

[Bramblethorn]

I too received a rejection which I think was due to the person not actually reading the story.

My crime was simply saying that an employee, who was subsequently involved in a sexual encounter looked sixteen. It got dumped even though I stipulated in the following paragraph that the employer had a policy not to hire individuals under eighteen.

I had to rewrite that out completely to get passed.

Probably not an accidental rejection. If the disclaimer says they're over 18, but they're described as looking/behaving like minors, it's likely to get rejected because too many authors try to slip pedo fetish stories through that way.

LOL. I really don't understand how they approve and reject such stories, because I literally saw an essay published on here, where the girl was talking about how she lost her virginity at 16, and no one said anything.

It's permitted to mention that a character lost their virginity at 16. What's not permitted is graphic description of that event.

My friend wanted to put a scene where a guy peeks at a woman while she's breastfeeding. I haven't attempted to publish it yet. IDK if this would violate the guidelines since it's technically sexualizing an activity involving a child. I usually try to play it safe and avoid any under 18 characters completely, because they seem much more strict about this than anything else. But I can't really blame them, because consent laws in this country are so confusing and vary from state to state.

It's not about age-of-consent laws.

 

[Djmac1031]

I've had several things in some of my stories that I've managed to tip toe around, knowing the strict rules.

For instance, I've had a 19 year old female character discuss her past boyfriends, but never mentioned ages or specific actions. She's implied the experiences were not good..."they were selfish, didn't really care about my needs" etc.

It let's the reader infer what age these things may have happened without getting into specifics or exact ages.

Another male character mentions having learned to masturbate "ever since I found a Playboy in my father's nightstand." But no further details.

We all know what age boys discover jerking off. But I never mentioned an age nor went into details of the experience, so it got through.

Bottom line: we all know people of all genders experience some kind of sexual experience before 18.

But not here lol.

 

[Djmac1031]

Another example:

In a recent incest story I wrote, the sister is sunbathing nude by the pool. She encourages her brother to strip and join her. Here's the exact exchange:

"Oh come on," she sighed. "You've seen me naked before. We used to skinny dip out here all the time when we were little."

"Yeah, but that was a long time ago. Things are very...different," I said."

This went through no problem. I suppose because I didn't mention specifics, like the detailed difference in her body development from then to now.

If I'd had him say something like "Yeah, but that was a long time ago. Your tits are a lot bigger now and you've grown pubes," I guarantee that would get flagged, even though he's talking about her 18 year old body not her younger version, because it's inviting a comparison and inferring he remembers specifics about her underage body.

It's a fine line I suppose, so I really try to avoid it most times anyway.

If your character is a virgin, they can't lose it in your story unless their 18.

If they lost their virginity before 18, you can't really talk about it in any detail.

After that, well...good luck.

 

[Louetta]

I recently wrote a story about a German girl who remarked, upon going to an American beach, that all the little girls had tops on. This was politely rejected. I just left it out and got approved. I can imagine that mentioning the abscence of little girls sans tops might well conjure up in the reader an image of a little girl without a top. Whether little girls sans tops represent sexual images depends on the individual but I can see where we would not want to attract those for whom it does. Maybe that's the point.

 

[Rustyoznail]

I recently wrote a story about a German girl who remarked, upon going to an American beach, that all the little girls had tops on. This was politely rejected. I just left it out and got approved. I can imagine that mentioning the abscence of little girls sans tops might well conjure up in the reader an image of a little girl without a top. Whether little girls sans tops represent sexual images depends on the individual but I can see where we would not want to attract those for whom it does. Maybe that's the point.

Exactly. It's not a legal issue, but a moral issue. The site owners are trying very hard to avoid being targeted by the "moral minority."

