Banned on Literotica

[Shale]

Banned on Literotica

One of my co-workers, also a connoisseur of Literotica was surprised when I told her that I had a piece submitted that was banned by the editors. She couldn't believe, with all the variety of fringe sexuality written on Literotica that I could be banned. Amongst the stories of fucking mom, fucking dad, or raping sis that regularly appear there she couldn't imagine what I could write that would not be published.

It wasn't even a piece of my usual scentillating porn, but was in fact an essay. I dared to question the age of consent laws as being unrealistic and arbitrary. I proposed that the age of consent at 18 was set too high, and that over half the United States and most other countries agreed with me.

I realize the rule that all portrayals on Literotica, for legal reasons must indicate participants over the age of 18. In the essay I did express a desire for an under 18 person, but did not write about such a desire being fulfilled. I factually reported that my mother had sex at 14 and my grandmother at 16, not an unusual occurrence in the real world of the 1920s and '40s (or even today).

Ironically, the same story that was banned on Literotica was published in a free weekly here in South Florida, available in boxes all over the city to anyone under 18. It was deemed safe and appropriate by the editors and authorities here, but Miami may have lower standards of propriety than Literotica.

What do you guys think of this?

Shale

 

[DarlingNikki]

Hmm. Hopefully someone who knows what they're talking about will answer this, because I am curious too.

But my assumption is that a site like this is probably already frowned at and carefully scrutinized by a certain conservative segment of society which would be more than happy to find a reason to shut it down.

Posting an essay questioning the high age of consent could be construed (by people who are looking to find this type of thing) as actually suggesting that it be lowered, and slipperly slope logicians would turn that into an endorsement of child pornography - which means shutting down the site. So the administrators have to be extra careful.

But we all know what happens when we assume, so as I said, hopefully someone who knows will post an answer.

 

[Weird Harold]

But we all know what happens when we assume, so as I said, hopefully someone who knows will post an answer.

While you can post any opinion you wish on the BB (and I have on several threads argued against an arbitrary age of consent law) submitting an essay that argues against one of the firmest restrictions Literotica places on authors is "dumb" (for lack of a better term.) It's pretty much the same as submitting an essay on the benefits of animal testing to a PETA website.

Shale has NOT been banned. He has simply had a story (essay) rejected.

Laurel and Manu do NOT have to accept any story or essay for the story side of the site -- they don't even have to allow relatively unmoderated discussions on the BB, although they do. They can reject a story for any reason, or no reason at all, with no explanation other than "We do not wish to publish this story/essay."

 

[bridgeburner]

I hardly think it fair to call Shale "dumb" for bringing up the question of age of consent even to the point of wondering about its enforcement at Literotica. It's a legitimate question which may be quite legitimately ignored as well.

Nobody has done anything wrong.

Literotica doesn't need the hassle of asserting its right to publish whatever works of fiction it wishes solely to accomodate stories about underage sex. It's well within Laurel and Manu's right to make any rules they like for whatever reason they like, and disallowing something as potentially troublesome as underage sex seems a small price to pay for the freedom we all currently enjoy to explore whatever other depravities we choose.

It is precisely that freedom, however, which might lead one to believe the topic is open to discussion. Hence, Shale's bewilderment. Unfortunately, I'd have to agree that the only way to deal with the question is not to discuss it------the rule will not change no matter the strength of the arguments against it. Not because there is any great rightness or wrongness about the actual age of consent, but because the threat of persecution is too great. Why risk everything else when it's so easy to steer clear of dangerous waters?

So, Shale asked a legitimate question wich Laurel and Manu can legitimately choose not to answer. No harm no foul.

What interests me about all this is the notion of self-censorship. You cannot be prosecuted in a US court of law for writing fictional stories about illegal acts. There are whole sections of Literotica devoted to illegal sex. It is surely not the illegality of underage sex that prohibits its exploration here, but rather the threat of persecution. So, even though it's legal and we could write about it we don't allow it for fear of persecution. We curb our own rights.

I'm not saying this is a bad thing. All choices in life are a matter of what you're willing to pay for what you want to get and I'm happy to give up underage sex in order to keep Literotica persecution free (or free-er, at least), but I think it's vitally important that we recognize when we make these choices.

 

[Weird Harold]

I hardly think it fair to call Shale "dumb" for bringing up the question of age of consent even to the point of wondering about its enforcement at Literotica. It's a legitimate question which may be quite legitimately ignored as well.
...
It is precisely that freedom, however, which might lead one to believe the topic is open to discussion. Hence, Shale's bewilderment. Unfortunately, I'd have to agree that the only way to deal with the question is not to discuss it------the rule will not change no matter the strength of the arguments against it.

I used "dumb" only for lack of a better term coming to mind at the time -- Naive is another possible term, but I still can't think of just the right word to describe someone who submits an essay they should know isn't going to be accepted.

I also used the example of submitting an essay to PETA on the benefits of animal testing to try to ilustrate the point.

Perhaps the example of submitting an essay on the evils of nudity to Hustler would have been a beter example?

