Permissable underage activities

[LIVINRFANTASIES]

Denny

I know you hear this all the time, but I love your hat

Well, I love your shorts.

 

[plesmore]

I used to be known as "The guy with a cake on his head".

It covers my bald spot.

Keep the hat

 

[Quip]

Underage sex is strictly forbidden by Literotica, regardless of the fictional nature of it.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

This topic comes up about every week or so...and everyone jumps in giving the same answer as the last person.

Maybe there should be a sticky about this subject, clearly labeled...oh wait this thread is clearly labeled, just need to add the word " = none" to it. That should be pretty clear to any new authors or authors that just had there stories rejected.

 

[Bramblethorn]

May I remind you there are no/none/nil political pressures as of yet?

Ha ha ha no.

https://www.google.com.au/amp/www.p...ledge-to-crack-down-on-internet-porn.amp.html

(Anybody who believes such measures would only be applied to stopping genuine child exploitation, well, I have a lovely bridge to sell you. It's a great bridge, the best. Tremendous.)

 

[Nezhul]

I don't believe for a moment that you're the one setting the rules around here. This idea of yours that a 17 year old is a little child is absurd. I find the story I mentioned entirely acceptable within the actual rules of Literotica. What sex there is in this story takes place after the participants are of legal age, so no problem. And thinking a parent talking about the birds and the bees to their son or daughter, is in any possible way objectionable, then it's your problem, not mine.

Not only sex is banned for underage people. Anything erotic, anything sexual or arousing, any nasty thoughts, any interest in the other gender, masturbation, as well as any involvement in any of those as a bystander - is banned.

I't not my rules. These are site's rules.

And 17 year old is not a child in real world. But this age is still underage.
On literotica, everyone below 18 years of age are underage people. And the rules for this group are the same, be they 3 years old, or 17.
A character is 17 and has a birthday tomorrow? Too bad, for now he/she has to be twice as innocent as Mother Theresa. He is still underage at this point, and if you even hint on something sexual, erotic or arousing - that's breaking the rules.

And you still didn't say in the end WHY are you so bent on discussing sexual topics with underage people? What's so important about it?

 

[Handley_Page]

I don't believe for a moment that you're the one setting the rules around here. This idea of yours that a 17 year old is a little child is absurd. I find the story I mentioned entirely acceptable within the actual rules of Literotica. What sex there is in this story takes place after the participants are of legal age, so no problem. And thinking a parent talking about the birds and the bees to their son or daughter, is in any possible way objectionable, then it's your problem, not mine.

In reality, you're probably right.
But as a 'pointer to correct conduct' it's as good as any.

Actually it is your problem. Get on Laurel's wrong side with underage and you will find it very hard to get anything posted. Stick to over the age of 18 characters and you will find things smoother all around. The site owner set the age at 18, not us. So take it up with her.

Very True.

PS. You can quote Father talking about "the birds & bees" but not in any detail. The message gets across without causing grief.

 

[Zeb_Carter]

What are the Guidelines for submitting a story?


On the very first page of the website click submissions.

Right after the Categories link, is the What are the Guidelines for submitting a story. Read the answer.

ETA: There have been more and more of this type of thread over the last year. Someone always trying to get around the rules and then coming here to bellyache about it and asking why. Why is simple. The owners say so. So why do all of them always bellyache? And each time they do, we all jump on them that that's the rules. Then they all say...I want them changed. We say can't. Then they go away for a while and come back with a new ID and start the whole thing over again. I say nobody ever answer an underage question again. Except to post the link above.

 

[girlyboi85]

A bit like punching a wall for four billion years, you gotta feel like you'll get through one day.

 

[OmnislashXX]

Some of the earlier posts are a bit sarcastic in their nature, with regards to the rules here.

Right. Bottom line. Her site, her rules.

So no underage anything. Period.

Now, one could argue that for the sake of wanting to characterize or personalize characters, the story may want to share some of the information regarding the person when they were under the age of eighteen. After all, things like that do happen right?

Not on this site.

It may seem unfair, but we all have to live with it.

 

[HandsInTheDark]

Remind me? Remind me of what? There has always been a threat in the US of pressure to reduce and/or close down sites that host erotica. Some of that threat is from particular Christian entities in the US. It isn't necessarily President-elect Trump personally but a Republican President with a Republican administration.

There are a number of things that worry me about the current political mix here, but the thought that it's going to usher in a repressive strike against porn isn't even on the radar. They're much more likely to de-fund groups acting as watchdogs on porn (and pretty much anything else in the social, cultural or economic realm).

