Girl who "Turned 18" Today but wasn't born till 1130pm

[FantasySharer1]

Would there be a policy objection on the site of mentioning a girl who turned 18 the day of the stories setting, but wasn't born till nearly midnight of that day, stressing just how young she is while still being 100% legal?

Thinking about doing a story where this is a minor detail.

 

[gunhilltrain]

This is a new one for me. Does it really have to be before 11:30 PM on her birthday? My guess is that the site doesn't have a policy on the time of day, but I wouldn't be surprised if they cooked up such a policy just to be annoying and to pick some nits on your story.

 

[000zing]

Thinking about doing a story where this is a minor detail.

Like it.

 

[Defluer]

I understand. My logical half has asked how midnight on a certain day makes it okay but 24 hours less is wrong... (I mean... Especially that!) but it is. It's wrong. Mostly it might be something they catch and something extra that they add to the algorithm that will make me jump through MORE hoops when I post something. At some point we won't even be able to mention any point in a characters life before 18 years of age. I already got slapped down for saying "Freshman" even though I established everyone was well past 18/graduation. I don't want to have to mention what time my character was born at, if they're only eighteen, just to pass the "Truly 18 Test".

Plus... Some people may see it as you saying, "They're 18!" Looks around, smirks, motions over, whispers. "But they aren't eighteen!"

 

[SimonDoom]

I don't know what the site would do, but you might have a problem because it looks like you're deliberately trying to work around the under 18 rule. I mean, what's the point? You're going for the titillation of a girl that is not yet 18 years old but legally might be regarded as 18. That's the point of the scenario, right? I think the site might prohibit it if it caught on.

 

[theWollstonecraftWoman]

Being that I'm new, I'm not sure my opinion would matter much, but the sort of push, which seems unnecessary, like striking a beehive, because you want to see if it stirs them up.

 

[gunhilltrain]

I don't know what the site would do, but you might have a problem because it looks like you're deliberately trying to work around the under 18 rule. I mean, what's the point? You're going for the titillation of a girl that is not yet 18 years old but legally might be regarded as 18. That's the point of the scenario, right? I think the site might prohibit it if it caught on.

Most people celebrate their birthdays on the date of their birth (say, mine is May 29), not the exact hour (which I think was about four o'clock in the morning).

Nevertheless, this one of the reasons I joined two other sites with lower age limits. The nit-picking that goes on here (and we the forum posters add to it ) is weirdly obsessive. I don't know how many times this age question has come up in the last four years. It's like what we did in the Boy Scouts a long time ago: how close can I get to the edge of this cliff without falling off?

 

[KeithD]

Would there be a policy objection on the site of mentioning a girl who turned 18 the day of the stories setting, but wasn't born till nearly midnight of that day, stressing just how young she is while still being 100% legal?

Thinking about doing a story where this is a minor detail.

Why would you think it necessary to do this fudge? Think about why you need to do that on this Web site.

 

[FantasySharer1]

I think there's enough of a reason not to - part of the fun of stories is to push boundaries and this is a boundary. There's not a "need" to do it at all. My goal is to stay legal and within policy while adding a taboo. The feedback I'm getting is, "don't push this boundary". That's probably good advice.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

I don't know what the site would do, but you might have a problem because it looks like you're deliberately trying to work around the under 18 rule. I mean, what's the point? You're going for the titillation of a girl that is not yet 18 years old but legally might be regarded as 18. That's the point of the scenario, right? I think the site might prohibit it if it caught on.

...Or if was reported by a reader after posting it.

I understand how frustrating the "no sex involving anyone under 18" can be, but I can tell you that having characters under 18 who don't engage in any sexual activity are in several of my stories, from the first one I submitted here to the series I am publishing currently. In one story, I have an uncle and his eighteen-year-old niece involved in sexual activity, but they wait to bring her "Irish Twin" into the mix until she is also 18.

 

[CyranoJ]

Would there be a policy objection on the site of mentioning a girl who turned 18 the day of the stories setting, but wasn't born till nearly midnight of that day, stressing just how young she is while still being 100% legal?

Thinking about doing a story where this is a minor detail.

Like others, I'm confused as to why you feel the need to split this particular hair so finely or even mention it at all. Basically, this seems like deliberately "playing chicken" with the age limit.

 

[stickygirl]

Not another one.
Go ahead if you want - spend hours of time and effort, but don't come crying to us if it's rejected. This eighteen year old rule is there to stop the site being taken to court for promoting underage sex in a country with a cockameme legal system. Is it worth the site's time to risk everything because you want to make a point by pushing boundaries?

 

[TheWorldBuilder]

My own situation is the OP's scenario reversed. I was born at 23:40 GMT on 10 April but, because a bunch of stupid politicians had decided that it would be a good idea to lie about something as fundamental as what time it was, my birth was registered as having occurred on 11 April. I was 16 years and a day old when I reached the legal age of consent.

 

[Crownvic]

Minor detail...wait until tomorrow..