The point is that an essay that argues against the philosophy of the site owners is NOT an essy that I would expect to be accepted -- despite the Free Speech logos on the BB side of the site.

I don't think that Shale understands the difference between allowing freedom of discussion on the BB and the editorial decisions to publish an essay -- the BB allows for rebuttal, while publishing carries an implied agreement with the sentiments expressed by the author by the editors wihout the the option of a public discussion or rebuttal.

It's really much the same as a newspaper accepting a letter to the editor that disagrees with editorial policy that would NOT put the same sentiments on the editorial page where it might be contrued as editorial opinion.

The BB is Lit's "letters to the editor" section, while the non-erotic category is akin to Lit's editorial page.

 

[bridgeburner]

I'm parked on the exact same dead brain cell that you are with regard to the proper word. I agree that "naive" is a somewhat more accurate word but you're right that it's still not quite the thing. Of course, I can't think of what IS either.

Does this mean we're related?

 

[Weird Harold]

Does this mean we're related?

Probably not, but we at least share the same disease -- Chronic Brain Farts.

 

[TheEarl]

It's slightly cheeky to write an essay against one of the principles of Lit and then complain when it's not accepted. That essay has basically said that Laurel's wrong, so you can't really expect her to welcome it with open arms.

On a side point, I agree that the minimum age of Lit is too high IMHO. I live in England where the age of consent is 16 and it's frustrating having a higher limit for my stories.

Cheeky isn't quite the word you're looking for WH, especially not as it has a wider meaning in English slang than in American. Maybe 'self-defeating'?

WH doesn't know something? The entire BB will collapse!

The Earl

 

[MissTaken]

Additional information:

http://www.literotica.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=140134

 

[Weird Harold]

WH doesn't know something? The entire BB will collapse!

Impudent isa nother possibility -- fairly close to "Cheeky" in the Brit usage, no.

It isn't that I don't have this particualr answer, it's just that I can't find it. No danger of the BB collapsing there, it's just a filing system error and not a catastophic failure at taht.

 

[Shale]

I hardly think it fair to call Shale "dumb" for bringing up the question of age of consent ...

I'd like to thank "bridgeburner" for seeming to understand the point that I was making in this thread. I was not trying to post an erotic story involving anyone under 18 years of age, therefore I was "bewildered" when I received the reply:

> Dear Writer,

> Thank you for your submission to Literotica. We appreciate the time and
> effort you've taken to write a story and submit it to our site. However,
> we've found that we cannot post your submission. The checklist below may
> help you in re-examining your manuscript.

> _X_ Was there an underage (under 18 years old) sexual relationship in my story?

(yeah, I mentioned the fact that my mama is 15 years older than me!)

This was not an erotic story, it was an essay exploring the absurdity of age of consent laws with an unreal age of 18. Unfortunately, because it cannot be posted on Literotica, everyone who has been chastising me, has been doing so blindly. No one discussing this issue knows anything of what I wrote. Poor journalistic practice folks!

I was neither "dumb" nor naive as Weird Harold proposes, because I did not submit "an essay (I) should know isn't going to be accepted." I honestly thought the rule applied to erotic stories with characters under 18 and did not know that essays exploring social issues were not allowed.

Nor, was I being cheeky as The Earl assumed for submitting an essay that "basically said that Laurel's wrong, so you can't really expect her to welcome it with open arms." I was exploring the age of consent laws in the essay, and did not make any reference to Laurel's policy on Literotica.

I fully understand the reasons behind such a stringent policy of not depicting people under the age of 18 in an erotic story. It is so the site does not receive legal grief from those14 backward states in the U.S. that have that as their age of consent. (Better hope Trinidad & Tobago don't bring suit because we portray people under 21 having sex) And, as The Earl pointed out, it is just frustrating to have to inflate the age of a character unrealistically, but we all know the legalistic necessity of avoiding the bluenoses.

I just brought the issue up on the bulletin boards for discussion and reflection. I was more amused by my essay being rejected than put out. As indicated by my first sentence, it is a sort of badge of distinction to say "I was banned on Literotica." Sort of like the song line "Linda Lovelace calls me obscene." I wasn't paid any less for this rejected piece than for those stories and essays of mine that do get posted.

 

[TheEarl]

Even though you did not mention Laurel's policy you were speaking out against it. It's like going to the Tory party and asking whether you can post Labour propaganda on their notice board (For Americans add Republicans and Democrats for Tory andLabour).

The Earl

 

[TheEarl]

Re your feedback from Laurel: With the amount of submission she gets, I think we're lucky to get anything more than a 'no' e-mail. That automated statement was probably the closest option to why she refused your submission and to complain that it isn't that close to what was actually wrong with it seems a little churlish.

The Earl

 

[bridgeburner]

Labouring Democrats

One could only wish our Democratic Party were as liberal as Labour. ;->

 

[Weird Harold]

I was neither "dumb" nor naive as Weird Harold proposes, because I did not submit "an essay (I) should know isn't going to be accepted." I honestly thought the rule applied to erotic stories with characters under 18 and did not know that essays exploring social issues were not allowed.

