Children in stories

[tarkatony]

I don't understand the site's policy on children in stories. Are we allowed to include a mother and her kids in a story if the kids have absolutely nothing to do with the sex (and the mother does) or are kids absolutely verboten? Can someone please clarify the policy? Thanks.

 

[sr71plt]

You can include them if the children aren't remotely part of any sex action. (I suppose they probably can't even observe it happening.) And by "any," it's best not to assume a fudged one requiring any explanation (the computer bot doesn't reason) might be finagled through.

I have children incidentally mentioned in several stories that went through without a hitch.

 

[TxRad]

Children are not a problem as long as they are deaf, dumb, and blind about sex until the are 18.

The problem is any mention of an age under 18 will get the story dumped if it is sent in under cut and paste. The bot there has no sense of humor or any reasoning. anything under 18 and bang, it's gone.

This has nothing to do with the site per say, it has to do with them not want the hassle of underage sex with the government.

Unless the kids are absolutely necessary for the story then save yourself the hassle and leave them out.

 

[PennLady]

You can include children as characters. I've done it, and there are numerous stories on here about single parents. I had no problems with mine -- didn't have to explain or anything. My kids, obviously, were nowhere near the sex scenes; they were supporting characters, anyway, and the story wasn't about them. So yes, if you want to include a character that's under eighteen, you can do that.

 

[3113]

I don't understand the site's policy on children in stories. Are we allowed to include a mother and her kids in a story if the kids have absolutely nothing to do with the sex (and the mother does) or are kids absolutely verboten? Can someone please clarify the policy? Thanks.

As said, yes, kids can be in the story. And as said, no, they can't be mentioned seeing explicit sexual action ("mommy, I heard you and daddy making funny noises last night--" is okay), nor can any sexual exploration by children be detailed (no showing kids playing doctor, but you can say, "when I was little, we played doctor").

You can certainly have a woman with kids who gets romantically involved with whomever. So long as the kids are never around when they're having sex, this is fine.

Now, as mentioned, the "bots" are super sensitive to the mention of children. Put in a note about the kids. This should get you a human reader who will realize that the kids are all right (sic). Always put in a note when you think something might get the attention of the bots.

Obviously, as TxRad said, it's easier on you if you just leave out the kids, but you shouldn't let that keep you from having them if you really want them. You can get a human reader and not have the story rejected just because you mention children.

 

[mynameisben]

Children are not a problem as long as they are deaf, dumb, and blind about sex until the are 18.

The problem is any mention of an age under 18 will get the story dumped if it is sent in under cut and paste. The bot there has no sense of humor or any reasoning. anything under 18 and bang, it's gone.

This has nothing to do with the site per say, it has to do with them not want the hassle of underage sex with the government.

Unless the kids are absolutely necessary for the story then save yourself the hassle and leave them out.

And it damn well better be an 18 year-old bottle of scotch they're drinking, if you must mention the age of the alcohol, too.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I have a series of stories going about a man and a woman and his two very young children from a previous marriage. They also have a very young foster child, and she takes care of children at a day care center. The three children I mentioned are all very important to the story line, and I sometimes include their ages in the narrative.

On the first night she moved into his apartment, he and she and his two kids all shared the bed. It was 100% innocent, of course, and quite sweet, I thought.

 

[lovecraft68]

This has nothing to do with the site per say, it has to do with them not want the hassle of underage sex with the government

Okay, so what is the deal here. TX is stating that Lit could run afoul of the Government if they feature underage sex.

Yet I have also seen it stated here that it has nothing to do with laws as there is no federal law against underage sex, it's just the choice of the owners.

Which is it?

 

[sr71plt]

It's both. There's nothing illegal about writing underage sex. There's something illegal about doing underage sex, though. The government can get results by mining the sites for writers and readers of underage sex and combining that with other information to turn up people actually doing it. It's part of their research method.

 

[lovecraft68]

It's both. There's nothing illegal about writing underage sex. There's something illegal about doing underage sex, though. The government can get results by mining the sites for writers and readers of underage sex and combining that with other information to turn up people actually doing it. It's part of their research method.

So you mean if a pedo happens to have stories from this site in their possession, they can chase the site down?

 

[sr71plt]

No, I don't mean that. You're moving from the wrong direction. They mine the sites that are heavily into pedophile stories to look for active pedophiles. That's why Literotica doesn't want to be known as a site where pedophilia can easily be found. Active pedophiles will gravitate where the gratification is easily found.

