Do-Over Stories (off-topic thread)

[red_sky_cloud]

Curious what a "do-over" story is?

 

[SimonDoom]

Since these stories typically are about people re-doing their childhood or teen years, they involve underage activity, and that's not allowed on Literotica, unlike some other sites. So you're not likely to find as many of those stories here.

 

[lovecraft68]

Since these stories typically are about people re-doing their childhood or teen years, they involve underage activity, and that's not allowed on Literotica, unlike some other sites. So you're not likely to find as many of those stories here.

If I'm not mistaken SOL has changed to 18+. I know they allowed 16 for a long time but changed. I think Lush stories did the same

The last site I know of that allows underage-and well under age-is asstr, the cess pool of erotic story sites.

 

[Valint]

Nope. SOL is 14+ except for some grandfathered-in stories (though, even there, I don't think under-16 is all that common). ASSTR is, indeed, a lawless wasteland.

While I think that Lit's age restrictions are probably more than necessary, to be fair, it's not my ass that would be on the line if a prosecutor disagreed, and even if there's material that no court would convict you over, that doesn't mean those involved in the site wouldn't have to spend lots of money and years of concern over dealing with it.

(It's worth noting that textual depictions of sex aren't as automatically protected by the First Amendment as a lot of people think. Frank McCoy spent 18 months in prison for responding to an email from a federal agent in Georgia and sending him a link to his ASSTR stories, which were deemed by a federal judge there to be obscene according to local standards.)

 

[KeithD]

If I'm not mistaken SOL has changed to 18+. I know they allowed 16 for a long time but changed. I think Lush stories did the same

The last site I know of that allows underage-and well under age-is asstr, the cess pool of erotic story sites.

They permit down to 14 and their keywords indicate that they will permit even lower, just not make it available without being a premium member.

 

[KeithD]

it's not my ass that would be on the line if a prosecutor disagreed, and even if there's material that no court would convict you over, that doesn't mean those involved in the site wouldn't have to spend lots of money and years of concern over dealing with it.

*Sigh* It's not a prosecutor issue. It's not against the law to write underage in fiction and that's done freely in the mainstream publishing world.

 

[lovecraft68]

*Sigh* It's not a prosecutor issue. It's not against the law to write underage in fiction and that's done freely in the mainstream publishing world.

True. Its a double standard. King can write under age gang bangs in It and etc...but the excuse with erotica is its under age for titillation that would draw pedos. Because no pedo would ever read a king, Martin book or any other book with an under age sex scene and jerk off to it.

 

[lovecraft68]

They permit down to 14 and their keywords indicate that they will permit even lower, just not make it available without being a premium member.

Okay for some reason I thought they'd changed it.

 

[KeithD]

Okay for some reason I thought they'd changed it.

There's one on the new list there today explicitly giving 14 as the protagonist's age.

 

[Valint]

*Sigh* It's not a prosecutor issue. It's not against the law to write underage in fiction and that's done freely in the mainstream publishing world.

... You kind of missed my point there.

It's not against the law to write underage in fiction. It is, however, against the law to write obscene material in fiction, and it's up to the local prosecutor to decide what gets prosecuted as being obscene.

I mean, c'mon, I literally linked to a court case in which someone went to prison for publishing stories of underaged sex on ASSTR. I think that deserves a little more than a *sigh*.

 

[KeithD]

... You kind of missed my point there.

It's not against the law to write underage in fiction. It is, however, against the law to write obscene material in fiction, and it's up to the local prosecutor to decide what gets prosecuted as being obscene.

I mean, c'mon, I literally linked to a court case in which someone went to prison for publishing stories of underaged sex on ASSTR. I think that deserves a little more than a *sigh*.

Your point is bogus, which was my point. It in NOT against the law to write obscene material in fiction. You're messing that up with what you can do/can't do with images of actual people (and in the case you cite the actual propositioning that occurred, not that stories were written and published). So, go back to go on your point and do better research before you try making points. As I posted, this all is freely published in the mainstream. Go do some reading.

