a 15 year old in a story?

[AloneTooLong]

I realize she accidentally was a 'viewer' of her Mom's affair but I thought "under 18" wasn't allowed.

https://www.literotica.com/beta/s/indiscreet

 

[ElectricBlue]

I realize she accidentally was a 'viewer' of her Mom's affair but I thought "under 18" wasn't allowed.

https://www.literotica.com/beta/s/indiscreet

If the "viewing" comprises sexual content, report the story. That's part of the site's policing process, readers reporting content that may not comply.

Laurel will take a closer look and, if it breaches the age content policy, she'll take it down and refer it back to the author. It's then up to the author to tweak the content or argue the case. If the author does nothing the story stays down forever.

So, if you think it's a breach, report it.

 

[NotWise]

I realize she accidentally was a 'viewer' of her Mom's affair but I thought "under 18" wasn't allowed.

https://www.literotica.com/beta/s/indiscreet

That depends on how it's written. I haven't read it, so I can't address that myself.

If the fifteen-year-old is horrified by the experience and there's nothing close to arousal, then Laurel might allow it. If there's any hint that the fifteen-year-old was aroused then she probably wouldn't.

It it offends you, then report it. If it doesn't offend you, then leave it alone.

 

[KeithD]

I looked. Clear violation. Reported. Even if she registered horror (she did), it's participatory voyeurism. A sex act is a sex act.

 

[NotWise]

I looked. Clear violation. Reported. Even if she registered horror (she did), it's participatory voyeurism. A sex act is a sex act.

I can't undo what you did, but I disagree with you. Some of the authors here are the worst prudes on the site.

There was no erotic content present or implied in the daughter witnessing the event. It wasn't voyeurism, which by definition requires that the voyeur gains sexual pleasure from watching.

 

[KeithD]

It's Laurel's call, so I see no reason to discuss it and I can live with you disagreeing with me--that's nothing new. Since we both know it's solely Laurel's call--and we both should know that she doesn't actually read the submissions--your comment on some authors being prudes is just out of bounds on this. If you're calling me a prude, You get a horselaugh. You obviously haven't read my stories.

I made my call on reading the story. You made a call without reading it.

 

[RejectReality]

I agree. Clear violation, and reported.

 

[Salacious_Scribe]

There are some sites I post on that don't even let you mention underage characters. For example, I had a story rejected on one site because a mom was telling her bedmate at a restaurant about a non-sexual incident that happened when she was 12.

Another story about a single mom taking her son on a play date and mom hooking up with the dad while their kids were napping was rejected both because characters were underage but did not witness or do anything sexual.

Other sites don't allow non-con, or have lower age limits. It is what it is.

 

[KeithD]

My view of this one was that it was wholly unnecessary to play that card at all.

 

[LexxRuthless]

My view of this one was that it was wholly unnecessary to play that card at all.

After reading the story, I completely agree. This was a clear violation of the site guidelines and needed to be reported.

 

[Handley_Page]

I can't undo what you did, but I disagree with you. Some of the authors here are the worst prudes on the site.

There was no erotic content present or implied in the daughter witnessing the event. It wasn't voyeurism, which by definition requires that the voyeur gains sexual pleasure from watching.

I agree,
and Yes, I did read it.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

I too, read the story... well the first page at least, right up until the author went AOL on his readers. Reported.

 

[KeithD]

Laurel will take a closer look and, if it breaches the age content policy, she'll take it down and refer it back to the author. It's then up to the author to tweak the content or argue the case. If the author does nothing the story stays down forever.

Is this true now? Can someone attest that Laurel notifies them when a story is taken down? That didn't used to be the case. The author had to stumble on to the story having been taken down themselves.

 

[RejectReality]

Is this true now? Can someone attest that Laurel notifies them when a story is taken down? That didn't used to be the case. The author had to stumble on to the story having been taken down themselves.

I don't know that there's notification, but it's much easier to see at a glance because of the sent back tab on the control panel.

 

[SimonDoom]

I can't undo what you did, but I disagree with you. Some of the authors here are the worst prudes on the site.

There was no erotic content present or implied in the daughter witnessing the event. It wasn't voyeurism, which by definition requires that the voyeur gains sexual pleasure from watching.

I think the other commenters are correct in the sense that had Laurel looked closely at this story, then, under her rule, as she applies it, she would have rejected the story.