It's really not rocket science.

 

[lovecraft68]

No, I don't mean that. You're moving from the wrong direction. They mine the sites that are heavily into pedophile stories to look for active pedophiles. That's why Literotica doesn't want to be known as a site where pedophilia can easily be found. Active pedophiles will gravitate where the gratification is easily found.

It's really not rocket science.

Okay I got it. Tricky however, because if they so chose to carry underage material they are not technically breaking any laws, but I can see how it would not be worth taking a stance over.

 

[PennLady]

I have to say, there must be more to the bot than just checking numbers in the text. I had a story up with 10yo boy and a 14yo girl (minor characters, like I said) and no chapter was ever rejected b/c of it and I never included a note about it. I didn't think to. Maybe I just got lucky, or maybe the bot looks for the numbers in proximity to other phrases or what have you, and so I passed that test.

But if every story that had "twelve-year-old child" in it got rejected, they'd be rejecting a lot of stuff.

 

[BONNIEBREA]

I didn't find it a problem, tark.

My most recent story follows a female character from the age of 14 to 25. During her pre-18 years she has experiences that awaken in her a curiosity about submission and dominance (the theme of the story - what the story is 'about' - is that this character has these wonderings and nascent desires and in young adulthood must sort them out and decide if she falls on the dominant end of the spectrum, the submissive end of the spectrum, or somewhere in between).

This involved writing specific scenes when she was a 14-year-old 8th grader and a 16-year-old 10th grader in which she is subjected to sadistic discipline at the hands of a nun at her Catholic school, and being exposed and humiliated by a rival student (and later returning the favor).

These experiences lead her to masturbate in reaction to them. But she doesn't have any sort of sexual contact with any other person during this period.

Nothing like that happens until she (and the rival) are 18, and I make a careful point in the narrative that they are 18, when their 18th birthdays are in relation to (before) any sexual contact. I had no problem with submitting and posting the story.

As an author, just be very clear about the character's(s') age(s) and that they are definitely at least 18.

 

[sr71plt]

Okay I got it. Tricky however, because if they so chose to carry underage material they are not technically breaking any laws, but I can see how it would not be worth taking a stance over.

No, reading and writing it isn't, in itself, against the law. Demonstrated interest in it, though, connected with other information dug up, can help point to an active pedophile. This piece of the puzzle would just be a puzzle piece helping to put the puzzle together. It would not be part of the court case. They would then have to (and, in fact, do) concentrate on the actual practice of the behavior. A name keeps popping up here and there (and they can find the real names, if they want), and scrutiny is ratcheted up and a case builds.

And it isn't just the stories. I know of at least two forum posters who hint at it so actively that it would be (and possibly is) as much a puzzle piece to collect and pursue as evidence of writing or reading underage stories here would be.

Looking for the pieces to a larger puzzle is how you manage to put a puzzle together if you don't have an actual event tethered to an actual perpetrator who just falls into your lap muttering "I did it."

 

[lovecraft68]

No, reading and writing it isn't, in itself, against the law. Demonstrated interest in it, though, connected with other information dug up, can help point to an active pedophile. This piece of the puzzle would just be a puzzle piece helping to put the puzzle together. It would not be part of the court case. They would then have to (and, in fact, do) concentrate on the actual practice of the behavior. A name keeps popping up here and there (and they can find the real names, if they want), and scrutiny is ratcheted up and a case builds.

And it isn't just the stories. I know of at least two forum posters who hint at it so actively that it would be (and possibly is) as much a puzzle piece to collect and pursue as evidence of writing or reading underage stories here would be.

Looking for the pieces to a larger puzzle is how you manage to put a puzzle together if you don't have an actual event tethered to an actual perpetrator who just falls into your lap muttering "I did it."

That's why they had a huge clean up over in that Incest is best thread over in the fetish forum(it was in the playground for years before it was moved) there was ton of idiots over there talking about all their "real life" incest experiences and over and over again talking about "when I was 11"

There was also a woman on there who was describing in vivid detail her encounters with her well under aged son.

So I can see the guilt by association and not wanting to be drawn into this crap

I'm sure there are a few pedo's ghosting that thread over there still.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't think incest in real life, even though illegal to different degrees in different states, is being given any energy at all in government crime fighting attention. Pedophilia most certainly is.

