Over/under 18 question for story

[robincr]

deleted

 

[Stella_Omega]

On Lit, people don't have sex before they are 18. Not only that, they don't know about it, never think about it, and have never thought about thinking about it.

On the day of their 18th birthdays, of course, they are all of them promiscuous and highly skilled little tarts...
I don't think you'll get your idea past the editors, really. It's just much easier for them to err on the side of caution than otherwise.

 

[gauchecritic]

The specifics of the rule are that no sex shall take place with a character below the age of 18 years. As long as there is no sexual action (I'm assuming fondling of bits to be a sexual act) then you are within Lits rules.

In fact I'd say that you are affirming Lits rules with the rejection.

Send it in and the worst that will happen is that they will require you to change it.

 

[Guest]

On Lit, people don't have sex before they are 18. Not only that, they don't know about it, never think about it, and have never thought about thinking about it.

On the day of their 18th birthdays, of course, they are all of them promiscuous and highly skilled little tarts...
I don't think you'll get your idea past the editors, really. It's just much easier for them to err on the side of caution than otherwise.

Isn't that what happened when you turned 18, Stella?



She is wise, robin. Follow her advice and your story will not get rejected.

Good luck.

 

[robincr]

deleted

 

[Lauren Hynde]

I have a story idea where one of the characters is under 18 initially, but there's no sex. There's an overture and, due to her age, a rejection.

The point is to then setup a later part of the story where she turns 18 and decides this time she won't be refused.

Would that be accepted or rejected under lit's rules?

On Lit, unlike what these Filistins have said, people can know very well what sex is before they're 18, and they can have as much as they want. But there cannot be any graphic account of sex or sexual situations involving people under 18 in any way - even as observers. So, it would have been fine for your 17-year-old character to be the biggest slut in town, as long as we don't hear more about it than a simple "I had sex with the whole football squad and the waterboy too", or the literary expanded version. If you actively describe a scene where that same character was involved in a sexual situation beyond kissing or innocent seduction, it's irrelevant whether sex actually occurs or not - the story would likely be rejected.

 

[slyc_willie]

Maybe, maybe not. I had a story approved on this site in which the characters were eighteen, yet allusions were given that suggested they had folled around -- innocently -- the year before.

One of the earliest phrases is when the female character -- at the age of eighteen -- exposes her breasts to her lover and says "miss these?"

However, I also made it clear that there had been no actual prior sexual experience . . . just kissing and maybe some touchy-feely through their clothes.

I suppose it's all in the wording

ETA: this post was in response to robincr's, not Lauren's

 

[neonlyte]

On Lit, unlike what these Filistins have said, people can know very well what sex is before they're 18, and they can have as much as they want. But there cannot be any graphic account of sex or sexual situations involving people under 18 in any way - even as observers. So, it would have been fine for your 17-year-old character to be the biggest slut in town, as long as we don't hear more about it than a simple "I had sex with the whole football squad and the waterboy too", or the literary expanded version. If you actively describe a scene where that same character was involved in a sexual situation beyond kissing or innocent seduction, it's irrelevant whether sex actually occurs or not - the story would likely be rejected.

Withdrawal symptoms?







Which one of you tripped over the life vest?

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Withdrawal symptoms?

Well, it had been almost a week!

Which one of you tripped over the life vest?

There were life vests too? Sheesh! All we saw was the sign saying there were live vests under our seats and we freaked out! Can you imagine?

 

[jomar]

I have a story idea where one of the characters is under 18 initially, but there's no sex. There's an overture and, due to her age, a rejection.

The point is to then setup a later part of the story where she turns 18 and decides this time she won't be refused.

Would that be accepted or rejected under lit's rules?

I tend to think that if it's clear there was an overture and a refusal when she was 17 you'd be on solid ground. Of course, it might be a bit flirty, but would have to be chaste. Clearly, real-time slutdom emerges only when one turns 18.

 

[WRJames]

On Lit, people don't have sex before they are 18. Not only that, they don't know about it, never think about it, and have never thought about thinking about it.

On the day of their 18th birthdays, of course, they are all of them promiscuous and highly skilled little tarts...
I don't think you'll get your idea past the editors, really. It's just much easier for them to err on the side of caution than otherwise.

Not just Lit -- I had to do some crazy things with my novels to get everyone over 18 -- the publisher is Canadian, and she was unwilling to take the chance of having them "underage." Apparently, even the modest protections we have for written expression in the US don't apply in other English speaking countries.