 

[njlauren]

In the end the policy is whatever the person doing it says it is. I had a story rejected because it had the famous line "Here's looking at you kid", said between a husband and soon to be ex wife, and was rejected for being child porn. The site is definitely using software scans, and they are notorious for taking things literally (like someone calling their lover "kid"). It also depends on the mindset of the person reading it, if they had had someone threatening them bc they felt they were publishing 'child porn' (which, by the way, is a really interesting legal issue; is erotica featuring children having sex illegal, because it doesn't involve kids have sex, doesnt involve real people. Court cases have come up with cartoons featuring underage characters. promoting child sex, as distasteful as it is to me, is a 1st amendment issue...). I have a story, a satire on the infamous February Sucks story series on Lit, that I can't publish here because the powers that be felt like it could be construed as promoting violence against authors (from what I can tell, that story series has caused some real agida behind the scenes, with raging idiots going way over the line with threats against authors and the like). Can't blame them, I can understand being sensitive to things, but can make publishing here hard to figure out. One of the things in the boilerplate was saying my story 'condoned illegal activity', yet we have stories where people are fed to sharks, carved apart, left to die locked in a story room with no water or food, violence, shootings, etc....

 

[lovecraft68]

Another example:

In a recent incest story I wrote, the sister is sunbathing nude by the pool. She encourages her brother to strip and join her. Here's the exact exchange:

"Oh come on," she sighed. "You've seen me naked before. We used to skinny dip out here all the time when we were little."

"Yeah, but that was a long time ago. Things are very...different," I said."

This went through no problem. I suppose because I didn't mention specifics, like the detailed difference in her body development from then to now.

If I'd had him say something like "Yeah, but that was a long time ago. Your tits are a lot bigger now and you've grown pubes," I guarantee that would get flagged, even though he's talking about her 18 year old body not her younger version, because it's inviting a comparison and inferring he remembers specifics about her underage body.

It's a fine line I suppose, so I really try to avoid it most times anyway.

If your character is a virgin, they can't lose it in your story unless their 18.

If they lost their virginity before 18, you can't really talk about it in any detail.

After that, well...good luck.

You're doing exactly what they want, its underage without mentioning the number. The site does not care about underage as long as an age is not mentioned, that way if any trouble were to ever come from it they'd be like "Gee, how'd that get there?"
Easiest way around is flashback. Start your character at 19 then say "four years ago" and go full bore with the sex scene, and its fine even though the reader knows what age the character is during the sex...but you're not saying it directly.
Stories like this are everywhere.

 

[Djmac1031]

Easiest way around is flashback.

I have no real interest in trying to "sneak" underage references or full stories onto the site. Or in even writing them at all, of course.

So I've tried to keep any references to pre-18 sexual activities to passing references with no details, nothing more.

The even easier solution of course is simply write older, already experienced characters.

But if we choose to write younger, less experienced ones, we just have to be careful how we go about it.

No biggie really.

 

[Djmac1031]

Easiest way around is flashback.

Speaking of flash backs, another example:

In a recent story, I wrote an adult man flashing back to his first intimate encounters with his wife back in high school.

While in reality many teens would have the experience I wrote before 18, I made them both 18 year old seniors so I didn't have to try and dance around the rules.

In the end their ages weren't really relevant to the story anyway other than that they were both young and were each other's first and only, neither ever having had another partner before or after.

 

[lovecraft68]

Tired of people talking about the First Amendment like it's a bulletproof vest.


Your First Amendment right can absolutely be restricted, and it is, on several terms. Your speech cannot incite or produce "imminent lawless action," or be likely to do so [Brandenburg v. Ohio (1969)]. Defamatory speech and fraud are forbidden. We have obscenity laws and no protections for hate speech. Child pornography is not protected under the First Amendment, and like you said, people have discussed the depiction of underage fictional characters.

This depends on the state (hi, I'm in the U.S.) and what exactly you could be charged with. People vs. Gerber, 196 Cal.App.4th 368 (Cal. Ct. App. 2011) ruled for the requirement of a "real child," so in California, "lolicon/shotacon" isn't illegal... but it is still a federal offense to watch/possess it, and presumably to produce it.

