Going Mental

[FantasyXY]

There was a movie call The Other Sister in the 80s that touched on the subject a little. It wasn't exactly erotic, but it did seem to make people root for the mentally challenged couple in the story to hook up.

 

[sr71plt]

Anyone read Colleen McCullough's Tim?

Incidentally, my more blatantly sexual bisexual cut at this theme, Luther, started posting today (and had been submitted before this thread was posted).


https://www.allromanceebooks.com/dbimages/788790.jpg

 

[PervOtaku]

Regardless of what the law actually says, there is general fear of going near underage material because it's a quick way for some moral crusader to bring legal trouble. I think the typical worry about this is not so much a prose underage story itself, as no child is harmed, but that such material might encourage a potential pedophile to go find a child to abuse for real.

I'm sure it's happened out there in the real world somewhere, but you don't really hear from people worried about folks being predatory towards the mentally handicapped. Probably because unless you work in a nursing home or metal hospital type place, it's not as easy to come across one as it is to find children.

 

[sr71plt]

It isn't really a matter of what the law actually says (not least because, in this case, there are no laws saying anything). Underage sexual treatment of all sorts--including against the underage--is rampant in mainstream fiction (and the media).

People need to just stop trying to connect the ban on underage at Lit. to any sort of law or any treatment of it in general fiction (or nonfiction or TV/film treatments). It's just a rule at Lit. and Lit.'s owners have the right/power to make and (try to) enforce that rule. Chances are good they do it to discourage pedophiles from roaming the Literotica files and boards and thus inviting added attention from morals vigilantes (although they have no such scruples about incest, which is also a pedophile magnet), but that has nothing to do with law or what happens in the writing of fiction or even in the film media outside of Lit.

What's the problem in accepting that Literotica is a private Web site, and they thus could ban any mention of polka dotted dresses, if they wanted to?

 

[FantasyXY]

Yup, We have laws

It isn't really a matter of what the law actually says (not least because, in this case, there are no laws saying anything). Underage sexual treatment of all sorts--including against the underage--is rampant in mainstream fiction (and the media).

There are indeed laws concerning exploitation of minors and underage pornography. Specifically U.S. Laws under the following statues concerning obscenity...

18 U.S.C. § 1460, 18 U.S.C. § 1461, 18 U.S.C. § 1462, 18 U.S.C. § 1463, 18 U.S.C. § 1464, 18 U.S.C. § 1465, 18 U.S.C. § 1466, 18 U.S.C. § 1466A, 18 U.S.C. § 1467, 18 U.S.C. § 1468, 18 U.S.C. § 1469, 18 U.S.C. § 1470, 18 U.S.C. § 2252B, and 18 U.S.C. § 2252C

And more specifically these statutes concerning child pornography that have both U.S. and International applicability...

18 U.S.C. § 2251, 18 U.S.C. § 2252, 18 U.S.C. § 2252A, and 18 U.S.C. § 2256

Where parts state - any depiction of a minor under 18 years of age engaging in sexually explicit conduct is illegal.

Various U.S states have additional anti-exploitation laws as well.

 

[sr71plt]

I'm not going to look those laws up, but I can guarantee that they concern the depiction (imaging) of actual children--not fictional treatment in written works or fictional treatment in film. Wake up and take a look at what actually is in mainstream written works and on TV and in movies. Don't be dense about this.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

any depiction of a minor under 18 years of age engaging in sexually explicit conduct is illegal.

Fictional characters aren't minors under the age of 18. They aren't people. They are fiction. The laws you cite have nothing to do with fiction.

It's perhaps possible that if you write an biographical account of some real person having sex at age 16, and described it accurately, you could conceivably get in trouble. But the laws you cite wouldn't be your first problem, and I doubt they'd come into play at all.

In America at least you can write anything fictional; and you can write about real people if you have their permission, or if what you write is provably 100% accurate. Those rules make it unwise to write about the underaged sexuality of real people, but unless someone can categorise your writing as hate speech, fiction is fine.