Nor, was I being cheeky as The Earl assumed for submitting an essay that "basically said that Laurel's wrong, so you can't really expect her to welcome it with open arms." I was exploring the age of consent laws in the essay, and did not make any reference to Laurel's policy on Literotica.

I repeat, because you apprently missed it:

originally postd by Weird Harold:

I don't think that Shale understands the difference between allowing freedom of discussion on the BB and the editorial decisions to publish an essay -- the BB allows for rebuttal, while publishing carries an implied agreement with the sentiments expressed by the author by the editors wihout the the option of a public discussion or rebuttal.

You can't claim you banned by Literotica. You just had a submission rejected. There is a BIG difference between being banned and simply not being accepted.

 

[hiddenself]

I repeat, because you apprently missed it:

You can't claim you banned by Literotica. You just had a submission rejected. There is a BIG difference between being banned and simply not being accepted.

I beg to differ.

Yes, every publisher has the right to refuse any submission. But that effectively amounts to censoring of views that go against what the publisher finds acceptable. Media do it, political parties do it, we all do it in our lives.

But the question is whether such a policy in Lit is reasonable. I submit that it is not. It does not make sense (given what other kinds of 'immoral' or 'illegal' or even 'repulsive' stuff other published stories contain). It is indefensible and hypocritical. Lit finds fantasy stories of rape and incest acceptable, but not ones with reference to consensual sex for under-18 participants. And everyone here is trying to justify it. Go figure.

 

[bridgeburner]

I wasn't aware of any great number of people trying to justify anything. There's a policy at Literotica which is what it is. They don't have to justify it. They're under no obligation to please anyone but themselves. They could rule that they'll accept no stories containing the word "Blue" in them and there's fuck-all anyone could say about it.

 

[Octavian]

Dumb?

I would have thought a more apt word would have been 'provocative'.

Octavian
Bearer of the Silver Rose

 

[bridgeburner]

Excellent choice in verbiage, Sir.

 

[TheEarl]

Offtopic

Love the sig Bridgeburner

 

[bridgeburner]

Thanks! It's the only T-shirt worthy phrase I've ever coined and I'm rather fond of it myself.

 

[The Beast]

to point out

Wanted to point out that extreme stories are no longer acceptable (apparently). Perhaps there is something occuring we are not all aware of (legally). That may also account for the other rejections (?). Hopefully the problems will be resolved.

 

[flyingcarpet]

She's Got a Nice Bottom

Just one thing for you to ponder. Literotica almost certainly draws the line at 18 because the puritanical vultures can't get a legal toe hold. Let's ignore them for a minute.

Let's say, for purposes of discussion, that the editors decided to accept a minimum age of 16 on a trial basis, and a flood of stories gets written and accepted. Fine, no problem, no one's really outraged.

What about the people that want to write about losing their viginity at 15? That's not a big step down, is it?

Where does this gradual process stop? Some of the readers here don't think the words "too" and "young" belong together in a sentence.

Eighteen is as arbitrary as any other number. It has the advantage of being legally acceptable.

I also suspect that Literotica's readership might start to dwindle if the number went too low. I know one reader that would stop, anyway.

BTW: Lit is a privately run site, to the best of my knowledge. That means all posts are present by the consent of the owner. While it's good to kow what a specific item was disallowed, excessive protesting is pointless (not that I'm suggesting your protest was "excessive").

 

[hiddenself]

Mixing up free speech with reality

Eighteen is as arbitrary as any other number. It has the advantage of being legally acceptable.

First, there is no legal age limit to fiction. "Legal" applies to real life situations. I can write up a story with a 12-year-old having sex and there's nothing the law can do to me.

If I describe such a story AND state that it actually happened, then the participating adult(s) may be in legal trouble. In practice, however, rarely is there retroactive prosecution if the (now adult) victim opposes it.

I also suspect that Literotica's readership might start to dwindle if the number went too low. I know one reader that would stop, anyway.

Maybe SOME people might be offended if they saw stories with 15-year-olds having sex. So? Doesn't the same argument applies (maybe more forcefully for other readers) to rape, incest and other types of sex stories? "Underage" stories would be a separate category and you wouldn't have to read them if you didn't want to. Why would you want to leave Lit entirely?


Finally, I do agree that the owners set the rules in their house. In the case of media and publication outlets, rules which prohibit certain kinds of legal speech (like Lit's age limit) constitute "(self) censoring." To say that it happens because of some legal requirement is totally inaccurate.


hs

 

[TheEarl]

Hiddenself: Speak for yourself. If I wrote a story involving someone under 16 (min age in England), then I could be arrested and imprisoned for 5 years. If Lit accepted stories involving under 16s having sex, then I could be arrested and imprisoned for 5 years for just going on the site, even if I didn't read the story. If Lit had a link to a site which had stories involving under 16s having sex, then I could be arrested and imprisoned for 5 years for just being in a place with access to the link, even if I didn't click on it.

Theoretically if my computer was impounded, I'm sure I could be arrested under the very precise English law preventing "material that has the potential to corrupt or deprave" simply for searching on Altavista and some of the results being illegal material.

The Earl