What can underage characters see/know?

[oggbashan]

If the OP had read the stickies at the top of the AH, there would have been no thread.

The 'rules' and FAQs are not always easy to find, but the stickies are obvious.

 

[KeithD]

Then the pack arrived and started barking, and that immediately changed the subject of the thread to what they wanted to bark about. It was the pack that rehashed the argument not the OP - of course there were responses.

I didn't do any of that--simply corrected a mistaken impression you and the OP had about the process here, with my correction going a long way to explaining why the inconsistency existed and directly agreeing that it wasn't a good reality--just a reality. You and the other poster then became abusive.

You need to look in the mirror concerning posting behavior.

 

[PastMaster]

I didn't do any of that--simply corrected a mistaken impression you and the OP had about the process here, with my correction going a long way to explaining why the inconsistency existed and directly agreeing that it wasn't a good reality--just a reality. You and the other poster then became abusive.

You need to look in the mirror concerning posting behavior.

I didnt say that you were part of the pack - i just they arrived

 

[BobbyBrandt]

Then the pack arrived and started barking, and that immediately changed the subject of the thread to what they wanted to bark about. It was the pack that rehashed the argument not the OP - of course there were responses.

I don't believe that I have anything to apologize for.

I have consistently stated that while the rules should be followed, creativity and skill in writing can get most scenarios involving underage characters published without objections. It has been accomplished hundreds of times here. Some have tried, failed, and given up. Others continue to do so successfully. Maybe it isn't the "Rules" that are the challenge?

I will provide two examples from my own stories here:

This story contains underage, high school kids kissing, cuddling, and teasing each other sexually:

On those occasions, the teasing seemed to continue escalating, but Bobby and Patty were always able to know each other’s limits and never exceeded them. They had talked about going all the way, and each knew that they wanted the other to be their first – and only lover. They didn’t want to ‘plan’ anything, but to just trust each other to know when the time was right for both of them.

A few paragraphs later, when they are clearly eighteen, they have descriptive sex.

This story contains parents having sex in proximity to an infant child:

She stood and untied the belt on her robe, allowing it to fall open as she said, “We start our honeymoon tonight.”

In response, Chet merely stood and pulled his polo shirt out from the waistband of his jeans and then over his head in one fluid motion. “Don’t we have to be careful not to wake up Lily?” he asked.

Suzy took his hand and began leading him to the living room as she explained, “She’s a pretty sound sleeper, but we’ll use the couch just in case. I’ll turn the TV on so if she does wake, it will be to sounds that she is familiar with rather than just her mother’s moans.”

“My daughter’s mother moans?” Chet teasingly asked.

Suzy was unbuckling his belt as she said, “Oh yes, and so will her father.”

The infant never wakes.

New writers are seeking help on how to do it, not always how to bend the rules to get it done. I'm sure that others could provide samples from their own stories or those of others that they had read here. I believe that might be more constructive than continuing to spread the narrative that ANYTHING containing underage characters is banned.

 

[oggbashan]

There are times when the 18+ rule is broken unintentionally and is not picked up on posting.

They can be corrected.

There are many stories that include children but they are well away from any sex. No problem.

But deliberately trying to get around the rule? The poster is a paedophile asshole pandering to other paedophiles.

For over 20 years I have been polite on these threads, often several a week. Not any more.

You try to get around the rule? You are a paedophile and should not be on Literotica.

 

[RoperTrace]

I couldn't care less about number of reads. I'm not in this to get pats on the back. I'm in it to write stories that I want to write, the way I want to write them. If everyone reads them and loves them, great. If three people read them and hate them, also great. As long as I'm satisfied with what I write, I call it a success.

My apologies, I was mistakenly thinking this was another thread where the OP was inquiring about only getting one comment after 4000 reads. Carry on.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

There are times when the 18+ rule is broken unintentionally and is not picked up on posting.

They can be corrected.

There are many stories that include children but they are well away from any sex. No problem.

But deliberately trying to get around the rule? The poster is a paedophile asshole pandering to other paedophiles.

For over 20 years I have been polite on these threads, often several a week. Not any more.

You try to get around the rule? You are a paedophile and should not be on Literotica.

I respect your position and agree that nothing justifies trying to get around the rules established here.

However, I do believe that a skilled and determined writer can tell a tale within the constraints of the site without butting up against any of the rules. It's all a matter of how they want to expend their time, energy, and talent.