What about writing? Yes, you can be indicted for writing "obscene" material that does not depict "real" children.

Prime example: U.S. v. Frank Russell McCoy (2015)
McCoy had a website where he would upload written stories about the "sexual abuse, rape, and torture of young children." These were not real children, he was never charged with hurting any real people. Doesn't he have the protection of the First Amendment? No. The court found that his work "lack[ed] serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." This is how obscenity is judged by the U.S. Supreme Court (since Miller v. California), one of those stipulations I mentioned earlier with the First Amendment. You are not protected if you produce "obscene" work or speech.

This is why you will see books like Vladimir Nabokov's Lolita or Stephen King's It get a pass. Neither of these books are banned [nationwide] in the U.S., and nobody is going to get charged for owning them, but they depict sexual acts among the underaged. That decrepit freak Piers Anthony does the same shit (and worse) and gets away with it, somehow. Because it's artistic or something.

So, perhaps it may not be charged as child pornography, but it can definitely be charged as obscene material. What happens after that lies beyond my field of knowledge and into the hands of the experts with forensic psychology, the courts, what might be expected of a convict indicted of this type of obscenity, etc. ...

You probably have an autographed copy of it.
The case you cited is a very different issue because of the rape/torture aspects, people here are discussing underage sex which is not illegal to write, or everyone you mentioned along with VC Andrews and countless others would be in jail.

Able to come down off your horse long enough to understand?

Now when it comes to erotica v mainstream there is a difference there in the sense that underage sex in case of sick fucks like King and Martin are that its part of the a larger work and allegedly not for titillation. (I say allegedly because any fan of either loves them some underage sex) but in erotica being that the entire point of that genre is arousal, then the underage is absolutely for titillation hence the understandable doublestandard.

Still following, or did I lose you?

Lit's make believe rule here is not about the law, its about preference or supposedly not wanting the pedos to come here.
Guess what? They're here. They're here because there are underage stories here, and they're here because they probably read all manner of stories and in their heads make the characters younger.

Yet the site doesn't care about the loving wives category where many of the racist, sexist, and homophobic comments there could fall under hate speech which is illegal. Not to mention threats of violence against women. That's all cool though, let's just pretend we have a moral stance o underage while allowing the descriptions "budding breasts' to be used in stories.

Hypocrites and the toadies that agree with them despite all the proof that there is no real rule, just "psst don't say 15 just MAKE them 15"

Rant over, go back to your King collection.

 

[njlauren]

I never said the first amendment was absolute. My point is pretty much what you have written, that with text or images that don't depict real children it may be okay. Obscenity is different than child porn, obscenity says something risque that has no redeeming social value is obscene ,( and of course that varies, 25 yrs ago the defense of children internet act would have forbidden children seeing websites that were information or medical information on being LGBT, it was so bad Scalia heaved it,).

If someone writes a book that is telling the story of a bunch of teens and it has sex scenes, that would be covered under the 1st amendment, as much as the religious Reich would love to ban it. Writing adult erotica that mentions one of the characters had sex as a teen or had her/him describing how they lost their virginity would be fine. It is all about context and purpose. In this case, would be to set background on an adult character.

On the other hand stories where children are taped or tortured specifically to titilate some sick fucks would be obscenity; but I don't think they could be charged w child porn, which involves real children having sex on film or audio. ( And yes, I am splitting hairs, but that is what the law does after all).