 

[soflabbwlvr]

Why? I mean, why?

 

[SandyWhitlock]

I wouldn't. What's the point? I have several stories where I mention the character recently turned 18. Maybe that was yesterday, a month ago or three months ago. I think that's taboo enough. If I read that she was legal but the author makes it a point to say "but really she's not 18 until the end of the day" it would make me think you were really wanting to write a character that wasn't 18 and that is your work around.

 

[FantasySharer1]

Yeah, I agree with all the posters saying don't do it. There's really no point for such a minor detail. Thanks for the direction all

 

[MillieDynamite]

Silly, rabbit tricks are for treats, and you're not tricking anyone, so no treats for you!

 

[lovecraft68]

I was going to ask if this detail is that important, but then I realized you're playing the barely legal game to the hilt, because I guess it matters if a girl is 18 and a month or literally the clock just struck on her birthday just as she spreads her legs.

Kind of creepy in my opinion

 

[gunhilltrain]

Not another one.
Go ahead if you want - spend hours of time and effort, but don't come crying to us if it's rejected. This eighteen year old rule is there to stop the site being taken to court for promoting underage sex in a country with a cockameme legal system. Is it worth the site's time to risk everything because you want to make a point by pushing boundaries?

Then how come there are sites that allow younger age limits? And print publishing goes quite low in ages too and I haven't heard of any court challenges in the Western world, at least.

Lolita and other works were banned in Iran after the 1979 revolution, yet a professor and some of her students secretly read it anyway. See, Reading Lolita in Tehran. I hope the link works.

 

[gunhilltrain]

Yes, the link works. It took some courage to do that with official "morality squads" going around raiding places. I wonder if Lit is available online in Iran or can they block sites like that?

My guess is that it's the preferences of Lit's owners - which they have the right to do - rather than any anxiety about legal challenges.

 

[Rustyoznail]

Yes, the link works. It took some courage to do that with official "morality squads" going around raiding places. I wonder if Lit is available online in Iran or can they block sites like that?

My guess is that it's the preferences of Lit's owners - which they have the right to do - rather than any anxiety about legal challenges.

A government can block sites - China does it wholesale. Journalists covering the Beijing Olympics discovered that to be true.

I'd say the owners of Lit have chosen to take a hard line because they want to limit their exposure to moral outrage and possible litigation. It costs money to mount a defence, even if you know damn well you're legally in the clear.

 

[gunhilltrain]

A government can block sites - China does it wholesale. Journalists covering the Beijing Olympics discovered that to be true.

I'd say the owners of Lit have chosen to take a hard line because they want to limit their exposure to moral outrage and possible litigation. It costs money to mount a defence, even if you know damn well you're legally in the clear.

China and Iran can block the Internet, but they can't stop a site from appearing elsewhere. Also, their legal systems do not have any authority here.

So why wasn't Holt, Rinehart and Winston worried about litigation - nearly fifty years ago - when they published Fear of Flying? There is an explicit scene in that involving the heroine remembering sexual activities when she was still thirteen years old. And Random House didn't flinch from publishing Portnoy's Complaint four years earlier. I think the protagonist in that is also thirteen at the beginning.

So it's print versus the Internet. Is it really that important that you have to get up from your desk and go to the library to get such books? Is there some legally valid argument that would hold up in court with just that fact? I don't know, maybe there is.

 

[KeithD]

Literotica doesn't have to go beyond personal preference in setting what it will host on the Web site and what it won't, and I don't remember ever seeing Laurel or Manu posting why they have the age-limited policy they do, so the legality question is just speculative wheel spinning. The policy is the policy and this Web site is their property. I don't have to agree or disagree with it--or even to understand why it's the policy. I just have to try to follow it with stories I wanted posted here.

 

[EarlyMorningLight]

China and Iran can block the Internet, but they can't stop a site from appearing elsewhere. Also, their legal systems do not have any authority here.

So why wasn't Holt, Rinehart and Winston worried about litigation - nearly fifty years ago - when they published Fear of Flying? There is an explicit scene in that involving the heroine remembering sexual activities when she was still thirteen years old. And Random House didn't flinch from publishing Portnoy's Complaint four years earlier. I think the protagonist in that is also thirteen at the beginning.

So it's print versus the Internet. Is it really that important that you have to get up from your desk and go to the library to get such books? Is there some legally valid argument that would hold up in court with just that fact? I don't know, maybe there is.

At the time, publishers had the resources to fight lengthy obscenity battles in court, and hosts of experts and luminaries lined up to take the stand and defend the cultural and artistic merit of a given work. They also knew that the resulting publicity would amount to a hell of a lot of free advertising, so they could justify throwing piles of cash at their lawyers.

Think for a moment about the kind of content that would get published here if they dropped the age rule. And say for argument’s sake that they’re sitting on a lot more cash than we thought. What lawyer takes the case? Who lines up to take the stand to defend the cultural merits of barely literate, graphic ch*ld porn?