 

[PastMaster]

There are times when the 18+ rule is broken unintentionally and is not picked up on posting.

They can be corrected.

There are many stories that include children but they are well away from any sex. No problem.

But deliberately trying to get around the rule? The poster is a paedophile asshole pandering to other paedophiles.

For over 20 years I have been polite on these threads, often several a week. Not any more.

You try to get around the rule? You are a paedophile and should not be on Literotica.

And here we have the venom - without any evidence whatsoever you are accusing people of being pedophiles.
And as I have stated several times - the question and the initial thread was not about circumventing the rule in any way shape or form
The age of consent inthe UK is 16 - in most of europe is 16 in 30 out of the 50 states is 16. writing a 17 year old into a story does not make anyone a pedophile.
So with the greatest of disrespect fuck you you cunt!

 

[oggbashan]

Evidence? If they want to write about sexual situations with children? They ARE paedophiles.

I have stayed polite for 20+ years.

I am dying and my patience has run out.

You want to write about children and sex? You ARE a paedophile and should be banned.

 

[PastMaster]

Evidence? If they want to write about sexual situations with children? They ARE paedophiles.

I have stayed polite for 20+ years.

I am dying and my patience has run out.

You want to write about children and sex? You ARE a paedophile and should be banned.

Nobody ever said they wanted to write about children, that is only your own sick and perverted mentality projecting.
Its a shame that , if its true that you have stayed polite for 20+ years you will be remembered by some as a miserable old twat.
We're all dying, so stop feeling sorry for yourself and projecting your misery on others.
If you're looking for sympathy you're fishing in the wrong river.

 

[KeithD]

And here we have the venom - without any evidence whatsoever you are accusing people of being pedophiles.
And as I have stated several times - the question and the initial thread was not about circumventing the rule in any way shape or form
The age of consent inthe UK is 16 - in most of europe is 16 in 30 out of the 50 states is 16. writing a 17 year old into a story does not make anyone a pedophile.
So with the greatest of disrespect fuck you you cunt!

Just knock it off.
Take your head out of your ass and read the room regarding Ogg at this point.
Try to find and apply some humanity.

 

[PastMaster]

Just knock it off.
Take your head out of your ass and read the room regarding Ogg at this point.
Try to find and apply some humanity.

Dying does not give you the right to hurl accusations and libellous remarks about people.
He may be a revered and respected grandfather figure to those of you who have been around for decades as he has, but to me he is just an miserable old man with a sour temper. He gives it out,he can expect to get it back.

 

[KeithD]

Dying does not give you the right to hurl accusations and libellous remarks about people.
He may be a revered and respected grandfather figure to those of you who have been around for decades as he has, but to me he is just an miserable old man with a sour temper. He gives it out,he can expect to get it back.

Stop being an asshole. Ogg is a revered member of this discussion board. You? Not even close.
Again, try to find and exercise some humanity here.
You are poking what you easily could just left drift by under the circumstances. Take your head out of your ass and read the room.

 

[PastMaster]

Stop being an asshole. Ogg is a revered member of this discussion board. You? Not even close.
Again, try to find and exercise some humanity here.
You are poking what you easily could just left drift by under the cirmustances. Take your head out of your ass and read the room.

...

 

[alohadave]

The definition of insantity is repeating the same actions, while expecting a different outcome.

I can see how rehashing the same argument over and over can be incredibly tiring and frustrating. This thread - however, started with a question, asked by a new user who has not been here for the last six ten or twelve years as you guys have so hasnt seen them. Not only that but he did not suggest in any way that the rules were wrong, nor that he wanted to change them.

He asked a question - and received abuse, and the outrageous statement that his story must be rubbish if he couldn't age a character by 2 years to meet the rules. The rules in a site, I reiterate, that he had already said he, on reflection, was not going to post the story on.

Then the pack arrived and started barking, and that immediately changed the subject of the thread to what they wanted to bark about. It was the pack that rehashed the argument not the OP - of course there were responses.

I guess it is a failing in all bulletin board sites. Perhaps once a question is answered, the thread should close. Initially there were some reasonable and reasoned answers and if the thread had been closed as 'answered' then there might not have been the opportunity for the carnage that ensued.

One question which I believe the OP actually asked at some stage in the discussion is valid. If people are so tired of rehashing the same argument over and over again - why do they even engage with the thread - why not simply say - 'not interested' and move on?

