Don't understand the Editors

[leeanna19]

Odd site this I posted a sweet story based on my life. When I was 6 I got caught wearing my mum's underwear.

There was no violence , NO SEX , just a boy who's mother agrees to let him dress as a girl.
Yet it was rejected? No one read it as the first line said there is no sex in this story.

Yet there are rape , torture and suicide stories here?

Madness

 

[KeithD]

There's simply no account for taste here, is there.

 

[MillieDynamite]

I hope they were pretty panties.

 

[leeanna19]

The rejection below , None of that in the story just a mother that lets a boy wear girls clothes.
Bit annoyed about that. It was fine on Fictionmania and Bigcloset. They wouldn't allow half the stuff that's on here.

do not accept stories involving people under the age of 18 in sexual situations: http://www.literotica.com/faq/05235347.shtml#05319407 This includes but is not limited to talking explicitly about sex, voyeurism, exhibitionism, fantasizing, masturbation, and graphic sexualized descriptions, in addition to actual sexual intercourse. This also includes explicit past remembrances, descriptions of an underage person’s body/physical development and/or the reaction of other people to it; references to people under the age of 18 “playing doctor” or “sex education”, and any similar situations.

Might ask them to pull all my stories now, think calm thoughts LOL

 

[CyranoJ]

If I had to guess I'd say maybe the last clause there tripped you up, but at any rate, there's really nothing anyone here can do (and talking down on other types of story b/c yours got rejected ain't the answer). You'd need to take it up with Laurel.

 

[leeanna19]

If I had to guess I'd say maybe the last clause there tripped you up, but at any rate, there's really nothing anyone here can do (and talking down on other types of story b/c yours got rejected ain't the answer). You'd need to take it up with Laurel.

I used to post on a contact site, got a few story of the months. Then they would take stuff down a month later because someone complained that sex was not quite agreed to. Drove me up the wall, I kept having to re-write.

Gave up in the end and edited them all with the F/M link.

What I don't like is you can't question why it was rejected. They should change the rule to not include anyone under the age of 18 no matter what. Then probably 20 % of stories would disappear.

My argument is that crossdressing to a 6 year old is not sexual. It's very strange to think it is.

 

[KeithD]

My argument is that crossdressing to a 6 year old is not sexual. It's very strange to think it is.

Crossdressing is ipso facto sexually related. It wouldn't be crossdressing otherwise--it would just be dressing.

(But I still think you're just having a joke with us with this thread.)

 

[leeanna19]

I hope they were pretty panties.

They were blue nylon with white lace and hearts. You always remember your first pair of panties, like your first car LOL

I was only 6. Got shouted at and went into the closet.

 

[CyranoJ]

My argument is that crossdressing to a 6 year old is not sexual. It's very strange to think it is.

I get it, for sure.

I think you should be able to send site feedback to Laurel via the contact form on her forum profile, if that's any help.

 

[Auden James]

You truly seem to reason in quite a particular kind of way, CyranoJ.

What, obviously (and understandably), displeased the OP is the site administrator's illogical censorship of submitted content. If it is morally (or whatever -ly) alright to publish rape, torture and suicide stories here, but not so much an anecdote about a boy caught wearing his mum's underwear, then one is hard-pressed for a coherent, if rational, explanation of this disparity in publishing policy.

Th OP has every right to point this out.

 

[leeanna19]

Crossdressing is ipso facto sexually related. It wouldn't be crossdressing otherwise--it would just be dressing.

(But I still think you're just having a joke with us with this thread.)

Not to a 6 year old. It just dressing like the person you think you are. Adults sexualize it. Children don't.

Anyone know how I contact admin?

 

[leeanna19]

You truly seem to reason in quite a particular kind of way, CyranoJ.

What, obviously (and understandably), displeased the OP is the site administrator's illogical censorship of submitted content. If it is morally (or whatever -ly) alright to publish rape, torture and suicide stories here, but not so much an anecdote about a boy caught wearing his mum's underwear, then one is hard-pressed for a coherent, if rational, explanation of this disparity in publishing policy.

Th OP has every right to point this out.

Thanks

 

[KeithD]

I think you're all just putting us on here.

In all those photos pedos take of six-year-olds in sexual poses, the six-year-old has no idea they are sex shots either. That's irrelevant to what's going on.

This is just not the Web site for this material.

 

[Anthonysdaughter]

Crossdressing is ipso facto sexually related. It wouldn't be crossdressing otherwise--it would just be dressing.

If you think about it crossdressing is a very biased term. Only males can cross dress. Growing up my daughters "borrowed" their brother's shirts and jackets, they wore hand-me-down boy's jeans preferring the old worn ones to newer ones. Men's briefs are marketed to women. Nothing that a man wears today would raise many eyebrows if a woman wore it in public.

 

[KeithD]

If you think about it crossdressing is a very biased term. Only males can cross dress. Growing up my daughters "borrowed" their brother's shirts and jackets, they wore hand-me-down boy's jeans preferring the old worn ones to newer ones. Men's briefs are marketed to women. Nothing that a man wears today would raise many eyebrows if a woman wore it in public.

I don't have to think about it to understand and accept the call Literotica makes on the material being posted to Literotica. I've only looked at this thread in those terms. Those are the terms that exist on this issue here.

This is an erotica site. The story doesn't belong here. It's the Web site's call to make and they called it.

 

[Auden James]

Anyone know how I contact admin?