Any right is bound by harm, pure and simple, if you want to restrict a right, you have to show why the need exists. When SSM was argued in front of the court, the opponents admitted they could prove no real harm outside ppl w religious belief saying it was wrong, a sin,etc, and on that basis SSM laws violated the 14th amendment. If you are speaking to a crowd, and your words have an immediate effect making the crowd listening to you commit acts of violence, you will be charged w incitement. You mention Brandenburg, it is where those who cite it are wrong, Brandenburg was decided bc Ohio tried to claim cumulative speech by a KKK dragon, eventually led to violent acts, there was no proximity between his speech and the actions. Whereas Trump and Brooks and Giuliani et al had proximity, they spoke, crowd mobbed capitol. The hard part is that Brandenburg says you have to prove intent, which quite frankly what is leaking out of the texts and the like, all the planning for that rally and language used, might make the case. You cannot claim 1st amendment if your speech causes something illegal right away&,it looks like it was intended to cause the reaction. Personally I think that part is wrong, you yell fire in a movie theater and ppl get trampled to death, they don't need text messages to show intent, the fact that someone could do that should be vicarious liability, like getting front of an angry crowd and telling them to fight or whatever Trump and the rest yelled.

Everything in the 1a is bound by the same idea. Freedom of religion and press have limits,too.

 

[Bramblethorn]

What about writing? Yes, you can be indicted for writing "obscene" material that does not depict "real" children.

Prime example: U.S. v. Frank Russell McCoy (2015)
McCoy had a website where he would upload written stories about the "sexual abuse, rape, and torture of young children." These were not real children, he was never charged with hurting any real people. Doesn't he have the protection of the First Amendment? No. The court found that his work "lack[ed] serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value." This is how obscenity is judged by the U.S. Supreme Court (since Miller v. California), one of those stipulations I mentioned earlier with the First Amendment. You are not protected if you produce "obscene" work or speech.

Another recent case: Thomas Alan Arthur ("mrdouble"): https://www.justice.gov/opa/pr/man-convicted-multiple-obscenity-crimes-involving-children Similar to the McCoy case, but in this case Arthur was using a server based in the Netherlands. He was still convicted under US federal law.

Perhaps worth noting that both McCoy and Arthur were also linked to sexual abuse of real people - Arthur was accused of molesting a 5-year-old and raping adults (not sure if that went to trial), and McCoy was caught with child porn images on his computer, I think after his obscenity conviction. Those other offences/accusations don't affect the legal status of the text fiction, but they do highlight the kind of unsavoury company you're likely to attract by hosting "erotica" about young children. IIRC, McCoy originally came to the attention of the authorities because his stories were found on the computer of another person being investigated for other offences.

 

[Magineer]

Let's maybe give a thought to the fact that anglophone Western 'liberal' society is still full of sanctimonious legislation, largely fuelled by the dying relics of witch-hunting, puritanical protestantism which continues to promotes its utterly unrealistic, Disneyesque view of the world over and above the proven essentials of human biology.

Yes, we all know that most people have their first sexual experiences well before the 'age of consent'. We also know that thousands of history's greatest writers, Shakespeare included, would likely be thrown in jail for daring to repeat their stuff in modern times. Certainly, all of the 'coming of age' scenarios depicted in fiction down the ages, some of them work of the greatest imaginative brilliance, would be slung out of this site on their ears.

In matters of science, Galileo faced the Inquisition for daring to question religion's world view... over four hundred years ago. Have things changed that much... really..?

 

[Stillrandy]

Ok, so the rule on Literotica now is 'nothing under age 18'. Suppose for a moment that the 'site' relented and agreed to accept 'nothing under 17' as the lower limit. So then there would be long forum discussions about rights and legalities. Then suppose the site agreed to 'nothing under 16'. More discussions.... and where will it end? There has to be a boundary somewhere or this site and others like it would get shut down.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Let's maybe give a thought to the fact that anglophone Western 'liberal' society is still full of sanctimonious legislation, largely fuelled by the dying relics of witch-hunting, puritanical protestantism which continues to promotes its utterly unrealistic, Disneyesque view of the world over and above the proven essentials of human biology.

Not at all sold here on the idea that things like age-of-consent laws are religiously driven. Many religious organisations are extremely keen on marrying kids off young (and especially girls), before they start to get too independent-minded. They certainly are exploited by religious organisations at times - especially when it comes to targeting LGBT people - but in general, age-of-consent legislation tends to follow a decrease in religious influence.

