redlines

[The_Lady_Within]

So, I thought that the only red-lines for Literotica were bestiality and pedophilia. Now, one of my submissions was rejected because of "excessive degradation, violence, snuff, or abuse of characters". It would be nice if I could see a clear and concise list of forbidden contents for the stories, so I don't waste a lot of time on something that will be rejected.

 

[sr71plt]

Gratuitous snuff will do it too.

And even the hint of a URL in the story will do it. I've just had one rejected that just uses a fake Web site name, no link, URL, or even the name set up as a URL. Lit. can take it as it is, though, or I'll just move on to the next. It'll post elsewhere fine.

 

[LesLumens]

I'm assuming you don't disagree that the content fits that description? That's step one. Don't forget that only one person is reading and approving every submission. It's possible something can be misconstrued in the quick skim she gives stories.

All rejections are framed as questions, and aren't necessarily final for that reason. If you don't think your story breaks those content rules, you can resubmit for a second -- and likely closer -- look. Regardless, there's no penalty beyond rejection for submitting content that breaks rules here, unlike some other sites that will insta-ban you.

The content rules for sexual violence are mercurial. What's allowed varies by category, for one thing. What will fly in Erotic Horror may not have a chance in hell of passing in Fetish. Celebrities doesn't allow any non-con at all. Loving Wives is a warzone with readers fighting over "non-erotic violent revenge stories", and Laurel seems to be siding with the crowd that doesn't like such stories in that category, which makes getting stories with rough content approved there dicey.

This is the second most common content rejection ( With Underage as #1 ) on Lit, and it's far less cut-n-dried than the underage rule.

Is there one thing in the story that you know is heavy on violence that could be taken down a notch or two? That's always a possibility. If you feel the story needs every ounce of it, or it's chock full of such content, that's fine, but it's something to consider if you have any wiggle room.

Sometimes, all you can do is throw it at the wall and see if it sticks. If it doesn't there are plenty of other venues that will accept it.

 

[sr71plt]

I think a major problem and hackle raiser in this is that they are announced as rejections--when quite often they haven't been scanned closely enough to justify even the hint of the problem they are questioning. Maybe a less combative word would raise fewer hackles. They, in fact, aren't being reviewed very closely and it doesn't seem to matter how long and many stories the author has already posted here. It doesn't take much memory or effort to sort out the possible "pushing the edge" authors from others among frequent contributors.

 

[LesLumens]

True...

I don't know what the hell you would call it, though Absolutely nothing comes to mind.

 

[sr71plt]

"Query" would be fine--especially since the message with it is a question--and not accusatory. That's what an editor does in the mainstream publishing world. And a mainstream editor would have put some effort into it being a justifiable question.

 

[Handley_Page]

We've had this "Clear Rules" business before.
It's her train set, so we do what she says we can do.

 

[CyranoJ]

So, I thought that the only red-lines for Literotica were bestiality and pedophilia. Now, one of my submissions was rejected because of "excessive degradation, violence, snuff, or abuse of characters". It would be nice if I could see a clear and concise list of forbidden contents for the stories, so I don't waste a lot of time on something that will be rejected.

There is something of a position statement on the Story Ideas thread here about non-con, if your story was in that category. Since a lot of it is open to interpretation and is subjective and inexact, I don't think there's a clear and concise list of forbidden contents.

 

[lovecraft68]

My thought is if the word snuff was used than it means the death occurred with the killer getting sexual satisfaction from it, or it was during sex and that will always get rejected.

As far as abuse and torture etc...Lit has a rule that the "victim" needs to obtain some enjoyment from it and seeing they obviously died I would assume they did not

What could help this rule out is getting rid of "non consent" and having the category simply be reluctance which would be the best way to tell authors the site doesn't want "pure rape" stories. If someone comes here and sees "non consent" then I don't fault them at all for thinking they can post this material.

But that makes sense...and fact is part of me doubts the site is serious about that rule. There are far too many rape stories here for me to think that.

