Implied underage sex in stories?

[RawHumor]

I was just wondering if this is allowed. Basically, the story would begin on the girl's 18th birthday, with allusions to the fact that some hanky panky had gone on previously. There wouldn't be much in the way of flashbacks, but it would still be there.

Is this allowed?

 

[oggbashan]

No

We are all entirely virginal until our 18th birthday when we emerge from our chrysalis fully formed, raging for sex, and suddenly experienced.

Og

Seriously, the answer is no to protect Literotica from those who would willingly destroy it.

 

[RawHumor]

So even if the story doesn't involve any action of underage individuals, but there are allusions made to it, it's still taboo?

 

[oggbashan]

So even if the story doesn't involve any action of underage individuals, but there are allusions made to it, it's still taboo?

The only people who can really answer the question are the site's owners Laurel and Manu.

I think the answer is Yes. Anything else can be considered to be paedophilia.

It is better to be safe if apparently silly than give ammunition to the anti-porn brigade.

Og

 

[RawHumor]

Yes, but sometimes brushing up close against the border line can be fun.

Anyway, I was afraid that your answer would be what I'd get. Thank you for the replies.

 

[MathGirl]

Is this allowed?

Dear Raw,
Probably not.
The .... female in most of my stories is almost certainly under eighteen, but it's never stated. Seems to be acceptable.

The only story I've ever had rejected was for "underage." It's interesting, because it was the first in a long series, age was never mentioned, and there was NO SEX. None. Nothing even close. Nary a ripped bodice. I've never understood why that was rejected. It was just a love story.

Stories about violent rape and sheep fucking seem to be perfectly okay, though. Go figger.
MG

 

[RawHumor]

Re: Re: Implied underage sex in stories?

Stories about violent rape and sheep fucking seem to be perfectly okay, though. Go figger.
MG

Apparently there are a lot of closet sheep-rapists out there.

To them I say, Fuck Ewe.

 

[oggbashan]

There are dedicated people out there who hate Literotica with a vehemence that is difficult to believe. They quote sacred texts to describe us as various types of sinners and degenerates.

It may be fun to brush against the borders but it would be no fun if we were to lose Literotica.

Laws against Internet sexuality could easily be drafted to make criminals of all of us. There is a minority of people who would be very happy if they could ban all sex on the Internet.

Cautious Og

 

[MathGirl]

It may be fun to brush against the borders but it would be no fun if we were to lose Literotica.

Dear Venerable Og,
As usual, I agree with you. I completely understand why the editors of Lit are so careful. I'd hate to have the site and the idea of INet freedom compromised by one crummy story of mine.
MG

 

[Colleen Thomas]

There are dedicated people out there who hate Literotica with a vehemence that is difficult to believe. They quote sacred texts to describe us as various types of sinners and degenerates.

It may be fun to brush against the borders but it would be no fun if we were to lose Literotica.

Laws against Internet sexuality could easily be drafted to make criminals of all of us. There is a minority of people who would be very happy if they could ban all sex on the Internet.

Cautious Og

I'll go a step further Og, that same small majority would ban anything that didn't jibe completely with thier ideas. They wouldn't just legislate morality, they would legislate conformity. The anti porn lobby has always been there, but it is vastly more scary when backed by a Conservative Christian Fundamentalist coalition that wields extreme political influence within the GOP.

That gives a recipe for disaster. Fanatical zeal, politcal clout and a generally silent majority whose voice is often lost in the hue and cry of a very vocal minority. See Nazi Germany, Facist Italy, Revolutionary France, and Marxist Cuba for examples of where that can lead.

-Colly

 

[ownedsubgal]

i've read several stories here on Lit where there was a STRONG implication of an underage girl's "hanky panky" with an adult man (in all cases, her father). so it must be allowed or was allowed at some point. those are actually among my favorites.

 

[RawHumor]

i've read several stories here on Lit where there was a STRONG implication of an underage girl's "hanky panky" with an adult man (in all cases, her father). so it must be allowed or was allowed at some point. those are actually among my favorites.

Perhaps once I'm finished I'll let you know about it... you may like it, since it will involve stepfather/stepdaughter sex, some bdsm, and some mother/daughter sex, domination, humiliation...

 

[ownedsubgal]

Perhaps once I'm finished I'll let you know about it... you may like it, since it will involve stepfather/stepdaughter sex, some bdsm, and some mother/daughter sex, domination, humiliation...

if you don't mind me scanning past the mother/daughter stuff, then yes, i would probably enjoy it.

 

[Seattle Zack]

James Kilpatrick's column last week touched on this ... Ashcroft and his uneasy ad hoc coallition of Christian fundamentalists, right-wing zealots, and anti-porn feminists hard at work. The couple in Texas that was just convicted for producing fantasy rape videos now faces twenty years in prison ... interesting in light of the discussion about the non-consent category here at Lit.