For instance, the first legislated age of consent for England was age 12, back in 1275. It was unchanged throughout the Puritan period (roughly 16th-17th centuries) including the Interregnum (1649-60) when Puritans ruled the country. It was only increased in 1875 (to 13), and then again in 1885 (to 16), a couple of centuries after the decline of Puritan influence.

Yes, we all know that most people have their first sexual experiences well before the 'age of consent'.

No, we don't "all know that", because it's not true! I know for many teenagers who aren't having sex, it feels like everyone else is, but in reality most people are still virgins by the time they reach their respective age of consent, and many are still virgins by 18.

For instance, in most of Australia, the age of consent is 16. (17 for South Australia and Tasmania, which combined make up slightly under 10% of the population.)

According to the second Australian Study for Sexual Health and Relationships, carried out in 2012-2013, the median age for first vaginal intercourse in Australia was 17 - that is, the point where most people have had sex (by that definition of "sex") falls between the 17th and 18th birthdays. Over the age of consent in every state, and more than a year over the AoC in most of Australia.

From the same study, only 19% of men and 16% of women had had first intercourse before 16. So we have about one-fifth of people having had sex before the age of consent. Nowhere near "most".

In the USA, state-legislated age of consent varies between 16 and 18 (with some states having exemptions that lower the threshold a little when the participants are close in age to one another). Per CDC data (see Figure 2, Sexual Activity and Contraceptive Use Among Teenagers in the United States, 2011–2015) the median age of first sex for both males and females is late 17, almost 18.

We also know that thousands of history's greatest writers, Shakespeare included, would likely be thrown in jail for daring to repeat their stuff in modern times.

No, they wouldn't. There are plenty of modern-day examples of writers depicting under-age sex without being thrown in jail. GoldenCompulsion already mentioned three in this very discussion. To draw one of those out further, Piers Anthony published a novel that featured graphic depictions of under-age sex, and a lengthy diatribe on why it should be legal to fuck five-year-old girls, and he's still walking free.

Also, having read and performed almost all of Shakespeare's plays, I'm comfortable in saying: the man had his talents but he wasn't all that. He owes a lot of his fame to the good fortune of having lived at a time when the rise of the printing press made it much easier for scripts to be reproduced and preserved.

Certainly, all of the 'coming of age' scenarios depicted in fiction down the ages, some of them work of the greatest imaginative brilliance, would be slung out of this site on their ears.

They would. Fortunately, there's still an infinite wealth of other human experiences we can explore here.

 

[spartan509]

This is sort of an aside, but in the same general vein as the discussion in question. I was having a back and forth on one of the forums about the oldest partner that you've had sex with and was asked what my age was at the time. I answered and was subsequently censured for violating the website's policy on that subject. I didn't go into any details, but that point was moot, as far as I could tell.

I suppose my question is why can't I say, "I lost my virginity at..."? I was thoroughly confused, honestly. As far as I can tell, as long as you don't drop a number, it's fine (which is fair enough...I guess).

 

[Salacious_Scribe]

LOL. I really don't understand how they approve and reject such stories, because I literally saw an essay published on here, where the girl was talking about how she lost her virginity at 16, and no one said anything.

You can mention sex under 18 but dont describe it.

Tonight was the first time since she turned 18 that someone touched her naked body. The first time she was 15, playing 7 minutes in heaven, and it was over before it began.

That would be okay. But writing about the entire 7 minutes is not allowed.

 

[Bramblethorn]

You can mention sex under 18 but dont describe it.

Tonight was the first time since she turned 18 that someone touched her naked body. The first time she was 15, playing 7 minutes in heaven, and it was over before it began.

That would be okay. But writing about the entire 7 minutes is not allowed.

This is true for the story side of things, but I think spartan509 was talking about a forum discussion. I have seen mods discouraging discussion of under-age sex in that context.

If I had to guess, I think the distinction might be about a story that's mostly about grown-up sexuality, with brief mention of under-age sex as part of a character's background, vs. a forum post/discussion where under-age sex is a major part of the content.