As for Loving wives? That section makes the authors and readers of non con stories look like feminists. That category has gotten to the point it is rarely erotic and has become a haven for not just sexual torture and violence against women, but men as well as the BTB stories feature a lot of torture and nastiness directed at the lover of the cheating wife as well.

LW has become a haven for frustrated women haters and haters or every man that's ...well that's not them. Its a bit and a disgrace to the site. But it gets a lot of traffic and hits and that's what counts from a business perspective.

I agree with everything Pilot said in his first post, but he was being very polite. What it comes down to is the "screening process' being a half ass joke.

He made the point about identifying authors who might be "trouble" I look at it the other way around, Laurel knows who is not trouble. She knows when a site "regular" like PIlot or TX rad or DG Hear or myself or Pennlady...etc...posta story she doesn't have to even look at it. None of us break the rules.

If anything we're constantly explaining them because...someone has to

I have come to the conclusion that in addition to the fact there is no screening effort made I am convinced that if she sees one sentence she does not like its kicked out without looking at the context of it.

People have had things booted for every reason and it comes to light there really wasn't that material in there and a note will get it through.

Meanwhile the site is littered with under age, rape, horrific grammar and every other "rule breaker"

hell there was a thread a few months ago calling out a story of a girl telling someone in detail of her rape when she was eleven and the guy she as telling was getting off on it. An under age rape story a double dunk so to speak and flew right through even though it was blatant the author did nothing to hide it.

I know "her site her rules" I have never contested a rule, but the fact is if she made them and she could care less about enforcing them then its a big joke and thee people have the right to be frustrated.

This site makes enough to hire a second maybe even third pair of eyes or I imagine she could get volunteers to help and if her excuse would be "they won't take it as seriously as I do?" Please....threads like this tell me the volunteers might pay more attention.

Because fact is, if the story contains what the Op stated it should have been rejected. But the issue isn't this being rejected its what about the thousand stories just like it posted here

We're always going to have these threads and questions because the rules are jokes here, or at least the way they are enforced are. I think Laurel believes people in general just aren't rule breakers which is pretty naive...or again, she doesn't care that much. I have always believed the rules are "wink wink" and more about CYA for potential future issues or to give the site the appearance of having some "limits" but then not caring if it does or not.

I don;t know why I wasted typing all that, it doesn't matter what I-or anyone here thinks-we don't hold the pencil and I will now get the "she's only one person" lecture myself. I started my own business alone, when I realized things were falling between the cracks and I could not keep up....I hired someone. Its how its done

If you're serious about it and I don't see that. The site should just drop the pretense on the rape/sexual torture/violence rule. Its the biggest joke on the site and its LW not non con that proves that.

As an aside the OP is not being whiny or obnoxious they simply want clarification. Too bad they'll never get it because all we can do is guess and say what is 'supposed' to be here.

But that's better than nothing, I guess. I just think its telling that we're always the ones explaining.

 

[lovecraft68]

There is something of a position statement on the Story Ideas thread here about non-con, if your story was in that category. Since a lot of it is open to interpretation and is subjective and inexact, I don't think there's a clear and concise list of forbidden contents.

Laurel had Ruby post that because she couldn't win an argument with me on there So she defaulted to "tricky" as in...she went from the years old rule of "victim has to enjoy it" to "its tricky"

TO repeat my post above they should just erase the rule, its the least enforced and even when tried to be enforced the most "gray"

You have a non consent section, that says it all about what they really want here, why the site can't admit that I have no idea.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

My thought is if the word snuff was used than it means the death occurred with the killer getting sexual satisfaction from it, or it was during sex and that will always get rejected.

As far as abuse and torture etc...Lit has a rule that the "victim" needs to obtain some enjoyment from it and seeing they obviously died I would assume they did not

What could help this rule out is getting rid of "non consent" and having the category simply be reluctance which would be the best way to tell authors the site doesn't want "pure rape" stories. If someone comes here and sees "non consent" then I don't fault them at all for thinking they can post this material.

