Am I being too cheeky for my own good?

[Bubo_bubo]

Before putting up my magnum opus, I was thinking of putting up a series of stories of a more lighthearted nature. Part of the introduction to that would be something like this (towards the end of the prologue):

Of course, her beauty was appreciated by the boys at school in purely aesthetic sense, neither they nor she yet having reached the fateful age of eighteen and thus lacking in sexual impulses. Because such was the world they lived in.

That didn’t mean that young people weren’t aware of what sex was. They were prepared and did have sex education and knew of sex. But no one under eighteen had any sexual impulses at all, and anyone over eighteen simply couldn’t bear to have any sexual impulses towards those under eighteen. However, when a person reached their eighteenth birthday, all bets were off. The ‘Eighteen’ as it was called hit people in different ways. Some became gradually aware of their sexual nature and dealt with it with grace and dignity. Other became ravening sluts or horn dogs. Most lay somewhere in between. And not only that. It also affected those around them. Suddenly where once people couldn’t bear to think of the person in a sexual way, they were able to show sexual interest in them once the Eighteen hit.

As the title says, would that be too cheeky?

 

[gunhilltrain]

Before putting up my magnum opus, I was thinking of putting up a series of stories of a more lighthearted nature. Part of the introduction to that would be something like this (towards the end of the prologue):



As the title says, would that be too cheeky?

Well, first of all, you're definitely going into get into trouble with Lit's eighteen-plus rule despite the claim about people under eighteen having no sexual desires.

So, assuming that you put it somewhere else (there are places where you can go with it) then it's, what? It reminds me of science fiction in a way. If you are going to have people who are very different from the usual physical and psychological make-up of humans, then you probably want to explain what happened. Say, in Ira Levin's This Perfect Day, a small group of computer programmers use their machines to take over and change humanity. A bit far-fetched, but at least it's internally consistent.

If you are just going to say "in this world" and then just bring up a different kind of behavior well, sorry, that's kind of boring, not cheeky.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Not so much cheeky as not very subtle. You're relying on sexual tropes that "suddenly" appear in this society of yours, without forming a sexual identity first?

At least Logan's Run had Jenny Agutter, which made it work, but your approach sounds a bit lazy.

 

[Bubo_bubo]

Well, first of all, you're definitely going into get into trouble with Lit's eighteen-plus rule despite the claim about people under eighteen having no sexual desires.

OK, I'm curious. Why?

 

[lovecraft68]

Before putting up my magnum opus, I was thinking of putting up a series of stories of a more lighthearted nature. Part of the introduction to that would be something like this (towards the end of the prologue):



As the title says, would that be too cheeky?

Might be me, but the way I read this is a contradiction. You say they have no sexual impulses until 18 (this give me a Brave new world feel if you ever read that) so okay, but then you go into they knew she was attractive, had sex ed, knew what sex was. but had no impulse, which is confusing because if you know about something, how could you not want it?

So if you want to cover your ass as far as Lit being hard on people even thinking about sex before 18(yeah. its stupid, but its what they do) I would drop everything other than, there is no impulse before 18 or age your characters up slightly. But as is, I think you have an issue both with the site, and continuity

 

[Bubo_bubo]

Not so much cheeky as not very subtle. You're relying on sexual tropes that "suddenly" appear in this society of yours, without forming a sexual identity first?

At least Logan's Run had Jenny Agutter, which made it work, but your approach sounds a bit lazy.

Well yes. Since we can't have any sex before 18.

 

[Bubo_bubo]

Might be me, but the way I read this is a contradiction. You say they have no sexual impulses until 18 (this give me a Brave new world feel if you ever read that) so okay, but then you go into they knew she was attractive, had sex ed, knew what sex was. but had no impulse, which is confusing because if you know about something, how could you not want it?

That does seem bizarre to me OTOH. Why should knowing about something imply wanting it?

ETA: I mean I can know about the effects of coke without wanting to do coke for instance.

 

[gunhilltrain]

OK, I'm curious. Why?

First of all, I should have said, "Incomplete or unfinished," not boring. The wrong word I think.