 

[LiverpoolMaster]

Not at all sold here on the idea that things like age-of-consent laws are religiously driven. Many religious organisations are extremely keen on marrying kids off young (and especially girls), before they start to get too independent-minded. They certainly are exploited by religious organisations at times - especially when it comes to targeting LGBT people - but in general, age-of-consent legislation tends to follow a decrease in religious influence.

For instance, the first legislated age of consent for England was age 12, back in 1275. It was unchanged throughout the Puritan period (roughly 16th-17th centuries) including the Interregnum (1649-60) when Puritans ruled the country. It was only increased in 1875 (to 13), and then again in 1885 (to 16), a couple of centuries after the decline of Puritan influence.

I don't think the implication was that current law is "religiously driven" in the sense that the Inquisition is still going strong. He did say that the current situation is a hangover or relic and it seems to me that this is inarguable. And if you're trying to make out that there's been a vast "decline of Puritan influence", you'd better come up with a ready explanation for the Mary Whitehouses and "family values" episodes of this world, which appear to arise with somewhat monotonous regularity.

Also, beyond much doubt, Shakespeare would be in the crosshairs of the saintly if only because of his standing. The Great have to be Good. Difficult to say for sure as we have had nobody of his ilk for quite some time. On the other hand, there seems little doubt that celebrity status tends to confer a duty to be whiter-than-white in the eyes of - oh yes, a further modern concept - the "moral majority".

 

[Bramblethorn]

I don't think the implication was that current law is "religiously driven" in the sense that the Inquisition is still going strong. He did say that the current situation is a hangover or relic and it seems to me that this is inarguable.

"Inarguable" in the sense that that nobody's offered an argument to support the assertion?

I'm not going to dig through state-by-state AoC histories, but as far as I know the English progression I discussed is fairly standard: historically AoC thresholds were around the early teens, increasing in the last ~ 150 years as religious influence waned. That doesn't seem very compatible with the notion that they're a hangover/relic from more religious ages.

And if you're trying to make out that there's been a vast "decline of Puritan influence", you'd better come up with a ready explanation for the Mary Whitehouses and "family values" episodes of this world, which appear to arise with somewhat monotonous regularity.

That they do, but compared to the 17th century - when Puritans literally ran the English government, when offences such as sodomy and blasphemy were punishable by law, yada yada - it's pretty clear that their influence has, in fact, vastly declined. Exhibit A: the fact that sites like this are permitted to exist.

Also, beyond much doubt, Shakespeare would be in the crosshairs of the saintly if only because of his standing. The Great have to be Good. Difficult to say for sure as we have had nobody of his ilk for quite some time.

Because nobody can be of that ilk while they're alive, or for quite some time after.

Shakespeare had his points; in particular, he was an excellent coiner of new words and turns of phrase. But his position as the One True God of the English canon has more to do with fortunate timing and with people's need for icons (preferably safely long-dead icons who aren't about to develop any inconvenient political opinions) than with exceptional talent. Einstein is the Designated Smart Guy, MLK Jr. is the Designated Anti-Racism Guy (but only quoted very selectively), and Shakespeare is the Designated Writing Guy. It's hard to read through his plays without spotting any number of failings that would be criticised in a modern playwright. He's overly dependent on deus ex machina, on people being too dim to recognise the love of their life in the flimsiest of disguises (I have a pet theory that Shakespeare might have been at least a little face-blind), and various other such failings.

If 21st Century Bill had managed to become famous again... yes, no doubt he would get criticism for writing about an under-age relationship. Not to mention for the racism, antisemitism, misogyny, and shaky history. But there's a long way between "criticism" and "likely thrown in jail", which is the assertion I was responding to.

On the other hand, there seems little doubt that celebrity status tends to confer a duty to be whiter-than-white in the eyes of - oh yes, a further modern concept - the "moral majority".

I hear Louis C.K. has a new show.