But I did get What's It Like To Be A Man past the Lit censors.

 

[JamesSD]

On Lit, unlike what these Filistins have said, people can know very well what sex is before they're 18, and they can have as much as they want. But there cannot be any graphic account of sex or sexual situations involving people under 18 in any way - even as observers. So, it would have been fine for your 17-year-old character to be the biggest slut in town, as long as we don't hear more about it than a simple "I had sex with the whole football squad and the waterboy too", or the literary expanded version. If you actively describe a scene where that same character was involved in a sexual situation beyond kissing or innocent seduction, it's irrelevant whether sex actually occurs or not - the story would likely be rejected.

This is consistent with my understanding. I've certainly implied that characters of mine were having sex, or at least coming close when they were in high school. But it's always been in the past, off page, and vaguely referenced.

It's not so much a moral policy as a legal ass-covering (Hmmm I should write a short story called "Legal Ass-Covering"....), so my impression is that the Powers that Be generally just ask "could we get in trouble for this in the US?" and if the answer is no, it's ok.

 

[WRJames]

It's not so much a moral policy as a legal ass-covering (Hmmm I should write a short story called "Legal Ass-Covering"....), so my impression is that the Powers that Be generally just ask "could we get in trouble for this in the US?" and if the answer is no, it's ok.

Well, in the US it has to be a visual depiction -- see http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html . It's other English speaking countries like Britain, Canada, and Australia that don't have the same protections for freedom of speech where there might be a problem.

 

[DerelictionOfSanity]

Have you considered writing it in two chapters? That way, you'd have one with the underage girl, clearly non-sexual and the other with adults where you could have as much rambunctious fornication as you want.

I think that would work. (For that matter, I've seen several stories on Lit with childhood friends who turn 18 and then get busy together)

 

[Boxlicker101]

Maybe, maybe not. I had a story approved on this site in which the characters were eighteen, yet allusions were given that suggested they had folled around -- innocently -- the year before.

One of the earliest phrases is when the female character -- at the age of eighteen -- exposes her breasts to her lover and says "miss these?"

However, I also made it clear that there had been no actual prior sexual experience . . . just kissing and maybe some touchy-feely through their clothes.

I suppose it's all in the wording

ETA: this post was in response to robincr's, not Lauren's

Allusions are okay, as long as there are no descriptions. I have one story, "Stephanie's Eighteenth Birthday" where all the action takes place on that evening. However, there are frequent references to her past experiences, in which she mentally compares her stepfather very favorably to previous boyfriends.

At the same time, they may have tightened up the restriction, and might not accept that story if I were to edit it and resubmit it.

 

[Vermilion]

Well, in the US it has to be a visual depiction -- see http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html . It's other English speaking countries like Britain, Canada, and Australia that don't have the same protections for freedom of speech where there might be a problem.

Yeah, but Britain's age of consent is 16 and we're not run by right-wing fundamentalist Xians, so we're rather more relaxed about sex in general...
x
V

 

[Lauren Hynde]

Well, in the US it has to be a visual depiction -- see http://www4.law.cornell.edu/uscode/html/uscode18/usc_sec_18_00002256----000-.html . It's other English speaking countries like Britain, Canada, and Australia that don't have the same protections for freedom of speech where there might be a problem.

It has nothing to do with legislation, dude. The owners of Literotica made a conscious editorial decision of not allowing stories with under-18 characters involved in sexual situations as to not to cater to audiences with paedophile tendencies. Editorial decision. Just like your Canadian publisher made a similar editorial decision. And the reason why your publisher is Canadian is, quite possibly, because too many US publishers made an editorial decision to not publish sexually explicit material even if all the characters were 30.

 

[robincr]

deleted

 

[WRJames]

It has nothing to do with legislation, dude. The owners of Literotica made a conscious editorial decision of not allowing stories with under-18 characters involved in sexual situations as to not to cater to audiences with paedophile tendencies. Editorial decision. Just like your Canadian publisher made a similar editorial decision. And the reason why your publisher is Canadian is, quite possibly, because too many US publishers made an editorial decision to not publish sexually explicit material even if all the characters were 30.

Yes -- that was my point -- that it wasn't a legal question, at least within the US. As for the publisher being Canadian -- that's where she lives. She's published a lot of her own stuff on Renaissance Books in the past, so there is no aversion to US publishers. But US foreign policy and the rise of the Christian conservatives is enough to keep her safely north of the border.