As for Christian entities being a threat to erotic content, or even porn... they'll continue to do sermons on why pornography is a problem, but no one is putting a penny into a political stance on that issue, which means the only people hearing an anti-porn message are the people who are ok with that message. The church has vastly more pressing issues - poverty, abortion, you name it - to be much concerned about what people pretend to do on a screen.

Conservatives are about to start living their worst nightmare: for the first time in years they have the political clout to pass legislation embodying their views - views which are increasingly unpopular with an increasingly large majority of Americans. They either actually do things they've only talked about for decades - pissing off everyone and getting themselves sent packing within two years - or they suddenly get real quiet and don't do anything much at all, which is going to infuriate their shrinking but vocal and already angry base. Sometimes nothing sucks like winning.

Lit is safe, and yahoo groups disbanding... good mercy, that's absurd.

 

[lovecraft68]

Permissible underage is not using a number, but being clever. Don't say "I had sex with her at 16" say the character is 18 and then "Two years ago I had sex with her"

Permissible underage is saying your character is 18 or older and having then dress, talk, act and have the physical attributes of an underage person(99% of the time a girl) Mandy was twenty, but her breasts were budding

Lits rule is just like amazon's BS content rules. They say they don't want incest...but they want the money so there are countless books there with descriptions of 'Tom' having sex with 'that special older woman in his house' but not mom...

The reason I assume my above examples are permissible is because those stories are rampant on this site and when I started a thread linking hundreds of them all using an underage buzzword the reaction from the site was what it usually is when they are caught with their pants down....crickets.

This site claims no underage and here are all their boot licking toadies thumping their chest and acting like this site has standards...maybe they do...but they make no effort to screen anything, and again I doubt it is about screening, but more about wanting to draw readers for underage, rape and bestiality and whatever else the site claims it doesn't want, but allows here as long as the author has an 'angle' to not make it indisputable.

Lit wants rape and underage stories that they can say, 'well its how you interpret it, we can't help what the reader interprets' which of course is horseshit and anyone with an ounce of independence who doesn't feel they have to kiss site ass can see this.

Now do I give a shit? Not at all. Everyone says her site, her rules so yeah whatever she wants goes. I don't write or read any of that stuff anyway and no one is making me.

My issue is the lying and hypocrisy of saying they don't allow it while winking at you as they say it. If a story is reported they will generally block it to look good, but some stories remain here for years before being reported meaning the site was happy to get those clicks and views and that traffic, then the "hey, gee, how did that get here?"

With a rare exception 'budding breasts' are only found on young girls, sometimes pre-teen, meaning that description should be a rejection. I post a thread linking hundreds of stories with that term and the result again was nothing.

So that tells me underage is permissible as long as you don't use an actual number.

Or it means the site does not want it, but is so lazy or so busy egging on cyber bullying in the general board that they don't want to take anytime to look and see if all that 'unwanted content' is in submissions.

For my fans...I'll finish with the inevitable.***** says no rape and has a non con section

Also many years ago Lit had a sister site extreme stories which were pretty much asstr level fare of underage and flat out rape. When Extreme stories went south for whatever reason those stories didn't vanish they were brought here and many are still here.

To be clear I'm not encouraging under age writing or any other 'rule breaking' material. I'm simply contesting the seriousness behind the rules because I don't see any indication there is any other than the moral majority here acting like a bunch of pious protesters outside an abortion clinic when someone dares mention underage.

You should really stop because the content of this site makes you look like fools.

 

[lovecraft68]

There are a number of things that worry me about the current political mix here, but the thought that it's going to usher in a repressive strike against porn isn't even on the radar. They're much more likely to de-fund groups acting as watchdogs on porn (and pretty much anything else in the social, cultural or economic realm).

As for Christian entities being a threat to erotic content, or even porn... they'll continue to do sermons on why pornography is a problem, but no one is putting a penny into a political stance on that issue, which means the only people hearing an anti-porn message are the people who are ok with that message. The church has vastly more pressing issues - poverty, abortion, you name it - to be much concerned about what people pretend to do on a screen.

Conservatives are about to start living their worst nightmare: for the first time in years they have the political clout to pass legislation embodying their views - views which are increasingly unpopular with an increasingly large majority of Americans. They either actually do things they've only talked about for decades - pissing off everyone and getting themselves sent packing within two years - or they suddenly get real quiet and don't do anything much at all, which is going to infuriate their shrinking but vocal and already angry base. Sometimes nothing sucks like winning.

Lit is safe, and yahoo groups disbanding... good mercy, that's absurd.

