Next time somebody complains about the under-18 rule...

[Bramblethorn]

...might want to point them at the latest push to crack down on "obscenity" in the USA.

While video seems to be the main target, there is legal precedent for text stories being treated as obscenity falling outside First Amendment protections. No wonder sites like Literotica don't want to push the limits in that direction.

 

[NotWise]

The President's hair is on fire right now and he's facing re-election next year. I'd be surprised if that letter were enough to get his attention -- especially considering the size of the porn industry.

There are 435 members of the House. I'm not sure a letter signed by four of them even constitutes a "push."

 

[SimonDoom]

The push against obscenity in this country has been going on for a while, but it never seems to go anywhere. Much sound and fury, but not much accomplished.

But you are right that in the US the parameters of "obscenity" are sufficiently unclear that Literotica and other erotic story sites have some reason to be concerned. I recall reading about that case a while ago, and if I remember it right the defendant who was convicted wrote stories with violent pedophiliac content.

It's hard to tell in 2019 what "obscenity" even means anymore. Unfortunately, the US Supreme Court's definition includes an application of "community standards", which means that what's obscene may vary from one region of the country to another. That's an unhelpful standard in a world where content is transmitted more and more via the Internet.

It remains a fuzzy concept. Erotic story providers are right to be somewhat uneasy about that.

 

[Bramblethorn]

The push against obscenity in this country has been going on for a while, but it never seems to go anywhere. Much sound and fury, but not much accomplished.

FOSTA-SESTA went through just last year, with overwhelming support from both parties. It's already had a chilling effect on consensual adult material - cf. Craigslist, Tumblr, et al.

 

[SimonDoom]

FOSTA-SESTA went through just last year, with overwhelming support from both parties. It's already had a chilling effect on consensual adult material - cf. Craigslist, Tumblr, et al.

Quite right. I'd been focusing on obscenity laws rather than that, but the impact of the law will encompass much more than just "sex trafficking", which is the scare de jour in the US.

 

[oggbashan]

The proposed UK law on internet pornography was postponed earlier this year because of difficulties in drafting the legislation and is now stalled by the pending General Election.

 

[ThisNameIsntTakenYet]

But you are right that in the US the parameters of "obscenity" are sufficiently unclear that Literotica and other erotic story sites have some reason to be concerned. I recall reading about that case a while ago, and if I remember it right the defendant who was convicted wrote stories with violent pedophiliac content.

Can't help but once again wonder how Stephen King got away with writing a gangbang of 13-year-olds. I know it's been removed from later editions, but still.

 

[SimonDoom]

Can't help but once again wonder how Stephen King got away with writing a gangbang of 13-year-olds. I know it's been removed from later editions, but still.

It's been a while since I read that book, but my recollection is that the scene was not handled in a pornographic or titillating way.

My view may be at odds with our times, but I think we were more sane as a culture on these issues in the 80s, when the book was published, than we are now.

I wasn't aware that later editions had removed the scene. I think that's too bad, but not that surprising.

 

[ThisNameIsntTakenYet]

It's been a while since I read that book, but my recollection is that the scene was not handled in a pornographic or titillating way.

My view may be at odds with our times, but I think we were more sane as a culture on these issues in the 80s, when the book was published, than we are now.

I wasn't aware that later editions had removed the scene. I think that's too bad, but not that surprising.

Actually, googling it right now I can't find any evidence that it has in fact been removed from reprints. It's what one of my friends told me, who had found an old copy at a secondhand bookstore and read it, telling me about the scene. I personally never read the book (any version of it), as I'm not a fan of the genre.

Anyway, pretty sure it was my friend's first time reading the book, after having only seen the movies. She was very surprised and weirded out by the scene. I guess it might indeed not have aged very well and that it was received differently when the book was originally published, but the way she described it to me it sounded very weird and unusual to me too.

Still, I don't think there's any situation in which a writer just has to include something like that, regardless of the purpose of the scene. From what she told me, it could have been handled in a much more PG way while still achieving the same result.