I can't exactly predict what this site will do. I know it sounds paradoxical, but it's likely mentioning the lack of sexuality among teenagers will get it rejected. I can say they are quite picky about this topic, and merely saying that they will be sexual and are not there yet could be the issue. I can't prove this, but there are likely "bots" going through stories (we doubt that one or two people could do it all) and they may pick up certain words. It's a bit crude, but it's definitely not AI.

You could try it and see what happens. If it does get rejected, you may not hear the exact reason. I've never had this happen to me, but others have said that they had to resubmit it with changes and while doing that, tell Laurel what they had changed. If what I've heard is true, she will expect you to figure out the issue yourself and not ask her beforehand for guidance.

That's all I know. Rather than try to navigate Lit's admittedly confusing rules, I just go elsewhere if age-related issues are a potential problem. I got away with a story about high school seniors because, 1, I made it clear that they were past their eighteenth birthdays, and 2, just to be sure, I set it in the last two months of the senior year. Even then I wasn't completely confident that it would pass.

 

[Bubo_bubo]

OK

<snip>

That's all I know. Rather than try to navigate Lit's admittedly confusing rules, I just go elsewhere if age-related issues are a potential problem.<snip>

Let's be clear, the idea is not to have underage relationships simulated. It really is more about the idea of "suddenly 18, everything is OK"

 

[ElectricBlue]

OK

Let's be clear, the idea is not to have underage relationships simulated. It really is more about the idea of "suddenly 18, everything is OK"

I'm too old for eighteen year olds. Nowadays, my youngest female leads tend to be late twenties/early thirties, and even then, I'm writing them against my standard younger protagonist.

Having a daughter just turned 29 has got something to do with it - her bunch of mates nowadays defines my lower limits. It's just a bit weird, otherwise.

 

[SimonDoom]

The problem isn't that it's cheeky, but that the satire doesn't work. You are attempting to satirize something. But for satire to work, your readers must believe that there's a valid point you are making through your satire. I don't think you are.

This site has a quasi-arbitrary rule about forbidding stories with any sexual content concerning people under 18. It does NOT rest on the idea that the site believes people under 18 are not sexual. Nobody believes that. It's simply a bright-line rule intended to provide the site some protection. So, you are satirizing something nobody believes. The satire is hollow.

 

[Bubo_bubo]

The problem isn't that it's cheeky, but that the satire doesn't work. You are attempting to satirize something. But for satire to work, your readers must believe that there's a valid point you are making through your satire. I don't think you are.

This site has a quasi-arbitrary rule about forbidding stories with any sexual content concerning people under 18. It does NOT rest on the idea that the site believes people under 18 are not sexual. Nobody believes that. It's simply a bright-line rule intended to provide the site some protection. So, you are satirizing something nobody believes. The satire is hollow.

Nobody believes that people under 18 are not sexual yet one cannot write about it? And that cannot be satirised? Are you serious?

 

[MillieDynamite]

OK, I'm curious. Why?

In my humble opinion, you will get rejected because you are, quite, literally making fun of the rules here. You're satirizing the hosts of the site and their guidelines. Or am I full of shit, and this is not your goal?

 

[Bubo_bubo]

In my humble opinion, you will get rejected because you are, quite, literally making fun of the rules here. You're satirizing the hosts of the site and their guidelines. Or am I full of shit, and this is not your goal?

though I'd hope they'd have a sense of humour

 

[MillieDynamite]

though I'd hope they'd have a sense of humour

Rather doubt they do on that one!

 

[MrPixel]

If they had a sense of humor about it, it was exhausted years ago. I would tend to think they're just weary of the constant pushback on this; it is what it is. The satire would be lost in the "what the F ever" eye-roll.

 

[Bubo_bubo]

But yeah, the idea was to gently mock the 18 yo rule while not breaking it.

 

[SimonDoom]

Nobody believes that people under 18 are not sexual yet one cannot write about it? And that cannot be satirised? Are you serious?

What is "it"?

If "it" is the absurdity of the rule, then yes, that's a legitimate object of satire, because it IS odd, particularly in light of the fact that one can watch TV shows about under 18 sex, and movies about under 18 sex, and teens can check out books by Judy Blume at the local library about under 18 sex. I don't know if the site will let you do it, but it's a legitimate subject for spoofing and satirizing. I frankly think it's a somewhat ridiculous rule, and that too many people here get the vapors about the possibility that a story involves under-18 sex, although I understand it from the point of view of the site wanting to minimize risk.

