The Literotica rules are too vague!

[JDSavanyu]

I submitted a story in which a 13 year old kid brought a Playboy magazine to school in 1991, and was caught and put in detention by a teacher. That's happened to thousands and thousands of kids over the years, including me.
There were no sexual relationships of any kind with minors in the story, no explicit references or "fantasizing" or "playing doctor" or anything else that's listed in the rules involving anyone under 18, but the story still got rejected.
It was a nostalgic piece, remembering the era before you could look at any kind of porn instantly, anywhere, just with a few clicks or taps on a screen.
I can recall so many mainstream movies and sitcom episodes with the plot device of a kid under 18 secretly reading a dirty magazine, after getting someone older to buy it for them.
The rules list on Literotica has the same problem as YouTube. They're too vague throughout. The list of rules needs to be longer and more detailed in every section, so writers know exactly what to avoid. And the moderators need to consider the larger context of the story before hitting the reject button.

 

[SimonDoom]

On this particular issue, the rules are not vague at all. They are crystal clear, and perhaps by some people's standards Draconian. You cannot publish stories here about people under 13 having even remotely, vaguely sexual experiences. Taking a Playboy magazine to school is, by Lit standards, a sexual experience. I mean, why else do it? It's a thrill. The site doesn't allow that.

I agree the rules could be somewhat clearer on this issue. They could provide more detailed guidelines. But this decision seems perfectly consistent with the rules as they've been stated.

 

[drobert44]

On this particular issue, the rules are not vague at all. They are crystal clear, and perhaps by some people's standards Draconian. You cannot publish stories here about people under 13 having even remotely, vaguely sexual experiences. Taking a Playboy magazine to school is, by Lit standards, a sexual experience. I mean, why else do it? It's a thrill. The site doesn't allow that.

I agree the rules could be somewhat clearer on this issue. They could provide more detailed guidelines. But this decision seems perfectly consistent with the rules as they've been stated.

I get smacked all the time, maybe it depends on the thread?

 

[TarnishedPenny]

OK, right off the top, it seems very likely that the site runs all stories through some form of computer screening programme which will reject stories straying out of bounds. If your draft included stuff likely to be on the Wanted poster, rejection would be automatic.

IMO, as 12-year-old simply taking a Playboy to school does not violate the intent of the rule - unless, for instance, the boy was described as examining the centrefold or (most especially) becoming sexually aroused. If I understand the situation properly, the auhor’s intent was for the kid to get into trouble; the aim was not sexuality in any sense, just providing a prop.

If you are certain that there is no actual sexuality, including him admiring the photos, I might suggest resubmitting with a note to the administrator on the submissions page. That will bypass the initial AI scan and put it into the hands of a human being. Make your case why it’s not actually a sexual thing.

This is an interesting case and please let us know how it turns out.

WRT the nebulosity of site rules, perhaps. In this case, rather than trying to list all the possible ways that underaged individuals might get involved with sec (a list about the size of the OED if comprehensive), the site’s owner has simply said ‘Not under 18, period.” If you can make your case, Laurel has proved willing to listen to reason.

Good luck.

 

[NotWise]

I'm with Simon, but I haven't read the rules in a while and I think they've been reframed recently to express the limits more clearly. In short, Lit does not allow sexual activity by a character under the age of eighteen. The site uses the broadest possible definition of sexual activity; showing interest in pictures of naked women falls easily under that heading.

Could the story be rewritten to avoid underage sexual implications? Write it so the character takes a magazine to school to share an interesting article by Norman Mailer. Don't mention the name or photographic content of the magazine.

If that ruins your intent, then the story stepped over the line.

 

[Euphony]

I mean, why else do it?

Lit'ers response: "He was really into the musings of Normal Mailer and Gore Vidal. I mean, every 13 y.o. reads it for the articles. Everyone knows that."

 

[nice90sguy]

I got it for the "Little Annie Fanny" comic.