-------------------
PORN AND THE HIGH COURT

Verily, verily, it is just as the Preacher might have said: Of the making of dirty books, there shall be no end. Surely there is no end of dirty books at the Supreme Court, which decided three pornography cases last term and has accepted two more for this term.

The court's jurisprudence reaches far beyond dirty books as such. A century ago, the law grappled with entrepreneurs who used the U.S. mail to peddle snapshots of naked women. These days the court is dealing with "virtual" pictures instead of real ones. Typical cases involve every kind of erotica from dial-a-porn to "adult" stores. At least 28,000 Web sites are devoted to pornography in one degree or another. The country is awash in the stuff.

It took a long time for the Supreme Court to enter the picture. It was not until the landmark case of Samuel Roth in 1957 that the court took an unequivocal stand. Material that is "obscene," said Justice William Brennan, deserves no constitutional protection.

How was "obscenity" to be defined? Why, said Brennan, material is obscene if "whether to the average person, applying contemporary community standards, the dominant theme of the material, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interest."

Half a century later, the high court still is laboring to apply the Brennan definition to changing circumstances, changing technology and changing times. Additional factors have affected the calculus: Is the questioned material "patently offensive"? Does the material "lack serious literary, artistic, political or scientific value"? On the World Wide Web, what is a contemporary community standard? Tough questions, all of them.

Sometime next year the Supreme Court will hear a case from Littleton, Colo., No. 02-1609, involving the licensing of sexually oriented stores. Of greater interest is the prospect of renewed argument in Ashcroft v. American Civil Liberties Union, No. 03-218. This remarkably difficult case, involving the Child Online Protection Act (COPA), will be making a return appearance. At stake is a continuing effort by Congress to protect minors from the evils of porn on the Internet. This is a worthy cause -- the evils are real -- but the provisions of COPA raise serious questions under the First Amendment.

Last May the court looked at the questions and decided that it could not decide them. Speaking through Justice Clarence Thomas, the court lamely held only that COPA's reliance upon community standards to identify material harmful to minors "does not by itself render the statute overly broad." This was not much help.

Justice Sandra Day O'Connor, in whom hope springs eternal, said the law needs a "national" standard of obscenity. Justice Stephen Breyer concurred. The word "community," he said, means "the nation's adult community taken as a whole." Justice Anthony Kennedy disagreed. "It is neither realistic nor beyond constitutional doubt for Congress, in effect, to impose the community standards of Maine or Mississippi on Las Vegas or New York.'"

John Paul Stevens, in a solo dissent, echoed Justice Kennedy. "It is quite wrong to allow the standards of a minority consisting of the least tolerant communities to regulate access to relatively harmless messages." Stevens agreed that hard-core material -- depictions that are obscene under any community's standards -- do not belong on the Internet, but there is a vast constitutional difference between indecency and obscenity.

Tongue in cheek, Stevens offered an ideal solution: "Those who abhor and those who tolerate sexually explicit speech can seek out like-minded people and settle in communities that share their views on what is acceptable for themselves and their children." Trouble is, he added, such a sorting mechanism "does not exist in cyberspace."

Exhausted by its labors, the high court handed this plate of hash back to the 3rd Circuit for further chewing. The 3rd Circuit had indigestion. It promptly affirmed its earlier opinion. Judge Leonard I. Garth said that COPA's reliance on inchoate community standards of "material that is harmful to minors" is misplaced. What counts are the exacting standards of the First Amendment. He sent the order back to the kitchen. There it sits.

The problem in finding a solution to the pornography problem -- including the problem of protecting children -- is that there is no solution to the pornography problem. At least there is no legislative or judicial solution. The best of all answers is for responsible parents to act responsibly. Being a parent in the Age of the Internet ain't no bed of roses.

 

[Quasimodem]

In the closing years of the 20th Century — because it suited their purpose, if not their proclaimed morality — one of the largest publishers of pornography was The United Sates Senate.

 

[Weird Harold]

I was just wondering if this is allowed. Basically, the story would begin on the girl's 18th birthday, with allusions to the fact that some hanky panky had gone on previously. There wouldn't be much in the way of flashbacks, but it would still be there.

Is this allowed?

It is permissible for a character to remember when they lost their virginity.

It is NOT permissible for them to remember all of the prurient details in a flashback.

 

[RawHumor]

Re: Re: Implied underage sex in stories?

It is permissible for a character to remember when they lost their virginity.

It is NOT permissible for them to remember all of the prurient details in a flashback.

I know that flashbacks wouldn't be allowed. This would be more like (on her 18th b-day) something along the lines of "as she saw them together, her husband and her daughter, she could tell that their bodies were inimately familiar with each other, and it was obvious that this wasn't the first time he had fucked her" type of thing.