When a forum gets old enough, the old posters who stuck around treat it as a social club.

They all know each other, they've made friends, fought, and seen new people come and go.

There becomes this feeling that because they've been around that they have special insight or that their opinions carry more weight. What it really means is that new people get shut out if they don't quickly learn the unofficial rules of the forum. Those that survive and keep posting carve out a niche for themselves and become part of the crowd.

Every possible discussion has happened many times over, and people don't change their opinions very often, so the same people keep having the same fights with the same people in every single thread.

 

[PastMaster]

When a forum gets old enough, the old posters who stuck around treat it as a social club.

They all know each other, they've made friends, fought, and seen new people come and go.

There becomes this feeling that because they've been around that they have special insight or that their opinions carry more weight. What it really means is that new people get shut out if they don't quickly learn the unofficial rules of the forum. Those that survive and keep posting carve out a niche for themselves and become part of the crowd.

Every possible discussion has happened many times over, and people don't change their opinions very often, so the same people keep having the same fights with the same people in every single thread.

I refuse to be bullied out of the forum just because of the yappy dog crowd.
Who knows they may have enough connections to get me banned - or they could ignore me - I wish they would in fact because i'm sick of them yapping at me all the time.
The concept that just because you are old, have been here a long time, and may not be around for much longer you are therefore immune to being challenged both on your beliefs and your libellous allegations is ridiculous.
You seem to have a handle on it - and seem also to have a far cooler head than me.

 

[KeithD]

And, typically, new folks just bumble in assuming they are the only ones who understand the problems here and have ever mentioned them, know how to fix them, and assume, because they just bumbled in with some sort of god-given, self-perceived right to redecorate the place to their tastes, fail to understand that those posting to the discussion board here have absolutely no say about the sites' posting policies. They are mostly just trying the best they can to explain reality that's out of their hands.

Those who have been around for a long time and have worked with the system for a long time do, indeed, have special insight on how the system works here and how likely it will change--in comparison to the newly arriving hotshots. You get a "duh" on that, buddy. They could just do their own thing and ignore the questions of the new folks--and when they get their hands bitten by those they are spending their time and effort in trying to help, that's probably exactly what should happen. The new hotshots probably should learn the strength of their voting privileges here themselves.

 

[Voboy]

There becomes this feeling that because they've been around that they have special insight or that their opinions carry more weight. What it really means is that new people get shut out if they don't quickly learn the unofficial rules of the forum.

Well, but be fair.

On this particular instance, there's not really any "special insight." We've got explicit statements directly from the site owner that address this precise issue. I would think of those statements as a situation where her "opinions carry more weight." The people who've spent time here have experienced these statements, so when we repeat them to answer new posters' questions, we're neither hazing them nor pulling the information out of our assholes. We're telling them what the site owner has told us.

These replies are not about being cliquish, and they're not meant to be unwelcoming. They are a [frequent] repetition of the same responses over and over again, as passed down by the Ultimate Arbitrator Of Story Approval.

So, explain why it's reasonable that new posters should get huffy about that?

 

[Senor_Smut]

So, explain why it's reasonable that new posters should get huffy about that?

I didn't even want to get back into ths dumpster fire, but the reason this (not new, just very infrequent) poster got huffy is because I asked a reasonable question in a reasonable fashion and then one of the Good Old Boys climbed up my backside, telling me my story was crap and I was a bad writer because I would rather post somewhere else than do things his way, and then other people came in and started bombing me with accusations of trying to change site rules when I had explicitly said more than once that I didn't want to change anything and wanted to abide by the rules. The majority of the frequent posters in this thread were only here to get angry at me for having the temerity to ask a question about a corner case concerning a rule that is poorly observed by hypocrites (including by some of the people railing against me) and haphazardly enforced with a system designed to have haphazard enforcement. And now one of the Good Old Boys is claiming that I'm a pedophile because I asked a question about an underage character not having sex. Yeah I'm huffy. I was going to let it go because arguing on forums is like playing chess with a pigeon, but I don't like being accused of crimes by jerks who think they've earned the right to falsely accuse people just because they've hung around for a while.