But that makes sense...and fact is part of me doubts the site is serious about that rule. There are far too many rape stories here for me to think that.

As for Loving wives? That section makes the authors and readers of non con stories look like feminists. That category has gotten to the point it is rarely erotic and has become a haven for not just sexual torture and violence against women, but men as well as the BTB stories feature a lot of torture and nastiness directed at the lover of the cheating wife as well.

LW has become a haven for frustrated women haters and haters or every man that's ...well that's not them. Its a bit and a disgrace to the site. But it gets a lot of traffic and hits and that's what counts from a business perspective.

I agree with everything Pilot said in his first post, but he was being very polite. What it comes down to is the "screening process' being a half ass joke.

He made the point about identifying authors who might be "trouble" I look at it the other way around, Laurel knows who is not trouble. She knows when a site "regular" like PIlot or TX rad or DG Hear or myself or Pennlady...etc...posta story she doesn't have to even look at it. None of us break the rules.

If anything we're constantly explaining them because...someone has to

I have come to the conclusion that in addition to the fact there is no screening effort made I am convinced that if she sees one sentence she does not like its kicked out without looking at the context of it.

People have had things booted for every reason and it comes to light there really wasn't that material in there and a note will get it through.

Meanwhile the site is littered with under age, rape, horrific grammar and every other "rule breaker"

hell there was a thread a few months ago calling out a story of a girl telling someone in detail of her rape when she was eleven and the guy she as telling was getting off on it. An under age rape story a double dunk so to speak and flew right through even though it was blatant the author did nothing to hide it.

I know "her site her rules" I have never contested a rule, but the fact is if she made them and she could care less about enforcing them then its a big joke and thee people have the right to be frustrated.

This site makes enough to hire a second maybe even third pair of eyes or I imagine she could get volunteers to help and if her excuse would be "they won't take it as seriously as I do?" Please....threads like this tell me the volunteers might pay more attention.

Because fact is, if the story contains what the Op stated it should have been rejected. But the issue isn't this being rejected its what about the thousand stories just like it posted here

We're always going to have these threads and questions because the rules are jokes here, or at least the way they are enforced are. I think Laurel believes people in general just aren't rule breakers which is pretty naive...or again, she doesn't care that much. I have always believed the rules are "wink wink" and more about CYA for potential future issues or to give the site the appearance of having some "limits" but then not caring if it does or not.

I don;t know why I wasted typing all that, it doesn't matter what I-or anyone here thinks-we don't hold the pencil and I will now get the "she's only one person" lecture myself. I started my own business alone, when I realized things were falling between the cracks and I could not keep up....I hired someone. Its how its done

If you're serious about it and I don't see that. The site should just drop the pretense on the rape/sexual torture/violence rule. Its the biggest joke on the site and its LW not non con that proves that.

As an aside the OP is not being whiny or obnoxious they simply want clarification. Too bad they'll never get it because all we can do is guess and say what is 'supposed' to be here.

But that's better than nothing, I guess. I just think its telling that we're always the ones explaining.

I feel your pain but the royal road to approval is steer clear of the porcupine's quills.

Being an old fuck, KIDS are any person younger than 40. So I avoid using KID and GIRL and BOY in my wares. I recall when SNUFF was a smokeless tobacco product. I avoid IT. I recall dates who moaned NO! as their pussies devoured my peepee. WAIT, DAPHNE! LETS CHECK WITH LEGALZOOM.COM BEFORE WE GO ANY FURTHER. BOB SHAPIRO WILL KNOW HOW MANY FINGERS I CAN USE.

 

[The_Lady_Within]

Warn us in "Submissions guidelines"

I'm assuming you don't disagree that the content fits that description? That's step one. Don't forget that only one person is reading and approving every submission. It's possible something can be misconstrued in the quick skim she gives stories.

On the contrary, my story did contain a dialogue in which it was declared that the victim would be killed violently. It was about some Aztec human sacrifice shit (those guys pulled out peoples hearts when they were still alive). The story was posted in horror category and I just wanted to mock religious belief.