 

[Boxlicker101]

It's both. There's nothing illegal about writing underage sex. There's something illegal about doing underage sex, though. The government can get results by mining the sites for writers and readers of underage sex and combining that with other information to turn up people actually doing it. It's part of their research method.

There's nothing illegal about writing about "Kiddiesex" but photos or movies, even just of nudity, is strictly illegal. This makes for strange situations. A dirty old man, like I, can fuck a 16 year old in some states, but having a nude photo of that person would be illegal.

Just being illegal does not keep things off the site. We can write about rape and abduction and other crimes.

 

[3113]

There's nothing illegal about writing about "Kiddiesex" but photos or movies, even just of nudity, is strictly illegal. This makes for strange situations. A dirty old man, like I, can fuck a 16 year old in some states, but having a nude photo of that person would be illegal.

Well, but you're comparing some apples and oranges there. The photo would show you having *real sex* with a *real minor* (depending on the state). Just as recent photos appearing from a bizarre pedophilia case have gotten the man who owed those pictures arrested. Because real kids were involved in a real crime.

BUT if he'd written a story about doing such things to kids, that would be different. It could be all fiction. Disturbing fiction is written up all the time--doesn't mean the author did anything. Photos and movies say he did.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Well, but you're comparing some apples and oranges there. The photo would show you having *real sex* with a *real minor* (depending on the state). Just as recent photos appearing from a bizarre pedophilia case have gotten the man who owed those pictures arrested. Because real kids were involved in a real crime.

BUT if he'd written a story about doing such things to kids, that would be different. It could be all fiction. Disturbing fiction is written up all the time--doesn't mean the author did anything. Photos and movies say he did.

It wouldn't necessarily be a crime to have sex with a 16 year old. Even in Washington DC, the age of consent is 16. If I were to fuck a willing 16 year old girl there, it would not be illegal, but if I took a semi-nude photo of her as a keepsake, that would be illegal, even if I didn't show it to anybody.

If a 16 year old girl even gives a nude photo of herself to her boyfriend, they can both be arrested: She for distributing kiddieporn and he for possessing it.

Sometimes the law is an ass.

 

[mynameisben]

Photos and movies say he did.

Not so much photos anymore, now that ten billion people own a copy (legal or otherwise) of Photoshop.

 

[sr71plt]

There's nothing illegal about writing about "Kiddiesex" but photos or movies, even just of nudity, is strictly illegal. This makes for strange situations. A dirty old man, like I, can fuck a 16 year old in some states, but having a nude photo of that person would be illegal.

Just being illegal does not keep things off the site. We can write about rape and abduction and other crimes.

I don't know why you quoted my posting. You didn't seem to have read it.

 

[lovecraft68]

I don't think incest in real life, even though illegal to different degrees in different states, is being given any energy at all in government crime fighting attention. Pedophilia most certainly is.

No, but as I have said many times, when a parent is caught having sex with their underage child the charge is never incest. It is child molestation, sexual abuse, child abuse, rape (unless it's non consent) etc...

so it does have a bearing if under 18.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Quote:
Originally Posted by sr71plt
It's both. There's nothing illegal about writing underage sex. There's something illegal about doing underage sex, though. The government can get results by mining the sites for writers and readers of underage sex and combining that with other information to turn up people actually doing it. It's part of their research method.


There's nothing illegal about writing about "Kiddiesex" but photos or movies, even just of nudity, is strictly illegal. This makes for strange situations. A dirty old man, like I, can fuck a 16 year old in some states, but having a nude photo of that person would be illegal.

Just being illegal does not keep things off the site. We can write about rape and abduction and other crimes.

I don't know why you quoted my posting. You didn't seem to have read it.

I don't know why you are in a huff, because I agreed with you, at least the part that is highlighted. Then I clarified what you had said and added a comment of my own.

 

[sr71plt]

No, but as I have said many times, when a parent is caught having sex with their underage child the charge is never incest. It is child molestation, sexual abuse, child abuse, rape (unless it's non consent) etc...

so it does have a bearing if under 18.

It doesn't have a bearing on the full reach of what is incest. You're talking apples and kumquats.

They go after a parent doing it to a minor or an older sibling to a minor sibling precisely because it's child abuse, not because it's incest. They aren't that interested in going after incest, which is what I said. Very few jurisdictions will go after adult-on-adult incest regardless of the laws on the books. Which is what I posted. They will go looking for child abusers though.

You're getting off the subject. You brought in the topic of incest without limiting it to the subset of underage involvement. Incest is much bigger than underage.