But that's not the "it" of the passage you cited. Maybe you intended it that way, but that's not the way it came across--to me, anyway. You appear to be implying that somebody actually believes that people under 18 are not sexual and magically turn sexual at the age of 18, and that's not a good subject for satire, because nobody actually claims that. You're satirizing phantoms. For satire to work, the object of your satire must be clear. I think that's a problem with the passage you cited.

 

[Bubo_bubo]

What is "it"?

If "it" is the absurdity of the rule, then yes, that's a legitimate object of satire, because it IS odd, particularly in light of the fact that one can watch TV shows about under 18 sex, and movies about under 18 sex, and teens can check out books by Judy Blume at the local library about under 18 sex. I don't know if the site will let you do it, but it's a legitimate subject for spoofing and satirizing. I frankly think it's a somewhat ridiculous rule, and that too many people here get the vapors about the possibility that a story involves under-18 sex, although I understand it from the point of view of the site wanting to minimize risk.

But that's not the "it" of the passage you cited. Maybe you intended it that way, but that's not the way it came across--to me, anyway. You appear to be implying that somebody actually believes that people under 18 are not sexual and magically turn sexual at the age of 18, and that's not a good subject for satire, because nobody actually claims that. You're satirizing phantoms. For satire to work, the object of your satire must be clear. I think that's a problem with the passage you cited.

It's more that for the rules of the site to be working in real life, something like as what I described should be in effect. Yes, that is unrealistic, but so are the rules, or at least what they imply.

 

[TxRad]

The rule is what the rule is. Laurel won't bend on it. End of story.

Satire just won't work as there is nothing to build on.

 

[Bubo_bubo]

The rule is what the rule is. Laurel won't bend on it. End of story.

Satire just won't work as there is nothing to build on.

So in what way does what I wrote break the rule?

 

[TxRad]

*sigh*

Write it, submit it, and find out.

 

[KeithD]

You'd be poking the sole submissions editor and site owner, who hasn't shown a high tolerance for criticism over the years, with a stick, so, sure, what could possibly go wrong in the posting service you'd get here?

 

[Jmanchu]

Before putting up my magnum opus, I was thinking of putting up a series of stories of a more lighthearted nature. Part of the introduction to that would be something like this (towards the end of the prologue):



As the title says, would that be too cheeky?

You might be flying a little close to the sun there Icarus. That story looks like its flying on wax wings with its *hint hint* sexual education stuff and under-18 sexuality lore. The fact that you repeatedly point out the sexuality(or how unsexual they are, but they're learning about how to do it?) of when they're under 18, even if they're "not sexually interested," might spark problems. But what do I know. I've never flown past the 18 mark and tried to test it like you have. Seems like a more of a bad idea, since who is the one laughing at the joke or ribbing of the rule here?

The irony is the fact that you keep pointing out about how before they're eighteen the specific way they have no sexual impulses while describing a paragraph of their sex ed and how they're sooo not interested in anything sexual when they're under 18 is what makes it look worse.

People can get off on innocence and your thing sounds inadvertently "innocent," in that way. Remember a lack of sexuality is still a sexuality(asexuality). if it's not sexual, then why do you have to emphasize the nonsexuality and their sex ed on how to be ready for sex? It stops being innocently cheeky at one point and more "poke the bear" kind of cheeky.

If cheeky is your goal, hope it comes off as cute and not as you trying to safely limbo under a hard-set rule just to cause some trouble for the mod, or editor. Otherwise, well, you'll know if you were too cheeky if it gets rejected. Here's a saying: Play with fire and you'll get burnt.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Not so much cheeky as not very subtle. You're relying on sexual tropes that "suddenly" appear in this society of yours, without forming a sexual identity first?

At least Logan's Run had Jenny Agutter, which made it work, but your approach sounds a bit lazy.

I love Jenny Agutter. Of course, she's sixty-nine now, but that's only two years older than I am. I'd still go on a date with her, but I highly doubt that is ever going to happen.