I think you probably mucked up your reading of the court case too. That case would be about actual, real person to real person interaction/propositioning with an undercover officer, not because the publishing of the stories was illegal--because it isn't. I don't have to go check it. I've worked in this area in mainstream publishing for decades. And I don't really care what you think about it. I know what can actually be done with it.

The most likely explanation of the age policies is that the Web site wants as few creeps playing around in here as possible and going after other users. That has nothing to do with the law and fiction publishing.

 

[Bramblethorn]

(It's worth noting that textual depictions of sex aren't as automatically protected by the First Amendment as a lot of people think. Frank McCoy spent 18 months in prison for responding to an email from a federal agent in Georgia and sending him a link to his ASSTR stories, which were deemed by a federal judge there to be obscene according to local standards.)

Thanks, I hadn't seen that case - interesting reading.

 

[KeithD]

*sigh* That case would be about the actual solicitation, not that there were stories written/published. It's about what extrapolates in actual activity in real life.


So, yes, guys, if you go on the Internet and track down a child and say, go look at my stories, which I link to you, and that's what I want to do to you if you'll meet me at the mall at 2:00 tomorrow, you can look forward to going to the slammer if it's really an undercover cop you're texting with. You've taken real life solicitation action beyond just writing a story and posting it on the Internet. Writing a story isn't solicitation; publishing a story isn't solicitation.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Your point is bogus, which was my point. It in NOT against the law to write obscene material in fiction. You're messing that up with what you can do/can't do with images of actual people (and in the case you cite the actual propositioning that occurred, not that stories were written and published). So, go back to go on your point and do better research before you try making points. As I posted, this all is freely published in the mainstream. Go do some reading.

I think you probably mucked up your reading of the court case too. That case would be about actual, real person to real person interaction/propositioning with an undercover officer, not because the publishing of the stories was illegal--because it isn't. I don't have to go check it. I've worked in this area in mainstream publishing for decades. And I don't really care what you think about it. I know what can actually be done with it.

After skimming the case, I think you may be off the mark there. The offence for which McCoy was jailed was "transportation of obscene matters" - specifically, that McCoy sent the undercover agent links to three sites containing text fiction. Most of the decision is concerned with whether the material on those sites fits the Miller test for obscenity (judge's conclusion: yes, it does).

I don't see anything in that judgement to suggest that McCoy propositioned the undercover officer, nor were images involved.

That said, this case is a pretty extreme example. Almost by definition, material that comes up in the context of "mainstream publishing" is highly unlikely to be considered "obscene" under the Miller test.

(If we're going to continue this conversation, perhaps we should take it to AH? I think it's more on-topic there than here.)

 

[KeithD]

They got him for solicitation use of the material. You guys are leaving out the step where he engaged in solicitation. They didn't get him simply for writing or posting stories.

And that's all I'll post. People who want to believe they are limited in some way in what they write and post can do so. I don't care if they are unable to see what manner of stuff on underage rape gets published in the mainstream (not to mention in the movies and on TV) without legal constraint.

 

[Bramblethorn]

*sigh* That case would be about the actual solicitation, not that there were stories written/published. It's about what extrapolates in actual activity in real life.

Where are you getting this "solicitation"/"propositioning" angle? I can't see anything in the judgement to support that interpretation. This part makes it pretty clear:

The Government has charged Defendant with the transportation and carriage of obscene
materials based on written stories that he authored and published to the internet.

I know you have a lot of experience in the publishing industry; before I read the judgement I would've assumed you were correct here. But, having read it, I'd strongly advise you to take a look; it really is about the content of the stories, and McCoy's conviction hinged on the judge assessing them as "obscene".

 

[KeithD]

I've taken a look. I stand pat that it wouldn't have happened sans the solicitation texting angle and it's part of a package, not a separate ruling on the writing and posting fiction to the Internet. You can believe as you like and let it limit your fiction writing/posting if you like.