You could try to send a PM to Laurel: https://forum.literotica.com/member.php?u=7

Though it is highly unlikely that that will make any difference; as KeithD pointed out, it is her call and she made her call. There is nothing really that you can do about it other than publishing your story somewhere else.

 

[SimonDoom]

There are many legitimate gripes about the uncertainties and inconsistencies in the ways that the Site handles content regulations. But this situation isn't uncertain at all. It's totally obvious that this content won't fly.

It's very simple: you have to look at this from the standpoint of who is READING the stories. It has nothing to do with you as an author, and your motives, and the subjective way you look at the experience you are recounting.

A story about a 6 year old wearing mum's underwear, no matter how "sweet" and "innocent" will be perceived (and enjoyed) by a certain class of readers for its erotic underage content. Period. It's that simple. So it's not going to fly here. The Site has made this very clear. It does not want to allow material that creates this appeal. Whatever your intention, there is no doubt whatsoever that this story content will create this appeal for certain readers.

 

[Anthonysdaughter]

I don't have to think about it to understand and accept the call Literotica makes on the material being posted to Literotica. I've only looked at this thread in those terms. Those are the terms that exist on this issue here.

This is an erotica site. The story doesn't belong here. It's the Web site's call to make and they called it.

Okay...

I wasn't disagreeing and your clarification which if applied to your earlier statement...

Crossdressing is ipso facto sexually related. It wouldn't be crossdressing otherwise--it would just be dressing.

Makes sense now.

Maybe its my language, people assume I'm arguing for or against rules I cannot change. I'm not. I don't own the site and I keep busy enough running the business that I do own that I don't want another job. The lack of clarity and the lack of consistency is what troubles me. I see that my statement was a far more general response than you intended the comment you made to be.

 

[KarenKKraft]

Odd site this I posted a sweet story based on my life. When I was 6 I got caught wearing my mum's underwear.

There was no violence , NO SEX , just a boy who's mother agrees to let him dress as a girl.
Yet it was rejected? No one read it as the first line said there is no sex in this story.

Yet there are rape , torture and suicide stories here?

Madness

It's understandable. The people who operate this platform need to be VERY careful with respect to the age of ALL characters in the stories. Why? Because some people will misinterpret a story in such a manner that to them, it appears to describe, condone, or maintain a neutral stance on sex involving children, even though that is clearly not the case. Not everyone in this world looks at this platform with our adoring eyes (been here since 2002). Some spend their time searching for supposed excesses involving underage people in order to hurt or even destroy the platform. If I had a story about kids playing baseball (just a happy seasonal story, mind you) I would NOT post it here. I do not see any form of costuming (cross dressing or otherwise) as sexually implicit, but then again, I pay no attention to the subject anyway. The rules are there to help ensure that we can continue to enjoy the platform and stop The Crazies from shutting it down. Don't give up. Keep sharing your stories! --Karen

 

[Auden James]

This is not about any "Crazies," since the SCOTUS has already ruled on this issue quite clearly back in 2002 (see Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition), this is about a personal decision of the site's administrator to curtail free speech in a rather particular way.

 

[KeithD]

This is not about any "Crazies," since the SCOTUS has already ruled on this issue quite clearly back in 2002 (see Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition), this is about a personal decision of the site's administrator to curtail free speech in a rather particular way.

You do like to run tired topics into the ground, don't you?

 

[NotWise]

Not to a 6 year old. It just dressing like the person you think you are. Adults sexualize it. Children don't.

Anyone know how I contact admin?

You know your audience is adult, right?

You can resubmit your story and try to explain in the notes section how that isn't really a sexual situation involving a six-year-old. But what's the point? You've already admitted that adults sexualize the situation, and your audience is adult.

 

[LAHomedog]

I was only 6. Got shouted at and went into the closet.

With the understanding that I do not have a dog in this hunt, I am going to suggest to you that this statement, which is a comment about sexuality and sexual identity is the essence of the issue.

When you say, "went into the closet" that implies being gay and hiding it. It doesn't matter if you are 6 or 60, saying "in the closet" means someone is hiding their sexual orientation. And that I think is the critical point.

 

[KarenKKraft]

It has been so for ages!

This is not about any "Crazies," since the SCOTUS has already ruled on this issue quite clearly back in 2002 (see Ashcroft v. Free Speech Coalition), this is about a personal decision of the site's administrator to curtail free speech in a rather particular way.

Again, it is not free to defend a b.s. lawsuit by a government entity, even when one is 100% right. And you are correct, the decision is with the owners, administrators of the website. I am please to be allowed to post here, either as Karen Kraft or more recently as KarenKKraft, because I know that I do not own the website and I am allowed to post here only because of the generosity of the powers that be. The "age thing" has been the same here for twenty years. It is not a matter of The Law; it is a matter of not wanting to spend time, money, and energy defending bogus suits falsely claiming some form of pornography involving minors.

 

[LAHomedog]

Maybe its my language, people assume I'm arguing for or against rules I cannot change.

We don't know each other, but when I read these threads, since you popped in a while back, yes, it does seem as if you are just arguing for or against the site's rules.

People seems to feel that this is a public square, or public untility -- that seems to be a common problem all over the web -- but it is not. It is a privately owned website and ownership can make any rules they want to and impose them.

You say you own your own business. As a business owner, you create and impose your own rules in your workplace and business and your employees and/or customers have to follow them. Lit is no different.

These are the rules of this particular playground.