Is this allowed per Literotica content guidelines? Minors playing outside, Characters having sex inside, afraid that they will get caught.

[NeuralTease]

Minors are never exposed to nudity or sex.

 

[PennyThompson]

That feels iffy to me, since it sounds like the idea of being caught by the minor characters is meant to titillate.

I wouldn't. If you want the characters having sex to worry about getting caught, make it adult neighbors or roommates or something.

 

[SimonDoom]

My sense is, it probably would not meet the guidelines, since the presence of children is part of the erotic thrill of the story.

 

[NotWise]

My sense is, it probably would not meet the guidelines, since the presence of children is part of the erotic thrill of the story.

Is it? In my experience, that situation is anti-erotic.

As with all things at Lit, it depends on how it's written. It could be written as character-building without erotic implications. It could be written as a barrier that turns sex into an awkward quickie. It probably could not get by if it caught Laurel's attention and was part of the erotic thrill.

 

[SimonDoom]

Is it? In my experience, that situation is anti-erotic.

As with all things at Lit, it depends on how it's written. It could be written as character-building without erotic implications. It could be written as a barrier that turns sex into an awkward quickie. It probably could not get by if it caught Laurel's attention and was part of the erotic thrill.

The test is whether it will add an erotic charge for some significant number of readers, not for all readers, or not for you or for me. And I think it clearly passes that test. The presence of other people, children or not, adds a sense of danger and taboo to the sex -- that adds to eroticism, for at least many people. Otherwise, why have that in the story at all? The kids could be out of the picture entirely. If the author wants kids nearby to be an element, it suggests that the element of danger and risk of exposure adds to the erotic impact of the story. You may not see it that way, but I think many readers will, and I think it's likely Laurel and Manu would think so too, which is why I think there's a good chance it would be rejected.

 

[ChloeTzang]

The test is whether it will add an erotic charge for some significant number of readers, not for all readers, or not for you or for me. And I think it clearly passes that test. The presence of other people, children or not, adds a sense of danger and taboo to the sex -- that adds to eroticism, for at least many people. Otherwise, why have that in the story at all? The kids could be out of the picture entirely. If the author wants kids nearby to be an element, it suggests that the element of danger and risk of exposure adds to the erotic impact of the story. You may not see it that way, but I think many readers will, and I think it's likely Laurel and Manu would think so too, which is why I think there's a good chance it would be rejected.

100%. My take is, it's intended to add to the erotic titallation and would be rejected.

BUT. You could try it and see, and if it gets rejected, just remove it and resubmit. It's not going to get you banned for life to give it a try.

 

[Stopokochac]

I prefer to just play it safe and avoid including children all together.

 

[NotWise]

Otherwise, why have that in the story at all? The kids could be out of the picture entirely.

Maybe I'm answering a rhetorical question, but the situation could arise when building a character or as part of the story. It's a common situation, and it isn't erotic unless you make it so.

 

[SimonDoom]

Maybe I'm answering a rhetorical question, but the situation could arise when building a character or as part of the story. It's a common situation, and it isn't erotic unless you make it so.

The question isn't authorial intention, it's whether some significant chunk of Lit readers reasonably could be expected to see the content as erotic. It's a rule that Laurel and Manu appear to interpret broadly. They're not concerned with what your subjective intentions are as a writer.

To be clear, if the author merely mentions in a cursory way that two people were having sex in a bedroom while the kids were out in the yard, that would probably be OK. But if much more than that is said then it raises the question WHY it's being made an issue in the story, and the detail is something some readers are likely to grab onto to make it a more erotic experience for them. That, I think, is what the Site wants to avoid.

 

[NotWise]

As is almost always the case, AH advice on the under-18 rule is more restrictive than practice. If the site rejected a story because minors were part of the setting of a scene and not in the scene at all, then something as simple as "Shh, or they'll hear us," would be more than enough to get a story rejected, and I don't think it is.

 

[Bamagan]

The basic premise doesn't seem like an automatic rejection. That being said, if the story is written in such a way that substituting some adult as the person the sex is being concealed from lessens the eroticism, then it probably does cross the line. If they're getting an extra thrill at the idea of any intruder catching them, it's reluctant exhibitionism or some similar kink, and would likely pass muster. If they talk too much about how bad it would be for the kids to see them like that, it's playing toward a pedo audience, perhaps regardless of intent.

 

[SinclairGroupLLP]

Is it? In my experience, that situation is anti-erotic.

Same here - I can't tell you how many times that sexy-time has gotten interrupted by a sound from the other room that sounded like the kids. Nothing fun about worrying about getting caught.

 

[ElectricBlue]

It could be pushing the line, with the presence of the children as the erotic charge. It's almost as if the writer wants the children to walk in, to see the sex.

On Literotica, it's best to send the kids off to granny's house, get them at least five-hundred words away.

 

[ChloeTzang]

And, folks, things like THIS are why you have to be careful when you write in under-age characters, even if there is no sex, and why Laurel is so hard-nosed with the under-18 rule.

It's the bit about the "three year old." There's no sex, it's a throwaway piece of background / scene setting for the (legally of age) characters - and this was seen as pedophilia by the Australian authorities and the author was arrested. Seems like overreach to me, but that still didn't stop the author being arrested. Ms Tesolin-Mastrosa was charged with possessing child abuse material, disseminating child abuse material, and producing child abuse material. Ms Tesolin-Mastrosa has since pulled down her social media accounts. The book has also been removed from Amazon and GoodReads.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

As much as this isn't my thing, I don't really get any of this.
I understand the book being pulled from Amazon and all, but the arrest? I mean, if they arrested her for this, then the whole ASSTR crew and literally thousands of authors on AO3 are going straight to the guillotine. Is it because the book was published on Amazon? This makes no sense to me.