Note that depiction is usually used to describe visual representations. It can be used for written ones, but given the amount of prior written material, you'd never be able to make a case in court that those laws covered describing sexuality.

 

[FantasyXY]

This could be a huge thread of its own

I'm not going to look those laws up, but I can guarantee that they concern the depiction (imaging) of actual children--not fictional treatment in written works or fictional treatment in film. Wake up and take a look at what actually is in mainstream written works and on TV and in movies. Don't be dense about this.

Pilot - I'm not specifically arguing with you here, but your quote seems to sum up the sentiment that I've seen in several threads from many posters surrounding the underage rules and whether or not there are laws concerning minors on Lit.

Again, not arguing... but here is my take.

Literotica is for all intents and purposes considered a pornography site. What is posted and depicted here are likely covered under the statutes I posted. It is entirely possible that what is posted here could be considered of literary value and therefore not be subject to these statutes, but making that distinction in court for the entire site would be an uphill battle at the very least. Individually published works would stand a better chance in court, but Literotica would likely not be seen as a publisher.

The first set of statutes I posted have to do with obscenity, and the "mainstream media" works that posters keep pointing to would fall under protections for works that have literary value. Maybe an individual's work has literary value, maybe it doesn't. I'm not here to judge that.

This set of laws each taken individually aren't very specific about what is or isn't allowed, but in combination they allow for prosecution of web sites posting any pornography involving minors. If this was your web site... If you were Laural... Would you be willing to bet your freedom on a "the other guys do it" premise?

I originally stated that there are international laws against the exploitation of minors and I have shown that those laws actually exist. I also stated that it makes sense for Lit to have the no one under 18 rule. Do these laws word for word apply to Lit and our stories? No. Is it a good idea to follow them anyway? - Laural thinks so... and that is what I and others have been saying all along.

I keep seeing people pointing out that so and so on TV depicted this, or such and such novel has a character who is a minor. Yes, those things exist without being prosecuted. They all pass the not obsene/pornography tests written into the laws. So maybe the question really should be... Is what we are writing here actually of literary value, or is it simply smut and pornography. Again, Laurel isn't going to make that determination and take that chance.

But to all of you that are stomping your feet and insisting that there are no laws, it might be prudent to at least entertain the fact that these laws do exist and that they may apply to something you have published somewhere. Are you willing to take the chance that Laurel isn't?

 

[Handley_Page]

Regardless of what the law actually says, there is general fear of going near underage material because it's a quick way for some moral crusader to bring legal trouble. I think the typical worry about this is not so much a prose underage story itself, as no child is harmed, but that such material might encourage a potential pedophile to go find a child to abuse for real.

I'm sure it's happened out there in the real world somewhere, but you don't really hear from people worried about folks being predatory towards the mentally handicapped. Probably because unless you work in a nursing home or metal hospital type place, it's not as easy to come across one as it is to find children.

It has; at least in the UK.

Fictional characters aren't minors under the age of 18. They aren't people. They are fiction. The laws you cite have nothing to do with fiction.

.

Tell that to those who think our erotic fiction is an account of a real event.

 

[sr71plt]

OK, it's not my responsibility to educate anyone on the law who insists on being blind to reality. Just don't pretend down the road that you hadn't been informed. And, if it comes up again, I'll say it's full of beans again--because it is.

 

[AMoveableBeast]

I'm not going to look those laws up, but I can guarantee that they concern the depiction (imaging) of actual children--not fictional treatment in written works or fictional treatment in film. Wake up and take a look at what actually is in mainstream written works and on TV and in movies. Don't be dense about this.

Pilot is, of course, right.

One word: Lolita.

Not only is it concerned primarily with the sexualization of an underaged girl, the main character is, for all intents and purposes, a peculiar kind of pedophile, forever cursed with the affliction of his affection. It's one of my favorite novels because of its emotional heft and daring. And that was published nearly a century ago. We have entire shows and movies dedicated to teen sex now.