 

[ownedsubgal]

Re: Re: Implied underage sex in stories?

It is permissible for a character to remember when they lost their virginity.

It is NOT permissible for them to remember all of the prurient details in a flashback.

one of my favorite incest stories here on lit goes into great detail with flashbacks of sexual activity between father and daughter before the daughter was of age or even fully physically developed. the actual vaginal intercourse doesn't take place of course into she's well into adulthood, but there's oral and other things described very graphically in the flashbacks.

 

[Pure]

I agree with Weird Harold,

You can *mention* events with the under 18s, but you can't go into graphic sexual detail.

This is simply to describe what seems to happen around here. I am not *recommending* anything. You make up your own mind.


Now that she's 18, with daddy, and they're together, you can say, imo, //She remembered when he first fucked her several years earlier. This time would be different.//

Also by being vague, and avoiding 'underage details' you might meet the criterion. "She remembered his cock." but not "He remembered her [xxxx] pussy" sounding like she's 12.

As in movies, if there is a flashback, sometimes it's just not labelled, "8 years" ago. It's unclear when it was. One has to read and make lots of deductions. You could be subtle in that area.

J.

Some of the things OSG describes do exist, as does say, bestiality--as I found once--but buried deep in the story or just slipping by the initial screener. Those things stay around until someone contacts Laurel--I did.

 

[LorriLove]

hiya

best not mention age love, just say teenage, and refer to when she was younger, teen could be 19, and younger could be 18. just leave it to the reader to interpret, can't see any court case surviving the perceived age in a remote readers head.

strange though ennit, i can read about some sick bastard raping an 18 yr old virgin, very illegal i thought, or some sicker bastard shagging a dog, but i can't read about a 16 yr old couple marrying and having a kid, a completely legal scenario in 90 pc of the countries of the world.

lorri xxxxxxxx

 

[ownedsubgal]

I agree with Weird Harold,

You can *mention* events with the under 18s, but you can't go into graphic sexual detail.

This is simply to describe what seems to happen around here. I am not *recommending* anything. You make up your own mind.


Now that she's 18, with daddy, and they're together, you can say, imo, //She remembered when he first fucked her several years earlier. This time would be different.//

Also by being vague, and avoiding 'underage details' you might meet the criterion. "She remembered his cock." but not "He remembered her [xxxx] pussy" sounding like she's 12.

As in movies, if there is a flashback, sometimes it's just not labelled, "8 years" ago. It's unclear when it was. One has to read and make lots of deductions. You could be subtle in that area.

J.

Some of the things OSG describes do exist, as does say, bestiality--as I found once--but buried deep in the story or just slipping by the initial screener. Those things stay around until someone contacts Laurel--I did.

i certainly hope my fave (consentual) incest story here sticks around...one reason it appeals to me so much is because it doesn't stick steadfastly to the "we're all adults having a fun time" rule. the story i'm thinking of is almost all flashbacks of the underage stuff...and there are plenty of words used to describe underaged body parts (and lack thereof) just to make it crystal clear. the bit about what's going on in the here and now between adult daughter and father is very brief.

 

[prtylilstranger]

Re: No

We are all entirely virginal until our 18th birthday when we emerge from our chrysalis fully formed, raging for sex, and suddenly experienced.

You too? Wow, I was feeling so lonely in that...

 

[Weird Harold]

Re: Re: Re: Implied underage sex in stories?

I know that flashbacks wouldn't be allowed. This would be more like (on her 18th b-day) something along the lines of "as she saw them together, her husband and her daughter, she could tell that their bodies were inimately familiar with each other, and it was obvious that this wasn't the first time he had fucked her" type of thing.

I don't see where that phrasing even pushes the line -- unless it's 0001 hrs on her 18th birthday.

 

[Rumple Foreskin]

For what it's worth, here's my rule-of-thumb.

If the age of one or more characters is crucial to the plot, and

If that age is under 18, then FORGETABOUTIT.

Yes there are stories in the files which Laurel would probably delete if brought to her attention. They exist because humans (primarily Laurel) check the stories for content and most humans have "off" days.

Rumple Foreskin

 

[Colleen Thomas]

i certainly hope my fave (consentual) incest story here sticks around...one reason it appeals to me so much is because it doesn't stick steadfastly to the "we're all adults having a fun time" rule. the story i'm thinking of is almost all flashbacks of the underage stuff...and there are plenty of words used to describe underaged body parts (and lack thereof) just to make it crystal clear. the bit about what's going on in the here and now between adult daughter and father is very brief.

I would suggest you print yourself a hard copy of stories that really appeal to you but are outside the guidelines. Perhaps no one will complain, but if someone does and the story is removed you will regret not having a way to enjoy it again.

-Colly