Remarkably helpful rejection notice

[Writer61]

I just had a story rejected (wrongly) for underage sexual activity. What surprised me was that the rejection notice specified the offending sentence.

The checklist below may help you in re-examining your manuscript.​

• Was there an underage (under 18 years old) sexual relationship in my story?
• [[I got used to seeing my mother and her lovers naked, sometimes having sex, but Mum kept a pretty close eye on things; none of them ever bothered me.]]

I thought that made it clear, but have rewritten it so that there is no doubt:

"I saw my mother and her lovers naked, but Mum made sure that I was never involved in anything sexual."

Hopefully that will be enough.

 

[Britva415]

In the first case, you come right out and say the kid saw sex. That's a total no-brainer.

Let us know how your "fix" goes, as far as acceptance. To me, it doesn't remove the perception (the intention?) that the kid is still seeing sex, even if Mum isn't "involving" them in it.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

"I saw my mother and her lovers naked, but Mum made sure that I was never involved in anything sexual."

I think you're still facing a rejection. An underage child seeing naked adults won't fly.

"Thinking back on it, I suspected what my mother and her lovers did when alone, but mum made sure that I never witnessed or was involved in anything sexual."

Something like that should pass muster.

 

[Writer61]

In the first case, you come right out and say the kid saw sex. That's a total no-brainer.

To quote the content guidelines: "Sexual activity involving characters under the age of 18."

Seeing sex is not mentioned.

Let us know how your "fix" goes, as far as acceptance. To me, it doesn't remove the perception (the intention?) that the kid is still seeing sex, even if Mum isn't "involving" them in it.

We'll see.

 

[ChuckWolf]

Without full context, the sentence is well-written, but clearly implies that a, probably, underage kid routinely sees his mom having sex with others, but makes sure the MC isn't tangibly involved beyond that.

Now, if the story begins with the main character coming home after having dropped his kids off with his ex-wife and hoping to get a few hours of rest before his shift at the steel mill, but then hears his barfly-mom fucking and, knowing he clearly won't get any sleep, decides to just watch and masturbate instead, that's another story.

 

[NotWise]

To quote the content guidelines: "Sexual activity involving characters under the age of 18."

Seeing sex is not mentioned.


We'll see.

I think underage characters witnessing nudity and/or sex has historically been the basis for rejections.

Your best bet was (and is) to remove that aspect of the story. If that means murdering that darling, then do it.

 

[Writer61]

Without full context, the sentence is well-written, but clearly implies that a, probably, underage kid routinely sees his mom having sex with others, but makes sure the MC isn't tangibly involved beyond that.

Now, if the story begins with the main character coming home after having dropped his kids off with his ex-wife and hoping to get a few hours of rest before his shift at the steel mill, but then hears his barfly-mom fucking and, knowing he clearly won't get any sleep, decides to just watch and masturbate instead, that's another story.

It is the former, not the latter.

 

[Writer61]

I think underage characters witnessing nudity and/or sex has historically been the basis for rejections.

Your best bet was (and is) to remove that aspect of the story. If that means murdering that darling, then do it.

I will if I have to. The reason I have not done so already is that the underage girl, when an adult, gives it as the reason she is comfortable with public nudity.

 

[BeechLeaf]

I would agree that a child seeing sex, or hearing it from the next room, is a clear violation. The child is 'involved' in a sufficient sense.

 

[CalBishForNow]

There's a whole category for voyeurism and exhibitionism. The kid witnessing it and knowing what he's seeing is involved in it.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Let us know what you get back, lots of different interpretations here, but only one of them matters.

 

[Writer61]

The new version makes no mention of the MC, when young, seeing sex, just nudity. If that is beyond the pale …

FWIW, I have a much earlier story in which an underage girl witnesses nudity but not sex.

 

[NotWise]

I will if I have to. The reason I have not done so already is that the underage girl, when an adult, gives it as the reason she is comfortable with public nudity.