Personal differences aside, I agree with pretty much everything here. Porn is under no threat, just like guns or abortion will never be under a threat. A little noise is made to appease the thumpers and create a little fear of loss to spike the economy as far as guns and porn goes and that's it.

Years ago when you had to risk being seen going into an adult bookstore to get porn there may have been more of a chance.

But now? The internet has made porn a billion dollar industry and women are as into it as men these days (partly because of the privacy of never leaving your home to get it) there is no way porn will ever be under a serious attack.

Revenge porn laws are tightening up, but that's a different issue entirely, but one that will cause troubles for sites like...this one that even when they know pics were posted without permission they remain up here-otherwise porn is safe.

I'm also one who believes a large portion of these "porn is evil" religious asshats have more porn on their computer than anyone here does.

The chruch, especially the Catholic church should worry more about their priests and Cardinals diddling little kids than worry about what a couple is watching in the privacy of their own home.

Pence may be a borderline zealot, but the group that would back him is aging and dwindling. The one benefit to the millennial generation is they believe in excluding nothing and aren't voting for censorship.

The group that would are the people born and raised in the I"m better than you religious foundation and fortunately for us those fossils are a dying breed. Good riddance.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Personal differences aside, I agree with pretty much everything here. Porn is under no threat, just like guns or abortion will never be under a threat. A little noise.....

Agreed. Politics aside, I think with all the far more major issues on the boil, porn is an irrelevancy that noone has any interest in taking on. And so much of it is online now anyhow. Really, there's no political points to win for anyone except islamics these days.

 

[geronimo_appleby]

fuck me, how difficult is it?

no under 18.

done.

don't like it? fuck off.

 

[Handley_Page]

I don't believe for a moment that you're the one setting the rules around here. This idea of yours that a 17 year old is a little child is absurd. I find the story I mentioned entirely acceptable within the actual rules of Literotica. What sex there is in this story takes place after the participants are of legal age, so no problem. And thinking a parent talking about the birds and the bees to their son or daughter, is in any possible way objectionable, then it's your problem, not mine.

No, it is not a real assumption that something magical happens at age 18.
Whilst the Law (in various countries in which Lit is available) is slightly variable, it's considered best to stick to one rule for all so the story will pass muster throughout the Lit world.
This concept might be absurd BUT IT WORKS round here.
The fact that you personally find a particular story acceptable is immaterial; the subject matter is not within your purview.
In short: There is NO wiggle-room.
Or are you simply taking the mickey ?

Have you never heard references to "sex education" as being about "the birds and bees" ? You don't Have to detail the "tab A in slot B" when mentioning it in the context of a character talking to his son. The mere mention of a chat about the birds and the bees is sufficient to get the idea across to most readers.
.

 

[uksnowy]

Tell me about it - rejections, for even suggested that someone underage is even in the same house.

I don't do it now.

 

[ChloeTzang]

Tell me about it - rejections, for even suggested that someone underage is even in the same house.

I don't do it now.

Exactly. I had a couple of rejections early on. I figured out the rules all on my own and now I just work within them. Haven't had a problem since.

 

[jsmiam]

I don't think it's entirely a case of "It's just Laurel". I pass through another site with an amusingly long list of similarities, top of the list the complaining by pedophiles that stories get pulled and disallowed. (It's got differences too, the avatar pictures are all extreme sausage-party close ups, and across the board, it's just raunchier in every way.)

Anyway, my guess is that if you operate a site with lots of visitors, you probably get tired of about the 1000-th request by various law enforcement agencies for information on suspicious activity, so eventually you realize life is easier if you ban child porn, and anything that remotely resembles it. If you had a website, you'd probably do the same thing. Meaning, there are Laurelisms, and there are non-Laurelisms. I suggest to you that this isn't a Laurelism.

And on a positive note, some of are happy with it not being here. Kinda classes up the place.

 

[Handley_Page]

Tell me about it - rejections, for even suggested that someone underage is even in the same house.

I don't do it now.

I trust that your life will be less of a problem and that you'll find more acceptable (simple) facets of sex to explore and thus develop your powers of description, to the benefit of the Reader.

. . . my guess is that if you operate a site with lots of visitors, you probably get tired of about the 1000-th request by various law enforcement agencies for information on suspicious activity, so eventually you realize life is easier if you ban child porn, and anything that remotely resembles it. If you had a website, you'd probably do the same thing. Meaning, there are Laurelisms, and there are non-Laurelisms. I suggest to you that this isn't a Laurelism.

And on a positive note, some of are happy with it not being here. Kinda classes up the place.

Exactly !

 

[uksnowy]

Yes thanks HP