Where you can make the argument, I suppose, is that most mainstream fiction stories aren't written for sexual titillation. The same goes for their portrayal of sexual violence. Here, everything is examined for intent. I've had this question posed to me before on my own writing. I have a story that features a character that resembles the purpose of this thread. While not specifically handicapped, the character is mentally unstable, possesses a childish nature and a stunted intellectual growth.

There are no rules for standard fiction. To put rules on it would defeat its entire purpose. Fiction is used to explore the human condition, all of it, not just the sanitized Disney blockbuster portions. There are several highly successful works that get gritty, sexually speaking. Hell, the average book of the Song of Fire and Ice series breaks every rule of propriety imaginable. It is propped up on the shoulders of the two great American salesmen: sex and violence.

The onus that falls on erotica is in how it is often used--as a masturbatory aid.

Personally, I write fairly untraditional erotica with a focus on story and sexually-related issues. I have several stories on this site that aren't, strictly speaking, sexy, but they are intrinsically sexual. I try to push limits in stories, my own and others. It's just what I do.

And even I am glad for the ban on underaged sex at Lit. As silly and trifling as it often is to avoid sexuality before 18, to not do so would open up far more troubling scenarios, ones which, and I'm trying to be as unjudgemental as possible, the vast majority of us would find distasteful, to say the least.

A Literotica featuring stories about eight year-old kids would be a diminished Literotica. It's not illegal to allow such stories, just morally irresponsible. I don't say that as any kid of white knight; I'm not one. Ambiguous morality is one of my most fertile fields in which to grow stories.

But the exploitation of children should remain a barren field here at Lit. Even if it creates obstacles to realistic writing at times.

We simply have more Larry Flynts than Vladimir Nabakovs.

 

[Hypoxia]

Need this be said again?

* Fictional portrayals of illegal actions, including those banned at LIT as well as the usual capital crimes and felonies filling mainstream literature, are not illegal in USA. Your nation may vary.
* Literature of the sort banned at LIT is available at many online sources, including some much older than LIT such as the alt.sex.stories newsgroup.
* LIT's owners have their own reasons for their bans and since LIT is the most successful site of this sort then their model is demonstrably effective at attracting the desired readership.
* Readers are free to speculate about Laurel and Manu's motives and objectives but ignoring the actual laws and enforcement is self-delusional.

Gosh, if all this was explained in a sticky, we'd have much less to discuss here.

 

[sr71plt]

Well, other than the fact that no one reads stickies, and even if you wave them in their face, they'll want to argue with the users over a policy controlled solely by the Web site owners.

 

[Bramblethorn]

I'm not going to look those laws up, but I can guarantee that they concern the depiction (imaging) of actual children--not fictional treatment in written works or fictional treatment in film. Wake up and take a look at what actually is in mainstream written works and on TV and in movies. Don't be dense about this.

Yup. 18 USC 1460 is clearly defined around visual depiction and specifically excludes "mere words".

I wish I had a dollar for every time this one came around, and people pointed out how many mainstream books already deal with under-age sexuality.

 

[Hypoxia]

I wish I had a dollar for every time this one came around, and people pointed out how many mainstream books already deal with under-age sexuality.

If we didn't have underage and story votes and submission how-to's to discuss, AH would be nothing but [characterization deleted] word games.

[rant]
In fact, in the 2.5-odd years I've been active on LIT, I've seen the diversity of issues in AH threads plummet. Used to be many more Q&A's here, explorations of ethics and grammar and story structures, whatever. Damn, the place has gone downhill.

"These be parlous times! Children no longer obey their parents, and everyone is writing a book!"
--Pliny the Elder circa CE 76
[/rant]

 

[sr71plt]

And, gee, it's been months since you all could get all indignant and salivating over LC attacking me on the forum and me responding.

 

[Hypoxia]

With a properly-populated iggy list I can easily ignore much sniping.