If you need to remove that justification, then it's an opportunity to give your character more agency. She could be comfortable with public nudity because of her conscious decision to subvert the norm and make people think--like Victoria Bateman, writing social and political commentary on her naked body.

 

[qidniz]

I think you're still facing a rejection. An underage child seeing naked adults won't fly.

What counts as a "child" in this scenario? Would a 17 year old qualify? More generally, how about clearly post-pubertal minors (say, 14+), who realistically (and/or reasonably) can be expected to know some basic facts?

 

[Kelliezgirl]

What counts as a "child" in this scenario? Would a 17 year old qualify? More generally, how about clearly post-pubertal minors (say, 14+), who realistically (and/or reasonably) can be expected to know some basic facts?

In Lit world it's 18 and that's it. No shades of gray.

 

[Rob_Royale]

I had a story rejected because the main character admitted to fantasizing when they were underage. No way your new version will fly.

 

[BobbyBrandt]

What counts as a "child" in this scenario? Would a 17 year old qualify? More generally, how about clearly post-pubertal minors (say, 14+), who realistically (and/or reasonably) can be expected to know some basic facts?

Underage is anyone 17 and younger.

These characters can be included in stories. They can kiss, hug, and express other signs of affection.

They cannot be involved in any sexual acts, witness them, hear them, or dream/think about them, purposely accidentally, or incidentally.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

There is no reason for that type of passage or reference to be there at all, in any form.

 

[Britva415]

There is no reason for that type of passage or reference to be there at all, in any form.

That's a valid opinion. Whether it lines up with the rules, as written, as intended, or as interpreted by management, is what's being asked for here.

 

[SmilingLez]

I just had a story rejected (wrongly) for underage sexual activity. What surprised me was that the rejection notice specified the offending sentence.

I thought that made it clear, but have rewritten it so that there is no doubt:

"I saw my mother and her lovers naked, but Mum made sure that I was never involved in anything sexual."

Hopefully that will be enough.

IMO, Your story was manually rejected. The rejection template had an addition made by a human. It is highlighted in red with double brackets on each side

 

[ElectricBlue]

This is the first time that I recall, that anyone has shown the offending sentence being fed back to the author. I might be wrong about that, but previous rejections meant the authors had to find the offending sentence for themselves.

In any event, I'm not sure the fix resolves the problem, it's still a bit dubious. Seeing the naked adults still contravenes the Lit policy line, I reckon. The kid should be out of the house and the sex well away from the same sentence, to be completely safe.

 

[Voboy]

There is no reason for that type of passage or reference to be there at all, in any form.

I agree, but the author doesn't. He seems to think it's necessary to explain his character's arc, and he knows the story (and the character) better than we do.

OP, I am with those who doubt your alteration will pass any better than the OG version did. There are ways to do this, but you're better off being almost completely opaque. Almost poetic.

 

[Five_Inch_Heels]

This is the first time that I recall, that anyone has shown the offending sentence being fed back to the author.

Examples have been posted before, but like everything else here, there is no consistency at all.

 

[BeechLeaf]

Yes, I also think I've seen examples (posted here) of the offending sentence being quoted. I'm not sure. If it's happened before, it's rare, and most people don't get it, just a boilerplate reason.

It would be nice to think they could sometimes pinpoint the problem to a single line. It would give a reassurance that everything else was acceptable.

 

[ElectricBlue]

Examples have been posted before, but like everything else here, there is no consistency at all.

Yes, I also think I've seen examples (posted here) of the offending sentence being quoted. I'm not sure. If it's happened before, it's rare, and most people don't get it, just a boilerplate reason.

It would be nice to think they could sometimes pinpoint the problem to a single line. It would give a reassurance that everything else was acceptable.

I wasn't sure (hence my caveat) but it's good to know that specifics are being provided more often. That's a definite change, for the better.

What I'd like to see more often, is folk saying, "Hmmmm, I see what you guys are saying, maybe I should change that, after all." There's often a reluctance to see why the site is rejecting the story, but in nearly every case, it's abundantly obvious to others.