 

[SimonDoom]

Actually, googling it right now I can't find any evidence that it has in fact been removed from reprints. It's what one of my friends told me, who had found an old copy at a secondhand bookstore and read it, telling me about the scene. I personally never read the book (any version of it), as I'm not a fan of the genre.

Anyway, pretty sure it was my friend's first time reading the book, after having only seen the movies. She was very surprised and weirded out by the scene. I guess it might indeed not have aged very well and that it was received differently when the book was originally published, but the way she described it to me it sounded very weird and unusual to me too.

Still, I don't think there's any situation in which a writer just has to include something like that, regardless of the purpose of the scene. From what she told me, it could have been handled in a much more PG way while still achieving the same result.

In the last 5 years I've become aware that contemporary audiences respond to things very differently from the way audiences responded 30+ years ago -- especially things having to do with sex and race. I'm increasingly aware that I sound like an aging grumpy boomer, but I think the changes are unfortunate.

People are sexual. They're sexual from a very early age. Sex is a fact of life. I see nothing wrong with art and literature capturing that, so long as no real-life persons are abused. I don't share the squeamishness that contemporary audiences have for this subject matter.

 

[tomlitilia]

In the last 5 years I've become aware that contemporary audiences respond to things very differently from the way audiences responded 30+ years ago -- especially things having to do with sex and race. I'm increasingly aware that I sound like an aging grumpy boomer, but I think the changes are unfortunate.

People are sexual. They're sexual from a very early age. Sex is a fact of life. I see nothing wrong with art and literature capturing that, so long as no real-life persons are abused. I don't share the squeamishness that contemporary audiences have for this subject matter.

Sure underage people are sexual, and I'm sure there are tactful ways to describe it. But to expect Laurel to define that on a story to story basis is unrealistic. Makes much more sense to have a blanket ban on everything under 18. I know I wouldn't publish on a site that had paedophilic content on it. And I'm sure there are many readers who feel the same way about reading here. I'm grateful for the tedious work Laurel does policing the site.

 

[SimonDoom]

Sure underage people are sexual, and I'm sure there are tactful ways to describe it. But to expect Laurel to define that on a story to story basis is unrealistic. Makes much more sense to have a blanket ban on everything under 18. I know I wouldn't publish on a site that had paedophilic content on it. And I'm sure there are many readers who feel the same way about reading here. I'm grateful for the tedious work Laurel does policing the site.

I didn't say otherwise. That's a whole different issue. The under-18 rule here is clear and I respect Laurel's decision about it.

But one can think, as I do, that the rule makes sense here, but that in society as a whole we should be more open and tolerant in art and literature to the complexity of human experience.

30 years ago, I would not have dreamed that we would become a more, rather than less, squeamish and easily offended society. But we have become just that. I'm aware that I sound like an old fart, but I think it's too bad.

 

[Maeven_quinn]

Can't help but once again wonder how Stephen King got away with writing a gangbang of 13-year-olds. I know it's been removed from later editions, but still.

That was in IT, right? Maybe he got away with because "that was the Cocaine writing" or something.

I guess if it wasn't handled for titillation, but it's hard to imagine a pedophile not enjoying it.

 

[gordo12]

18 is a safe line. Not the legal line, depending on the material.

I read this the other day. It lays out the legalities and seems reasonably current.

https://www.lotscave.com/ebooks/free/free-writers-guides.php

 

[Stillrandy]

I didn't say otherwise. That's a whole different issue. The under-18 rule here is clear and I respect Laurel's decision about it.

But one can think, as I do, that the rule makes sense here, but that in society as a whole we should be more open and tolerant in art and literature to the complexity of human experience.

30 years ago, I would not have dreamed that we would become a more, rather than less, squeamish and easily offended society. But we have become just that. I'm aware that I sound like an old fart, but I think it's too bad.