 

[Euphony]

I submitted a story in which a 13 year old kid brought a Playboy magazine to school in 1991, and was caught and put in detention by a teacher. That's happened to thousands and thousands of kids over the years, including me.
There were no sexual relationships of any kind with minors in the story, no explicit references or "fantasizing" or "playing doctor" or anything else that's listed in the rules involving anyone under 18, but the story still got rejected.
It was a nostalgic piece, remembering the era before you could look at any kind of porn instantly, anywhere, just with a few clicks or taps on a screen.
I can recall so many mainstream movies and sitcom episodes with the plot device of a kid under 18 secretly reading a dirty magazine, after getting someone older to buy it for them.
The rules list on Literotica has the same problem as YouTube. They're too vague throughout. The list of rules needs to be longer and more detailed in every section, so writers know exactly what to avoid. And the moderators need to consider the larger context of the story before hitting the reject button.

The child was not even legally entitled to possess the object. While it happened "thousands of times," that doesn't mean society threw off the old rules and 13 yo boys could pick up a Penthouse and an Icee before school to thumb through in homeroom.

Looking at it through the Lit lens (as most do and all intellectually honestly should) the line set in the sand is to cover the wide range of community standards across this puritanical land not for some moral stance but ease of operation and mitigation of legal threat (of which, frivolous lawsuits have been given more legal audience lately which is $$$, possibly existential threat)

I lived through the same era and know the realties "on the ground" then (and the pangs of nostalgia) but working through those emotions in a published story is NOT for THIS site in THIS day and time.

 

[Euphony]

I got it for the "Little Annie Fanny" comic.

I legit read most of the articles (skipping the ones far too culturally above my head.) It's cartoons and comics certainly shaped my sensibilities as well.

Even me at the time was under know illusions and knew I was looking at mainstreamed pornography.

32 years later I know it even more so.

 

[nice90sguy]

The child was not even legally entitled to possess the object

Slightly irrelevant to bring in a legal aspect, considering all the I/T stories here.

 

[Euphony]

Slightly irrelevant to bring in a legal aspect, considering all the I/T stories here.

Disagree.

If the rules disallowed I/T then its legality/illegality would be salient.

Lit's rules aren't trying to mirror societies (esp. considering all the communities it reaches.) They've set their rules to their own standards (likely not for squickery but for easy of business operations)

Even in the world the author has crafted, minor possession of pornography (explicit material) is classified sexual.

Doesn't seem a bridge too far for Lit to consider it sexual enough to run afoul of its standards if it is sexual in story too.

 

[nice90sguy]

Your last post may make sense to you, but it utterly confuses me, and doesn't explain this matrix:

Breaks Lit Rules | Illegal
Under 18 sex Yes | Yes
Incest No | Yes


From the above you can see simply that Lit's rules and "The Law" not really correlated

 

[Rob_Royale]

If the rules disallowed I/T then its legality/illegality would be salient.

Salient. Wow. I had to look that one up. This is why I love hanging around with other writers. Nice one.
There is a sticky on the subject which included Laurel's thoughts on it.
https://forum.literotica.com/threads/simple-answer-to-queries-about-lits-under-18-rule.1545753/

 

[EmilyMiller]

The Literotica rules are too vague!​

And posting here is not going to do anything about your concern (legit or otherwise).

When in doubt, talk to Laurel, That may not get the result you want, but more likely to do so than asking our opinions.

Em

 

[nice90sguy]

Lit's rules are clear, and there to protect lit (which kind of protects its readers and writers too).

But it's important, as I've been trying to point out, not to use legal arguments to justify them -- Lit's rules are to do with depictions of sex, they're not rules about sexual behaviour or acts .

 

[Comshaw]

Lit's rules are clear, and there to protect lit (which kind of protects its readers and writers too).

But it's important, as I've been trying to point out, not to use legal arguments to justify them -- Lit's rules are to do with depictions of sex, they're not rules about sexual behaviour or acts .

