Receiving comments wanting under age stories
- Thread starter fyrehart
- Start date
TxRad
Dirty Old Man
- Joined
- Jan 13, 2005
- Posts
- 45,152
Delete the comment and ignore them or report them. That is the two options.
elfin_odalisque
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Posts
- 10,056
TX is right. Lit has a simple rule that sexual activity between under-18s is not allowed.
Like it or lump it - that is the law here.
Just ignore the feedback or reply that under-18 sexual activity is not allowed here.
The owners, quite rightly, are protecting their business.
Just reply, ' I don't write underage sex. Please don't harrass me.'
mikey2much
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Nov 28, 2006
- Posts
- 1,457
direct them to another site
Not all sites are as politically correct as Lit is. I would send them to SOL.
Not all sites are as politically correct as Lit is. I would send them to SOL.
elfin_odalisque
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Posts
- 10,056
Under age sex is not 'politically correct', it is one of the tenets of the site. Like it or lump it.
Just to repeat, underage sex is pedophilia and I don't want that on the site ;ever.
Just to repeat, underage sex is pedophilia and I don't want that on the site ;ever.
SevenSquared
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- May 9, 2011
- Posts
- 332
Um... no it isn't
sr71plt
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jul 18, 2006
- Posts
- 51,872
lovecraft68
Bad Doggie
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2009
- Posts
- 43,904
No, pedophilia is an adult having sex with a child. As in a true child, like under 10 not a 16 year old. It is also never consunsual
Under age sex can be two 15 year old's consensually fooling around.
If you need more examples of pedophilia speak to your local priest
Cruel2BKind
Not Quite Here
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2011
- Posts
- 2,996
Pedophilia can be consensual. Part of the reasons some pedophiles don't get caught is they convince the kids that it's a game, or that sex will make them love the kid (in the case of a parent/family member)
It doesn't matter if pedophilia is consensual though, because it is sick for adults to desire children or adolescents, and children aren't old enough or developed enough to know better, or to understand real relationships.
And for the record? It makes me feel nearly as sick to hear about a forty-year-old with a sixteen year old as a six year old. An age gap that big is always sick, especially when there is a radical difference in their level of maturity. I'm not raling against 60-30, or 50-20, but yeah, I am frustrated even with 40-18, That is legal, but eighteen year olds are not mature enough yet. Most of them.
PennLady
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Posts
- 9,413
I don't think pedophilia can be consensual. In many places, if one person is under the age of consent, then consent cannot be given. Even if that child says "yes," it is not consent by legal definition. When you get into the teen years -- and then it's no longer pedophilia but ephebophilia -- it's probably murkier, especially as the age of consent varies.
Anyway, just b/c a pedophile convinces a child to say yes, that doesn't make it consensual.
Last edited:
SevenSquared
Really Really Experienced
- Joined
- May 9, 2011
- Posts
- 332
Isn't that why it's called the "age of consent" because it's the age when you're legally allowed to give consent?
I always irks me how dogmatic people get about underage sex. The age is different in every country, even in the developed western world ranging from anything from 12 to 18. In the UK the age of consent is 16. To listen to some people, it's like children are given a magic pill on their 16th birthday which makes them instantly mature enough to decide who they want to have sex with. If you have sex with a girl on their 16th birthday it's fine. Maybe a little creepy if you're over 30, but unless you're her teacher or something it's basically okay. Have sex with her the day before when she's 15 years and 364 days old then you are seen as a vile sex predator.
That being said I think the policy on this site is the only real logical one to follow. You can't start getting bogged down in what's legal and what isn't in every possible place so just putting a blanket ban on sexual situations involving under 18s (the highest AoC in any western democracy I think) is just about all you can do. Maybe they could have made it 16 instead, the principle would have still been the same. The only difference is that people who live in one of the states in the US where the AoC in 18 (and who think the world outside the US is some fictional land made up by CNN) would automatically start throwing words like 'pedophile' around with absolutely no justification.
I always irks me how dogmatic people get about underage sex. The age is different in every country, even in the developed western world ranging from anything from 12 to 18. In the UK the age of consent is 16. To listen to some people, it's like children are given a magic pill on their 16th birthday which makes them instantly mature enough to decide who they want to have sex with. If you have sex with a girl on their 16th birthday it's fine. Maybe a little creepy if you're over 30, but unless you're her teacher or something it's basically okay. Have sex with her the day before when she's 15 years and 364 days old then you are seen as a vile sex predator.
That being said I think the policy on this site is the only real logical one to follow. You can't start getting bogged down in what's legal and what isn't in every possible place so just putting a blanket ban on sexual situations involving under 18s (the highest AoC in any western democracy I think) is just about all you can do. Maybe they could have made it 16 instead, the principle would have still been the same. The only difference is that people who live in one of the states in the US where the AoC in 18 (and who think the world outside the US is some fictional land made up by CNN) would automatically start throwing words like 'pedophile' around with absolutely no justification.
elfin_odalisque
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2004
- Posts
- 10,056
Yup, wrote it in a hurry and it is wrong.