And now, having already said it was the last time I'd comment on yet another screwy interpretation of how fiction writing works in law . . .

 

[Bramblethorn]

They got him for solicitation use of the material. You guys are leaving out the step where he engaged in solicitation. They didn't get him simply for writing or posting stories.

Do you have a source for this "solicitation" claim? I don't see anything in the judgement to support it.

And that's all I'll post. People who want to believe they are limited in some way in what they write and post can do so. I don't care if they are unable to see what manner of stuff on underage rape gets published in the mainstream (not to mention in the movies and on TV) without legal constraint.

Yeah, there are a couple of important differences there.

The Miller test requires that (as judged by "average person"), "the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest".

Nobody picks up Stephen King's "IT" and thinks "I'm going to read this eleven-hundred-page book to get myself off". Maybe somebody skims to that particular scene, but the book as a whole can't really be described as appealing to prurient interest.

Miller also requires that "the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value". Obviously that's a massively subjective criterion, but given that the defendant enjoys benefit of the doubt, this gives license to publish just about anything as long as you can find a figleaf of an excuse. Pretty much anything in the mainstream can produce that kind of figleaf.

 

[LWulf]

Not sure if I get the OP's concept of "Do over" but the term(s) I think of for that topic is "regression."

Now, in my mind, there are two forms of regression;
A) complete fantasy:

Mental time travel (think "Peggie Sue Gets Married") (basically an older self is inserted into a younger version)
Age regression (think the reverse of Tom Hank's "Big") (basically an older self is inserted into a younger version)​

B) Faux regression:

An adult pretends to be younger than they are because of a youthful countenance.​

I'm not partial to the mental or age regression aspect, so I won't mention it further.

Over at an electronic commerce website, I've seen some stories of faux regression, one is where a 25 year old who inherits a wealth of money from her parents accidental death, but felt she didn't have a loving/stern enough upbringing. Because she can financially afford it and because she is constantly mistaken to be 16, she arranges for herself to be adopted by a couple, who are made to believe she is actually a minor, all so she can relive her latter high school years involving mistakes being corrected with impact play.

Now, normally, this is where faux regression is still fantasy because any time "bare ass spanking" is mentioned, I think adult play, as nobody would do such to a child, without legal repercussions. However, because the main character is really an adult... (for instance, Amber Tamblyn was 24 when she portrayed a minor who asks her boyfriend to give her a spanking in "Normal Adolescent Behavior"), it gets by under the wire.

However, some stories sold at the unmentioned commerce site will still let a few under the wire that start out with a faux regression (which seems legal), and then the main character talks with a few of their underage "peers", and the mention of bare ass spanking they get from their parents is mentioned. At that point I usually erase/delete the story from my watch list.

My point is that even "accepted media outlets" let some things get by for various rationalizations. Also, the OP might want to use "regression" as a search topic instead of "do over" if I got their topic correct. Just be aware you might have to sift through a bunch of unsavory stories until you find the ones that appeal and are "legal."

 

[nosebone]

Nifty, White Shadow and the Kristen Archives all accepted this content at one time, as well. Only Nifty still does to my knowledge (and per their rules it can't be a purely hetero offering). I submitted a lot to all three or had my stories selected from alt.sex.stories when Usenet was still active, but I've gotten most all of them deleted. It was enjoyable writing, but hardly worth any complications.

 

[SimonDoom]

I've taken a look. I stand pat that it wouldn't have happened sans the solicitation texting angle and it's part of a package, not a separate ruling on the writing and posting fiction to the Internet. You can believe as you like and let it limit your fiction writing/posting if you like.

And now, having already said it was the last time I'd comment on yet another screwy interpretation of how fiction writing works in law . . .