I am glad for the 'under 18 rule' for this reason: if the rule were changed (say by popular demand) to, say 'under 17', then there would be a hue and cry to go to 16. And where does it end?

 

[gordo12]

And where does it end?

Generally around 14 where SOL sits.

 

[RelentlessOnanism]

I'll say what I always say about Literotica’s underage rule - I think, bearing in mind what the site does allow, the underage rule is silly; but I accept that this is a privately owned website and the rules are the rules.

 

[SimonDoom]

I'll say what I always say about Literotica’s underage rule - I think, bearing in mind what the site does allow, the underage rule is silly; but I accept that this is a privately owned website and the rules are the rules.

My feeling too. There's no point in arguing with it because it's been the rule for a long, long time and it's not going to change, and the site owners have a reason for maintaining it even if the consequences seem odd.

 

[oggbashan]

I'll say what I always say about Literotica’s underage rule - I think, bearing in mind what the site does allow, the underage rule is silly; but I accept that this is a privately owned website and the rules are the rules.

There are many US based organisations that campaign against underaged sexual portrayals. An 18 plus rule avoids the worst condemnation even if it is odd. In the UK when you can marry and have consensual sex at 16, it seems even odder but that's lit's rule and I follow it.

One of my cousins married (with parental consent) on her 16th birthday and had her first child before her 17th. In many parts of the US her husband would be charged with statutory rape.

Edited for PS: They will celebrate their 60th wedding anniversary next spring.

 

[Maeven_quinn]

There are many US based organisations that campaign against underaged sexual portrayals. An 18 plus rule avoids the worst condemnation even if it is odd. In the UK when you can marry and have consensual sex at 16, it seems even odder but that's lit's rule and I follow it.

One of my cousins married (with parental consent) on her 16th birthday and had her first child before her 17th. In many parts of the US her husband would be charged with statuatory rape.

How common is that exception in the UK? There are some places in the United States where that happens. It typically only happens in rural and religious communities.

 

[oggbashan]

How common is that exception in the UK? There are some places in the United States where that happens. It typically only happens in rural and religious communities.

Last info is 2014: 400 women and 40 men in England and Wales married between 16 and 18th birthdays (with parental consent).

In Scotland you can marry at 16 WITHOUT parental consent even if you are just visiting - hence Gretna Green.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretna_Green

 

[oggbashan]

Immigrant to US:

There is a famous case of a UK policeman who emigrated to the US with his wife and family. They had married when she was 16 and he was 19. Their first child arrived when the wife was still 17. He applied for and was accepted to be a sheriff's deputy but the state governor had to pardon him for statutory rape before he could be appointed.

 

[jehoram]

There are 435 members of the House. I'm not sure a letter signed by four of them even constitutes a "push."

Smells like electioneering to me. These guys want it on record that they're anti-porn, to win over their constituents. I doubt that anything serious will come of this, particularly since Barr and Trump have other things on their mind. They may call attention to it as a distraction from the "I" issue, but it won't have much staying power.

 

[Maeven_quinn]

Last info is 2014: 400 women and 40 men in England and Wales married between 16 and 18th birthdays (with parental consent).

In Scotland you can marry at 16 WITHOUT parental consent even if you are just visiting - hence Gretna Green.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gretna_Green

I didn’t know Gretna Green. No shortage of YA novels based on that setting alone.

Admittedly, it’s hard for me to conceive of “parental permission to marry” without “parental pressure to marry.” Most of the time when that has happened in the US it’s errie, old world sexism, and marriages that might as well basically arranged.

 

[SimonDoom]

The most famous recent example of this was 51-year-old actor Doug Hutchison marrying 16-year-old Courtney Stodden in Las Vegas, Nevada. I believe she had her parents' approval. Alas, the marriage only lasted a little over 2 years.

Historically, this isn't that unusual. Nobody batted an eye when they read Gone with the Wind, which came out in 1939 although it was set in 1861. Scarlett was 16 and Rhett was 33 when they met.