age rules

age rule?

I understand the no one under 18 rule, but can a character who is over 18 recall a sex act before they were 18?

mrwizard67 said:

I understand the no one under 18 rule, but can a character who is over 18 recall a sex act before they were 18?

Click to expand...

I would say yes, but not in detail.

A character can say, "I lost my virginity when I was twelve to my little brother," but any detailed description of the circumstances would be a no-no.

Weird Harold said:

A character can say, "I lost my virginity when I was twelve to my little brother," but any detailed description of the circumstances would be a no-no.

Click to expand...

I am not doubting you, Harold, but I am very curious. Is that a rule, or your understanding? I have had this thought many times myself, and would like a clarification.

To me...the rule should be all or nothing. I would very much like to know the "ruling" on this.

Thanks

MP

Madame Pandora said:

I am not doubting you, Harold, but I am very curious. Is that a rule, or your understanding? I have had this thought many times myself, and would like a clarification

Click to expand...

That's my understanding of the rule "No underage characters engaged in sexual acts" (approximation of the rule, not an exact quote.)

Saying that a character engaged in sex before age 18, is not the same as detailing the occurance in a flashback.

I've seen many stories where the character admits to not being a virgin, or at least having experimented with petting, before the big orgy on their eighteenth birthday.

I suppose that the phrasing of the rule about under-eighteens "engaging" in sex acts could be interpreted to allow an underage character narrating a story about all of the sex acts going on around them as long as the narrator doesn't masurbate. I don't think I'd recommend stretching the rules that far though.

How about small detail?
Example
"She lost her virginity at sixteen to a ham handed teenaged boy. Three or four quick, painful thrusts ans it was over."
I want somethong along these lines in the story, but I don't want to break the rules.
Thanks for the help.

Excuse me...

...I'm from Arkansas (not really). Could you explain exactly what you mean by sex? I mean, it's only sex if I put it in right? right? come on quit kiddin' around!

Oh...by the way...No, I did not have sexual relations with that woman.

mrwizard67 said:

How about small detail?
Example
"She lost her virginity at sixteen to a ham handed teenaged boy. Three or four quick, painful thrusts and it was over."
I want somethong along these lines in the story, but I don't want to break the rules.
Thanks for the help.

Click to expand...

The final ruling belongs to Laurel, but I have seen numerous stories with that sort of statement that she has ok'd for posting.

To me, your sample is a simple statement of fact, and not a description. It's something that's necessary for understanding a character rather than a gratuitous flashback detailing the experience.

It's a fine line that's a subjective judgement. From what I've seen, Laurel tends to take such things in the context of the story. If it's something the reader "needs" to know, there is likely no problem. If you are in doubt about whether you've crossed Laurel's line, an e-mail to her with the questionable wording would resolve the issue.

Like the judge said about obscenity, "I know it when I see it."

I don't mind illusions to virginity lost before the age of 18. However, graphic descriptions of such won't be printed on the site. It's not a statement of good vs. bad, immoral vs. moral. We're not even implying that writing about underage sex is illegal. It's just a way to keep our site out of harm's way.

In case anyone's unaware, Bush's nomination for attorney general - Richard Ashcroft - has stated that his #1 priority will be the elimination of online porn. Not just making it child-proof, ELIMINATING it. If he does take office, then we may be forced to be even more strict with our content, just to keep afloat. Or he may just band us and all other free adult sites altogether, making it a nonissue. Only time will tell. People scoff at this, saying it would be impossible for him to ban porn in the 21st century. Maybe he can't Constitutionally ban it, but he can persecute adult webmasters by suing them, by fining them, and by generally making it so hard for them to do business that they either have to maintain an army of lawyers (something that requires more money than we have) or simply go under. And it isn't that inconceivable that he, GWB, and Congress could make all adult sites require some sort of age verification - i.e. AgeCheck.

During the election, I talked to people about GWB's ties with the Christian Conservative right. They all scoffed at me, saying he'd NEVER be so bold as to try to appoint hard right-wingers into his cabinet, and he'd never try to compromise our freedoms by pushing the Christian right agenda (i.e. anti-choice, anti-free speech, anti-porn). He isn't even in office yet, and already he and his appointees have have made very, very strong anti-porn statements. If there's one thing we should have learned from WWII, it's to take people at their word. Hitler freely gave out copies of "Mein Kampf" to his citizens, a book in which he clearly sets forth his anti-semetic views. Yet the Germans were still shocked when he carted off their friends and neighbors to the ovens. When GWB says he's going to push the Christian right agenda, by golly, he means it.

Many of my friends who voted for Bush now tell me they wish they hadn't. They voted for him because they didn't like Gore and they wanted a tax cut, not because they wanted someone anti-porn and anti-choice in office. Many of them consider themselves Libertarians, and as such can't get behind a President (GWB) who wants to take even more freedoms away from us (i.e. thee illegalization of abortion, the criminalization of adult material, support for the 'war on drugs', etc.). I just hope that this doesn't cost me my site. We'll see...

From Reuters:

The American Civil Liberties Union (ACLU), issued a report on Monday, ``Not Moderate, Not Compassionate, Not Conservative,'' in which it portrayed Ashcroft as an extremist.

``Taken as a whole, John Ashcroft's policy positions ... reflect a fundamental opposition to long-standing interpretations of core constitutional principles,'' from separation of church and state to equal protection under the law, the ACLU wrote.

It said senators, in considering his nomination, ``Must ask themselves if Ashcroft's policies will build on our nation's struggle for liberty or reverse our hard-won gains.''

Click to expand...

Sorry for the tangent...if you have a question re: a specific story or passage in a story, send it to me via email before you submit and I'll tell you if we'd post it.





________

http://www.OpposeAshcroft.com