All I say is that the admins could simply declare in the "submissions guideline" that snuff is forbidden, as they did say that bestiality and pedophilia are forbidden. It would save me the trouble of posting that story in the first place.

 

[LesLumens]

It was an order to some underling, or a "passing the sentence" type of thing, not even sexually related, and not a depiction of the act itself as it took place?

Absolutely resubmit, and put a note in the "notes" box of the submission form saying what the scene in question actually is.

Assuming I'm reading you right, I'm really surprised something like that was sent back when it was slated for EH anyway. I've posted some pretty horrific non-sexual deaths in EH and Sci-Fi&Fantasy without Laurel batting an eyelash. I'm talking about describing the act as well -- not just dialogue.

I've faded to black just before some deaths that were sexually charged as well.

Vampires and Succubi are allowed to kill their victims on Lit, and we know the Vamps are going to do it in a sexual manner because it's here.

That's why there's not a "no snuff" rule. It's not completely banned. It's a context call. In this case, I think Laurel was skimming too quickly and made the wrong one.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

So, I thought that the only red-lines for Literotica were bestiality and pedophilia. Now, one of my submissions was rejected because of "excessive degradation, violence, snuff, or abuse of characters". It would be nice if I could see a clear and concise list of forbidden contents for the stories, so I don't waste a lot of time on something that will be rejected.

In line with most countries and US law, lit won't accept a story that has any sexual contact or imagery involving under 18s. That's more than pedophilia, which is totally verboten.

Also, although I don't know what caused your rejection, the lit list fits the site and degradation, snuff and subjects like that run a risk of rejection. Reread your story, and make some changes, resubmit or PM laurel if you don't understand the reasons.

I think les l gives a great analysis.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

Gratuitous snuff will do it too.

And even the hint of a URL in the story will do it. I've just had one rejected that just uses a fake Web site name, no link, URL, or even the name set up as a URL. Lit. can take it as it is, though, or I'll just move on to the next. It'll post elsewhere fine.

For someone who has acted on this site as an unofficial Gauleiter for years, it seems pretty hypocritical that you throw a hiss tantrum when Laurel won't break the rules of the site to suit you. You can act like a spoilt child.

 

[DreamCloud]

Gauleiter.

I learned a new word. Not bad for a rainy day.

 

[The_Lady_Within]

It was an order to some underling, or a "passing the sentence" type of thing, not even sexually related, and not a depiction of the act itself as it took place?

Absolutely resubmit, and put a note in the "notes" box of the submission form saying what the scene in question actually is.

Long story short, after dehumanizing the volunteer girl for a while, the priestess explained to the her that she was going to have her gang-banged for a week and then have her impaled, and the girl was cool with that. I think this is sexual enough, and to be honest, it kind of creeps me out now that I imagine it again. (How did I write that sick stuff, anyway?)

I don't think that I am going to resubmit that nightmarish story, but this discussion was very enlightening. Thank you guys. Now I can keep writing with less uncertainty.

 

[sr71plt]

For someone who has acted on this site as an unofficial Gauleiter for years, it seems pretty hypocritical that you throw a hiss tantrum when Laurel won't break the rules of the site to suit you. You can act like a spoilt child.

You're as much off the mark as usual. The point is that it doesn't break any rules and Laurel isn't looking into the possibility that it might enough to justify a rejection. She's increasingly getting sloppy--not just with what she rejects without evidence but also with what she lets through, as others frequently complain about here. And the point of contention is raising hackles with the "rejection" word rather than just asking questions during the process of considering it.

But one wonders why you comment on this at all--you haven't posted a story to Lit. in, what, nine years? And even then you didn't post enough to know anything about the process of submission here.

You're just another drone hanger on trying to pretend you know something that you have no experience with.

 

[Hypoxia]

But one wonders why you comment on this at all--you haven't posted a story to Lit. in, what, nine years? And even then you didn't post enough to know anything about the process of submission here.