Okay, so I'm confused. Protect Lit from what if it's not legal ramifications? you can't really compare the illegalities of legal-age incest to underage sex. While both are illegal (legal age incest is in all but two states), underage sex causes much more of a reaction by the puritanical sect (both civilian and government) than legal-age incest does. Lit is trying to protect itself from legal action by that puritanic sect because of the proliferation of laws that have been implemented around the country to criminalize any sexualized behavior depicted for underage people. So yeah it does have to do with legal arguments.

But at the base, it's a simple thing. Whether I agree or disagree, as you said Lit has set its rules for the protection of Lit. They may well be going way overboard in my opinion, but I don't get to make the rules, I only get to bitch about them when I don't like them.

Comshaw

 

[Kumquatqueen]

The child was not even legally entitled to possess the object. While it happened "thousands of times," that doesn't mean society threw off the old rules and 13 yo boys could pick up a Penthouse and an Icee before school to thumb through in homeroom.

Seriously, it would have been illegal to possess a porn mag? I'm sure it would be store policy or state law not to sell such material to minors, but illegal to possess sounds draconian!

 

[Euphony]

Your last post may make sense to you, but it utterly confuses me, and doesn't explain this matrix:

Breaks Lit Rules | Illegal
Under 18 sex Yes | Yes
Incest No | Yes


From the above you can see simply that Lit's rules and "The Law" not really correlated

I'm not even sure if this addresses me. If not, disregard.

Not invoking "the law" as any sort of proxy Lit is striving for. I think I said elsewhere, Lit is CYAing their ass in the ways they find operationally easiest/best for continued existence.

OP painted the scenario of an underaged male as commonplace/"boys will be boys" which is a touch disingenuous when the real world considers selling pornography (defined as material sexual in nature) to that individual a crime.

Again, not equating Lit rules = real world rules (I mentioned how impossible mirroring all the communities Lit reaches is) + adding in their own moralities.

Making the point that, the real world considers it more problematic than "a boy being a boy" so it's not unimageable Lit might find it similarly problematic to their own rules.

 

[Euphony]

Seriously, it would have been illegal to possess a porn mag? I'm sure it would be store policy or state law not to sell such material to minors, but illegal to possess sounds draconian!

It's easy to see things through our personal experience lens but you'd be AMAZED at what was problematic in pockets/communities of the bible belt even as late as the 90s.

I not suggesting that is most everybody's lived experience but it did exist and similar non-sensical nuttery continues to this day.

Lit has to concern itself with the weakest link in the communities it exposes itself to so erring on the side of extreme caution isn't totally unreasonable/1984 redux like some paint it as.

 

[Euphony]

Seriously, it would have been illegal to possess a porn mag? I'm sure it would be store policy or state law not to sell such material to minors, but illegal to possess sounds draconian!

Illegal can mean confiscation, not DA bringing a case to send him to detention.

And I was using the law in support of community standards concerning underaged boys possessing sexually explicit material being a little more serious than "boys will be boys" so it's not unreasonable for Lit's rules to see it more than BwbB as well.

 

[CyranoJ]

I submitted a story in which a 13 year old kid

It's always one specific rule they come here to complain about. Always.

 

[lovecraft68]

[No personal attacks or trolling. Heated discussions are fine, even welcome. However, personally attacking / kink-shaming a fellow author or reader is not allowed within the Author's Hangout. Threads which devolve into the exchanging of insults will be closed and repeat offenders will be given a timeout, per the AH rules.]

 

[djrip]

What do you mean, 'you people?'

 

[djrip]

What do YOU mean, 'you people?'

 

[lovecraft68]

[No personal attacks or trolling. Heated discussions are fine, even welcome. However, personally attacking / kink-shaming a fellow author or reader is not allowed within the Author's Hangout. Threads which devolve into the exchanging of insults will be closed and repeat offenders will be given a timeout, per the AH rules.]