I need help with young Characters...

[A7inchPhildo]

I need help with young characters. I am well aware of the 18 rule and how to get around it. I am not looking for that.

My need of knowledge is: I have a story in progress about a teacher who flirts/touch/tease openly with other faculty. How much can an obvious 14-17 year old be allowed to do. They will not be having sex!

What is the limit on teasing, exposure, masterbation?

My topic at current happends to be a young male who becomes excited, But in the future it could be a female as well?

I thought about deleting the whole scene but it is a lead to future occurances.

Any thought would help greatly as this is a real block!

I do not support the young sex, incest, and non concent topics with my stories if I can help it. I do not dismiss them as categories though.

 

[wicked woman]

7inch...you might get a better response to this on the Story ideas thread ...think it's in the Author's Forum

 

[A7inchPhildo]

7inch...you might get a better response to this on the Story ideas thread ...think it's in the Author's Forum

No I spend most of my time in the Story ideas thread, Editors forum, Story discusion circle, and story feed back, AHangout is a different thread. Thank you.

I am not digging for an idea I have that. I am looking for help on the yes can post or no don't bother because they will reject it.


The rule states:

3. No sexual activity involving bestiality (you can write stories about supernatural beasts like ghosts, unicorns, werewolves, etc.) or underage persons will be considered. For the purposes of this site, the minimum legal age is 18.

No sexual activity involving, or underage persons will be considered.

Is any one aware of what the fine line is? What is the gray area?
Are we talking:
No penatration?
No masterbation?
No exposure of sex organs?
No sex driven tight clothing out fit?
No Johova witness, dressed for worship moving the hips?

Phildo

 

[ReadyOne]

Gee!

Another Clinton moment!

I've not posted so can't speak for the censors. Bust based on what I've read, masturbation works.

 

[A7inchPhildo]

Gee!

Another Clinton moment!

Clinton is guilty and the use of definition set him free.

I would not like to be compared to such a dishonest person.

I am asking the definition before I get into trouble. More so what would not offend Laurel & Manu. If needed I am willing to cut the section from the story.

 

[The_old_man]

e-mail to Laurel asking if the attachment (your proposed story segment) would be permissible.

Attach the segment, and wait.

 

[sheath]

I agree with the_old_man. Different editors/website owners/whatever want different things. Their version of 'underage' might clash with yours...and some editors are highly offended by ANY mention of the possibility of a person being a sexual being before the magical age of eighteen. OOooh. Heaven help the person who might attempt to write such blasphemy. But I digress.

Send the attachment and see what happens. If you don't have a response in a reasonable amount of time...say, four or five business days? Send it again.

As an editor, personally...if it involved no penetration, and no overt sexual activity, then it would be permissible. By 'overt', I mean...no very detailed description of a 16 or 17-year-old jacking off. If you allude to it, make it clear it's happening, but not describe it, then it would be permissible to most publications, IMO.

But like I pointed out, everyone sees the issue differently. And in the world of writing erotica, you are at the whim of someone else most of the time. It's a bitch, but what can we do?

Good luck,

S.

 

[A7inchPhildo]

Thanks T.o.m. and sheath,

I am just trying to follow the rules I have as of last night edited out of the current story any indication of child knowledge dealing with any sexual excitement. It is not a real heart breaker just makes me have to change the story line considerbly. I will and do appreciate the passing of some good advice by you and others.

Phil

 

[Amfig]

Clinton is guilty and the use of definition set him free.

I would not like to be compared to such a dishonest person.

I am asking the definition before I get into trouble. More so what would not offend Laurel & Manu. If needed I am willing to cut the section from the story.

Clinton is obviously NOT guilty. He was acquitted, AFTER TRIAL by the Senate of the United States.

Sorry. I try cases for a living. When a jury speaks, that's what happened. And if I want to disagree, it is only sheer arrogance on my part to claim that I know more TRUTH than 12 people. How much more arrogant then to claim that I know more than 100 people.

 

[Weird Harold]

The rule states:

No sexual activity involving, or underage persons will be considered.

Is any one aware of what the fine line is? What is the gray area?
Are we talking:
No penatration?
No masterbation?
No exposure of sex organs?
No sex driven tight clothing out fit?
No Johova witness, dressed for worship moving the hips?

Phildo

The fine line is no participation or arousal.

Voyeurism is a "sexual activity" for the purposes of the rule. If a character watches sex and becomes aroused by watching, then that's a "voyeurism" scene and the watcher can't be underaged.

I've discussed the underage rule with Laurel (the final word on what's posted at Lit) a couple of times over the last few years and as far as I know, that's still her standard -- no participation and no arousal by underage characters.

An ADULT character can remember participating or being aroused when they were underaged, but CANNOT tell anyone the explicit details in a flashback.

The context of a scene has a lot of influence on whether it's acceptable -- A discussing sex, dating, or puberty with a child can probably get fairly explicit as long as it's relevant to the plot. But a parent catching a child in the act can't stand and watch for a bit. The explicit details of such a scene have to be kept "off-screen."

 

[A7inchPhildo]

Thanks Weird Harold

That is what I gather. I have already re routed my story so as there would be no question. Due to other responses, you were the most exact and I will keep that for future reference.

Phildo

 

[A7inchPhildo]

Clinton is obviously NOT guilty. He was acquitted, AFTER TRIAL by the Senate of the United States.

Sorry. I try cases for a living. When a jury speaks, that's what happened. And if I want to disagree, it is only sheer arrogance on my part to claim that I know more TRUTH than 12 people. How much more arrogant then to claim that I know more than 100 people.

I stand corrected! the use of the word "guilty" was not an apropriate term to render as in a situation that Mr. Bill Clinton provides the legal system.

IMHO I would like to confirm to all. The no good, cock sucking, avoiding the truth by practical means available to the president alone, dirt bag is not guilty.

I think we can all clearly see that the evidence is what makes the man guilty or not guilty in the court of man. Will the truth set you free? I gather now if you are set free it must have been the truth, is that what I am to believe?

I must be arrogant I believe I know more than 100 people that are willing to accept the loop hole as being the truth. Well, at least more than one.

12 of my peers did thier job and I commend them on a decision that was honest and to the best of their ability with what was provided to them. They are free, and yes that is what happened as far as they can know.

Mr. Bill.... Oh!...No!...Mr. Bill, he is free but is he now innocent for the actions, only in the law book my friend.

Hey on a lighter note I quit smoking. Now I too just dont inhale!

Anyone think I'm being honest with my self? Anyone? Hello?
I can argue it says I quit in the law book? No no wait better yet I never smoked; "I just breath fumes that exit the rear cavity of a cigarette." The tobacco smokes when it burns not me.

I am glad you have no mind to think for your self this world needs more people to follow the leaders.

Taking pride in who I am and those I serve can only be presented with honesty. I like paying the fiddler when I should and enjoy the benifit of my peers respect. No court can do that for me.