 

[ElectricBlue]

As much as this isn't my thing, I don't really get any of this.
I understand the book being pulled from Amazon and all, but the arrest? I mean, if they arrested her for this, then the whole ASSTR crew and literally thousands of authors on AO3 are going straight to the guillotine. Is it because the book was published on Amazon? This makes no sense to me.

I'm guessing the police found a little more in her files. Her apology is curious, "in my replies I wasn't entirely truthful." The kiddies blocks though, there's a clue for even the most jaded cynic. Really? Either that, or the people around her were completely clueless.

 

[ChloeTzang]

As much as this isn't my thing, I don't really get any of this.
I understand the book being pulled from Amazon and all, but the arrest? I mean, if they arrested her for this, then the whole ASSTR crew and literally thousands of authors on AO3 are going straight to the guillotine. Is it because the book was published on Amazon? This makes no sense to me.

Nope. It's the male character's desire for the female character "since she was a three year old." That said, I have no dea what was in the book either, but it's in Australia, where funny things happen, so who knows. Someone apparently reported the book to the police. Either they read the book and there was something explicit to set this off, or they didn't and it was an over-reaction.

I'm assuming it will come out in court if they intend to prosecute.

BUT it is a good illustration of why, unless you are Nabakov, or a chick-lit or woke YA writer, you stay away from writing children into erotica. And also why Laurel is so strict on these things. You never know when things will change and the Morality Police will come a-knocking. Better safe than sorry.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

I'm guessing the police found a little more in her files. Her apology is curious, "in my replies I wasn't entirely truthful." The kiddies blocks though, there's a clue for even the most jaded cynic. Really? Either that, or the people around her were completely clueless.

Well, unless they found something in her files that isn't fiction, like photos of real children or something equally creepy, my question still stands.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

Nope. It's the male character's desire for the female character "since she was a three year old."

That's how I understood your post. But if that's the reason for the arrest, the fact that she hinted at something that wasn't intercourse with a child but still some creepy sexual looks or something, my question stands. It's still fiction, and to my pain, I have seen worse, much worse on AO3.
So a much worse kind of fiction is also publicly available. What's the difference in this case?

 

[KittyOfSteele]

And, folks, things like THIS are why you have to be careful when you write in under-age characters, even if there is no sex, and why Laurel is so hard-nosed with the under-18 rule.

It's the bit about the "three year old." There's no sex, it's a throwaway piece of background / scene setting for the (legally of age) characters - and this was seen as pedophilia by the Australian authorities and the author was arrested. Seems like overreach to me, but that still didn't stop the author being arrested. Ms Tesolin-Mastrosa was charged with possessing child abuse material, disseminating child abuse material, and producing child abuse material. Ms Tesolin-Mastrosa has since pulled down her social media accounts. The book has also been removed from Amazon and GoodReads.

View attachment 2518413View attachment 2518418View attachment 2518419

Of course it had to be on Australia. I've seen them ban stuff that is much tamer than this, so that draconian overreaction is actually in character for the Australian authorities.

 

[alohadave]

What's the difference in this case?

The general public doesn't read AO3. Trad published books are in book stores/Amazon.

In this case, it looks like an ARC reviewer raised the flag about the content, which was not listed with the other trigger warnings.

I found a screen cap of one of the pages, and it's pretty explicitly pedo.

Additionally, it looks like she also published under the pen name Lauren Ashley and got caught in 2024 for plagiarizing another author's work.

Seems like the outrage is actually called for in this case.

 

[AwkwardlySet]

The general public doesn't read AO3. Trad published books are in book stores/Amazon.

In this case, it looks like an ARC reviewer raised the flag about the content, which was not listed with the other trigger warnings.

I found a screen cap of one of the pages, and it's pretty explicitly pedo.

Additionally, it looks like she also published under the pen name Lauren Ashley and got caught in 2024 for plagiarizing another author's work.

Seems like the outrage is actually called for in this case.

All right, so it is because it was published on a mainstream place like Amazon. I can't seem to navigate the intricacies of these laws and the way they are applied, but for me, public is public, Amazon or AO3.

 

[alohadave]

All right, so it is because it was published on a mainstream place like Amazon. I can't seem to navigate the intricacies of these laws and the way they are applied, but for me, public is public, Amazon or AO3.

Not necessarily because it was on Amazon, but there are a lot more eyeballs there than on AO3. And the story has been burning up booktok and threads for at least a week now, so the story spreads about it. Someone posting CSA to AO3 probably wouldn't ever make waves outside that site.

I don't know the particulars about how the police in Australia became involved, probably someone called in a tip about it.

From what I've read, Australia has laws that depicting CSA in fiction with minors is a crime. Other places vary.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I don't know the particulars about how the police in Australia became involved, probably someone called in a tip about it.

From what I've read, Australia has laws that depicting CSA in fiction with minors is a crime. Other places vary.

We'll find out when she goes to court. She's getting the publicity she'd rather not get - the same press story has gone around the world like wildfire. It's got added fuel because her daytime job was with one of Australia's largest care providers, affiliated with the Baptist Church.

The context is multiple cases over the last few years of care workers being found guilty of possessing and distributing paedophile content.

It's the whole package so far as a news story goes - attractive woman, salacious material, a church, the police, uninformed speculation. There's no footy, so it's perfect for a slow Thursday.

 

[Scareltt]

Almost every parent has done it.. spring time I always feel naughty hearing them play outside. While I’m playing inside..