**Edited to remove deliberately inflammatory word I should not have used in the first place.

 

[Voboy]

I didn't even want to get back into ths dumpster fire, but the reason this (not new, just very infrequent) poster got huffy is because I asked a reasonable question in a reasonable fashion and then one of the Good Old Boys climbed up my backside, telling me my story was crap and I was a bad writer because I would rather post somewhere else than do things his way, and then other people came in and started bombing me with accusations of trying to change site rules when I had explicitly said more than once that I didn't want to change anything and wanted to abide by the rules. The majority of the frequent posters in this thread were only here to get angry at me for having the temerity to ask a question about a corner case concerning a rule that is poorly observed by hypocrites (including by some of the people railing against me) and haphazardly enforced with a system designed to have haphazard enforcement. And now one of the Good Old Boys is claiming that I'm a pedophile because I asked a question about an underage character not having sex. Yeah I'm huffy. I was going to let it go because arguing on forums is like playing chess with a pigeon, but I don't like being accused of crimes by shitheads who think they've earned the right to falsely accuse people just because they've hung around for a while.

I'm not blaming you for getting huffy about Ogg's post to you.

My question is more general. There is a sad and recurrent trend here that goes something like this:

1. Poster questions the under-18 rule (you didn't. I know that. But this thread, as so many do, has moved beyond the limits of your initial question).
2. "Good Old Boys" reply, as they always do, using many of the exact same paragraphs they've typed many times before, based on Laurel's guidance coupled with their own successful experiences.
3. Poster gets huffy. Sometimes, poster even tries to "rally the troops" to "effect change" from the "clueless site admins."
4. "Good Old Boys" reply that it's been tried, many times, and that there are evidently good reasons why the admins will not budge.
5. Poster doubles down (because this is the Internet) and much regrettable dialogue ensues.

Part of the reason you're understandably confused that your post is getting lumped in with that time-tested argument is that this recurrent trend is SO... BLOODY... COMMON that we "Good Old Boys" tend to expect it when, perhaps, we shouldn't. Your question, in touching on this subject, became collateral damage.

 

[Senor_Smut]

I'm not blaming you for getting huffy about Ogg's post to you.

My question is more general. There is a sad and recurrent trend here that goes something like this:

1. Poster questions the under-18 rule (you didn't. I know that. But this thread, as so many do, has moved beyond the limits of your initial question).
2. "Good Old Boys" reply, as they always do, using many of the exact same paragraphs they've typed many times before, based on Laurel's guidance coupled with their own successful experiences.
3. Poster gets huffy. Sometimes, poster even tries to "rally the troops" to "effect change" from the "clueless site admins."
4. "Good Old Boys" reply that it's been tried, many times, and that there are evidently good reasons why the admins will not budge.
5. Poster doubles down (because this is the Internet) and much regrettable dialogue ensues.

Part of the reason you're understandably confused that your post is getting lumped in with that time-tested argument is that this recurrent trend is SO... BLOODY... COMMON that we "Good Old Boys" tend to expect it when, perhaps, we shouldn't. Your question, in touching on this subject, became collateral damage.

Thank you for your calm and rational reply. I know that longstanding forums get very clubby, and I do appreciate that things reminiscent of old arguments can invoke old animosities even when they aren't the same as what provoked the animosities in the first place. When that happens I can either put people on blast or put people on ignore, and I need to remember that putting them on ignore is quieter and has the added benefit of pissing them off when I don't respond to their input. LOL

 

[lovecraft68]

This entire debate just makes me laugh hysterically. If only the girls and female teachers I had in school when I was 12 and raging with puberty hormones knew what I was daydreaming or doing in private! Seriously, these law makers need to take a step back into reality. Young teens aren't clueless about sex. But yeah, the rules are the rules in narrative publishing.

My increasing issue with this situation is this is a site that publishes stories with gang rapes, torture for arousal and snuff(all against the rules, but they keep coming on through) but saying "I imagined having sex with my 10th grade teacher" is considered a cardinal sin and the same over reactive peons we see in these threads that defend that rule are the ones who have nothing to say about the rape and torture porn stories.

 

[djrip]

Oh boy.

 

[oggbashan]

If you find any story that you think breaches Lit's rules you should report it,. not moan about it here.

 

[LongDraw]

If you find any story that you think breaches Lit's rules you should report it,. not moan about it here.

No offense, but I've been a site owner with over a 300,000 users before. And even if you weren't facing an early death currently, you'd need twice your lifespan to eliminate all the stories that violate site guidelines.