I read the full opinion and the criminal statute it relies on, and I don't think you're right. It's a disturbingly broad opinion. The law in question is 18 U.S.C. section 1462, which provides:

“Whoever … knowingly uses any … interactive computer service … for carriage in interstate or foreign commerce—(a) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy …writing … or other matter of indecent character; …—Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned."

"Carriage" appears to be synonymous with transportation, including to and from. The word "solicitation" does not appear in the court's opinion. The convicted defendant did not solicit anything. An FBI agent, undercover, asked for access to the stories, and the defendant sent them. The court found him guilty. Why would the result be any different if the defendant knowingly posted the stories online and the FBI agent downloaded them from that site while in another state?

From this opinion, I think you would be foolish to reach the opinion that fiction involving underage persons having sex is not obscene, under the law (at least, in Georgia, where this decision was rendered). I don't think Stephen King or Vladimir Nabokov have anything to worry about, because they can plausibly argue that their works have artistic merit (making them not obscene), but your average Joe erotic story writer, or erotic story website host, definitely does have something to worry about.

Keep in mind that the court was bound to follow the Supreme Court's Miller decision, and that's over 45 years old. It's possible the Court might rule differently now. It's also possible it wouldn't want to touch an underage erotic story case, which means an anti-porn judge in a state you don't live in might decide your fate. I'm not saying it's the right decision -- I personally think people should be able to write whatever fiction they want -- but you'd be a fool to count on your idea of your rights in this area.

 

[SimonDoom]

If I'm not mistaken SOL has changed to 18+. I know they allowed 16 for a long time but changed. I think Lush stories did the same

The last site I know of that allows underage-and well under age-is asstr, the cess pool of erotic story sites.

I was unaware of this. I recall reading stories off SOL and ASSTR and others about a decade ago, but since then I really haven't, and I haven't kept up on their rules or standards. So this is new to me.

 

[NotWise]

I've taken a look. I stand pat that it wouldn't have happened sans the solicitation texting angle and it's part of a package, not a separate ruling on the writing and posting fiction to the Internet. You can believe as you like and let it limit your fiction writing/posting if you like.

And now, having already said it was the last time I'd comment on yet another screwy interpretation of how fiction writing works in law . . .

I read the decision -- not every word, but much of the relevant material. First, it appears that the sites that published the stories were not charged with any offense. Second, McCoy was not charged in this indictment with any crime because he published his stories on those sites. Third, he was charged (and convicted) for providing a link to his stories to an undercover agent, thus personally causing the stories to be transported, etc, etc.

So be safe. Don't do that.

Also, don't write "text stories that describe in graphic and explicit detail the sexual abuse, rape, torture and murder of children."

The case is fairly old. If it were significant to the publication of erotica material then the changes it required would already be made.

 

[Weird Harold]

Curious what a "do-over" story is?

A story that answers the question, "If I knew then what I know now, how different would my life be?"

It doesn't necessarily require a shift to an underage point, or necessarily involve underage sexual situations if it does go back that far. I have read one such story that took the protagonist all the way back to infancy; it was many chapters before sex was even possible.

Some of the best I've read in that genre only go back to senior year of high-school or freshman year of college -- or some decision point that leads to or away from college/military service/career choice/etc.

 

[Hypoxia]

I forget the title of a SciFi novel that long predated GROUNDHOG DAY (I was drunk each time I read it) with the theme of a do-over day endlessly repeated. Keep doing it over till you get it right. Is that a theme in any traditional literatures?

In a rather different do-over twist, a LIT story (again I forget the name) Santa Claus grants a thoughtful nerdy high school freshman's wish to skip the school shit and just graduate. He wakes up four years later a thuggish star jock, swapping personalities with his brother. He must UN-do his high school misdeeds. (That's also a jib around LIT's 18 rule by putting a 14-year mind in an 18-year body.)

My personal qualm about temporal do-over tales: I spent my life fucking up yet I've arrived at a very privileged existence, despite medical problems. Any do-over of my youthful fuckups would put me somewhere else, maybe more troubled. I want no do-overs. YMMV.