Laurel's rule about underage stuff is a black and white, overinclusive rule. It's overinclusive in the sense that it sweeps within its scope stories that don't really deal with underage material in a sexual way but which might be perceived as doing so if you squint hard and use your kinky imagination (something most of us probably have way too much of). I sense her attitude about this is that she doesn't want to have to make judgment calls on this material. She just wants it gone from the Site so she doesn't have to deal with potential claims or legal challenges. It's a fair, legitimate position even if it seems odd given that it's much stricter than the standards of what's allowed on network television, when children are perfectly free to watch TV. The difference, of course, is that television networks have infinite financial resources and armies of lawyers, and this appears to be a mom and pop operation. So it's understandable she would want to avoid headaches about this stuff.

I'm a bit puzzled, as you are, by the zeal with which people wish to report this sort of thing. It's fine with me if Laurel wants to bounce it, but I don't feel any obligation to usher it closer to being bounced. There's nothing immoral about this story's treatment of the underage element, even assuming "morality" is a useful guide here.

 

[LexxRuthless]

I don't know that there's notification, but it's much easier to see at a glance because of the sent back tab on the control panel.

The story is sent back to your "Sent Back" tab, and you will get a notification in the "Activity" tab letting you know your story was rejected/removed. It's all automatic, though, and the story will have the standard rejection notice with the cause noted. It isn't Laurel sending you an e-mail or PM.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

Meh. I didn’t find it erotic, much less offensive, but it’s hardly my call. In any case, it would seem that the story has been pulled and that’s the end of it. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

 

[KeithD]

I don't know that there's notification, but it's much easier to see at a glance because of the sent back tab on the control panel.

I wondered whether a story taken down once it was put up would show in the "sent back" tab. Another question on what actually happens for someone it's happened to to weigh in on.

 

[KeithD]

I'm a bit puzzled, as you are, by the zeal with which people wish to report this sort of thing. It's fine with me if Laurel wants to bounce it, but I don't feel any obligation to usher it closer to being bounced. There's nothing immoral about this story's treatment of the underage element, even assuming "morality" is a useful guide here.

It wasn't zeal on my part. My mantra has always been just to mind your own business and back out of anything that gave you the vapors. This is the first story I've ever reported. I did so because I'd actually taken a look at it; decided the OP was right, that it wouldn't pass Laurel's muster as I understand it to be; and, given the choice of telling the OP they could report it or just going ahead and doing so rather than chasing it around the bush, I just cut to the end and did so myself.

The suggestion that I or anyone else did so because we were prudes rather than because we were noting the site's submissions policies, as it applied to me, was both nasty and completely ignorant of my own story file and posting history here.

 

[KeithD]

Meh. I didn’t find it erotic, much less offensive, but it’s hardly my call. In any case, it would seem that the story has been pulled and that’s the end of it. Nothing to see here, folks. Move along.

Clicking on the link still gets me to the story. It will be instructive to know whether/whether or not Laurel pulls it, because that's pretty much the only way for the users here to figure out where the selection edges are on this site.

 

[NotWise]

Clicking on the link still gets me to the story. It will be instructive to know whether/whether or not Laurel pulls it, because that's pretty much the only way for the users here to figure out where the selection edges are on this site.

She's pulled it. The link in the OP is dead and was dead as of about 2:00PM my time, 4:00PM your time. Maybe you're looking at a cached copy.

The story initially remained in the LW hub, but now it's entry on the hub is gone -- after 28K views and almost 1500 votes.

 

[jaF0]

She's pulled it. The link in the OP is dead and was dead as of about 2:00PM my time, 4:00PM your time. Maybe you're looking at a cached copy.

The story initially remained in the LW hub, but now it's entry on the hub is gone -- after 28K views and almost 1500 votes.

Sceenshot taken within the last five minutes:

I've never even opened this thread before now let alone the link/story, so it can't be cached for me.

 

[NotWise]

Sceenshot taken within the last five minutes:

I've never even opened this thread before now let alone the link/story, so it can't be cached for me.

Firefox hasn't been able to produce the story in the last hour-and-a-half. Now the story side of the site seems to have crashed or something.

 

[Bramblethorn]

Sceenshot taken within the last five minutes:

I've never even opened this thread before now let alone the link/story, so it can't be cached for me.

Same. Never opened the story before now, it's there for me.

edit: I am noticing some hiccups with loading other stories today, that might explain why it's loading for some but not others? IIRC, when a story gets taken down for content, clicking gets a "this story is awaiting moderation" message.

 

[sbrooks103]

That depends on how it's written. I haven't read it, so I can't address that myself.

If the fifteen-year-old is horrified by the experience and there's nothing close to arousal, then Laurel might allow it. If there's any hint that the fifteen-year-old was aroused then she probably wouldn't.

It it offends you, then report it. If it doesn't offend you, then leave it alone.

Yes, I've seen many LW stories where a video of the cheating wife shows a child seeing them, usually used to gain custody. I've never seen those stories pulled.