Four stories, and two essay-review pieces that Laurel liked, all posted between 9-11 years ago. Yeah, I'd say his knowledge base is somewhat outdated -- sort of like my COBOL expertise.

Anyway, back to redlines. Appearing to be young, or thinking of underage sexual encounters, are enough for rejection. (An ancient immortal looking like a prepubescent won't pass.) Thinking about self-mutilation can be enough for rejection, even without explicit self-mayhem. I don't know if non-descriptive thinking about fucking a natural animal is verboten, but I wouldn't want to do more than tease there anyway. ("Glenda recalled her first time in Tijuana. Good thing it was a small horse.")

Yes, all this is repeatedly questioned and discussed here. No, we have no canonical go-to list of hard+fast rules. Yes, it's Laurel's train set, and we all get to play for free as long as she lets us. Selah!

 

[sr71plt]

sort of like my COBOL expertise.

Oh, god, I remember having to learn COBOL--to no use. Anyone else even know what a Univac is?

This thread has become a two-pronged issue discussion, though. There's a world of difference in where the edge of snuff or underage is going to be and just mentioning the business name of a fake online dating service in the story.

 

[DreamCloud]

Oh, god, I remember having to learn COBOL--to no use. Anyone else even know what a Univac is?.

Maintained COBOL on an AS/400 at one time.

A computer without COBOL is like a piece of chocolate cake without ketchup and mustard.

 

[slyc_willie]

It was an order to some underling, or a "passing the sentence" type of thing, not even sexually related, and not a depiction of the act itself as it took place?

Absolutely resubmit, and put a note in the "notes" box of the submission form saying what the scene in question actually is.

Assuming I'm reading you right, I'm really surprised something like that was sent back when it was slated for EH anyway. I've posted some pretty horrific non-sexual deaths in EH and Sci-Fi&Fantasy without Laurel batting an eyelash. I'm talking about describing the act as well -- not just dialogue.

I've faded to black just before some deaths that were sexually charged as well.

Vampires and Succubi are allowed to kill their victims on Lit, and we know the Vamps are going to do it in a sexual manner because it's here.

That's why there's not a "no snuff" rule. It's not completely banned. It's a context call. In this case, I think Laurel was skimming too quickly and made the wrong one.

I've described some pretty horrific stuff in some of my stories. I have a first-hand account of one character strangling another, watching her face the entire time until she dies. I'd call that horrific. It wasn't during a sexual act, but the sex had happened just moments before.

In another, I have a character literally "dildoed" to death. But the entire story is comical and over-the-top.

Context has a lot to do with the call on why a story is sent back. Sometimes, the context isn't completely explored or understood by Laurel (given that she has a small amount of time with each story).

Long story short, after dehumanizing the volunteer girl for a while, the priestess explained to the her that she was going to have her gang-banged for a week and then have her impaled, and the girl was cool with that. I think this is sexual enough, and to be honest, it kind of creeps me out now that I imagine it again. (How did I write that sick stuff, anyway?)

I don't think that I am going to resubmit that nightmarish story, but this discussion was very enlightening. Thank you guys. Now I can keep writing with less uncertainty.

I don't see any reason why the story wouldn't pass muster. As Les stated, you could include a clarification in the "Notes" field. Ultimately, of course, it's up to you. I've written quite a few things that creep me out. I see it as a kind of catharsis.

 

[lovecraft68]

Interesting side note about writing things that creep ourselves out.

Everyone here knows my stance on full out non consent, but I've penned two rape scenes in long works because they had to be there for the story to work.

I don't think I have ever been so disgusted with myself as when on one of them I received two comments telling me how hot it was.

Granted most saw it for what it was-it was not written for titillation-and registered shock that it happened in the story.

But the two that said it turned them on were two of only three comments I have ever received here, private or otherwise, that ever disturbed me and made me regret something I wrote.

 

[sr71plt]

I've received some of those on my incest stories. Pretty much the same creepy feeling.

 

[lovecraft68]

I've received some of those on my incest stories. Pretty much the same creepy feeling.

They make you feel dirty....seriously.