Would amend it to say that I accept that 16 is the general age of consent and I fully understand why the site wants to keep the bar at over-18.
To lovecraft; you are right but I disagree about 'consensual' and I vehemently disagree about your age limits.
joelafayette
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Jun 11, 2012
- Posts
- 542
.....
Last edited:
Playing Devil's Advocate
Here's a problem I have with the rigidity of the rule.
In many historical times, it was not unusual for a man in his forties to marry a teenaged girl. The reason was about economics, not sex; it usually took a man that long to become "established" with wealth and property - and his main concern was having a healthy young wife who would bear him many children (it also helped if the girl was well-connected and came with a substantial dowry).
I myself have two stories, set in historical periods, that involve "underage" girls that, simply because they are under eighteen, cannot be published here. One of them is about Mormon wives - girls who were often forced to marry much older men in order to satisfy the "commandments" of their disgusting, misogynistic, patriarchal desert deity. The sex scenes (such as they are) are certainly NOT erotic - quite the contrary, they're meant to disgust and outrage the reader.
The other is a tender story that takes place in 1950 of two seventeen-year-old girls who fall in love (admittedly somewhat autobiographical) - one of them winds of getting "date raped" by a boy, but that scene is not even shown (only the aftermath) - and as far as the two girls are concerned, it never goes beyond kissing.
Nonetheless, that story got rejected - even though I submitted it under the "Non-erotic" category.
I'm sorry - I have no sympathy with pedophiles, but this fear of them and being accused of it is a lot like McCarthy's communist witch-hunts, back in the day.
Here's a problem I have with the rigidity of the rule.
In many historical times, it was not unusual for a man in his forties to marry a teenaged girl. The reason was about economics, not sex; it usually took a man that long to become "established" with wealth and property - and his main concern was having a healthy young wife who would bear him many children (it also helped if the girl was well-connected and came with a substantial dowry).
I myself have two stories, set in historical periods, that involve "underage" girls that, simply because they are under eighteen, cannot be published here. One of them is about Mormon wives - girls who were often forced to marry much older men in order to satisfy the "commandments" of their disgusting, misogynistic, patriarchal desert deity. The sex scenes (such as they are) are certainly NOT erotic - quite the contrary, they're meant to disgust and outrage the reader.
The other is a tender story that takes place in 1950 of two seventeen-year-old girls who fall in love (admittedly somewhat autobiographical) - one of them winds of getting "date raped" by a boy, but that scene is not even shown (only the aftermath) - and as far as the two girls are concerned, it never goes beyond kissing.
Nonetheless, that story got rejected - even though I submitted it under the "Non-erotic" category.
I'm sorry - I have no sympathy with pedophiles, but this fear of them and being accused of it is a lot like McCarthy's communist witch-hunts, back in the day.
PennLady
Literotica Guru
- Joined
- Mar 26, 2009
- Posts
- 9,413
There are other sites that take stories with underage sex, such as SOL (StoriesOnline.net) and I believe ASSTR (haven't posted there myself).
This is not about real life or historical accuracy, or even pedophilia specifically although that's a big part of it. But you can't have a story with say, two 16yos having sex either, even though we all know the average age for sex is 13 or 14 or whatever. This is just the rule the site has adopted, for reasons they have stated.
Cruel2BKind
Not Quite Here
- Joined
- Feb 3, 2011
- Posts
- 2,996
Your stories sound very interesting, and its good that we make a distinction.
I have no problem with underage sex being portrayed in stories, the distinction is the intent.
If we're showing a fourteen-year-old boy having sex with his mother just to arouse, then I have a problem with it. If we are showing a fourteen-year-old by having sex with his mother to show the kind of sexual abuse she put him through as a teenager, to show us something about his psyche, or maybe about the kind of twisted person he and his mother are, then it's okay.
And I have nothing but contempt for people who complain about why lit doesn't let them show these stories.
They think that they are complaining about well-done, in-context underage sex that happens all of the time. But when lit bans underage sex, there are probably five inappropriate underage stories for every one that's well-done.
Bramblethorn
Sleep-deprived
- Joined
- Feb 16, 2012
- Posts
- 17,728
Agreed, and it gets particularly wrong-headed when "tough on pedophiles" laws end up harming kids (e.g. teenagers getting registered as sex offenders for posting nudes of themselves).
But I can't blame Lit for being cautious about this. In theory it's not illegal to discuss under-age sex, but in reality there's a potential for trouble, especially on an erotica site.
lovecraft68
Bad Doggie
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2009
- Posts
- 43,904
Consent is not valid in the eyes of the law if the child is below a certain age. Hence the expression "age of consent" which in RI and many states is 16.
No judge is going to take a 9 year olds consent as actual consent. Its manipulation by the predator.
