Temporal matters

[elfin_odalisque]

In the UK the legal age of consent, and the age at which people can marry (with parental consent) is sixteen.

I could write a story about sixteen year olds having sex and it would not be a problem in the UK. Shakespeare's Juliet was of legal age in his time.

But I wouldn't post such a story here. The 18 and over age rule is one of Literotica's few requirements. There are other sites that will accept sex at a younger age but most have some very unpleasant stories on them that would be considered child abuse in the UK.

Lit has rules. If you want to put your stories on Lit - follow the rules, please.

Juliet was 14 years old, the normal age for marriage in Elizabethan Italy.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

LC , don't be silly.

Lit probably could continue to post sexual stories where the fictional performers are over 16 but under 18. Why bother?

Lit has a concern that they might get inveigled into the struggle with porno sites. Don't blame Laurel for her Safety First rules to protect the business they have built.

 

[elfin_odalisque]

OK. A bit of history,

Laurel and Manu decided to abide by the rules for porno sites. Good decision in my view for authors.

Birth certicate and ID card is all. The nonsense about Time Differences between Tokyo and the West Coast is just anally retentive. The space differential is just fantasy.

 

[PayDay]

OK. A bit of history,

Laurel and Manu decided to abide by the rules for porno sites. Good decision in my view for authors.

Birth certicate and ID card is all. The nonsense about Time Differences between Tokyo and the West Coast is just anally retentive. The space differential is just fantasy.

Fuck you too.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

Including what Ogg said in #22 Lit has set this rule, even though underage stuff is legal by federal law in the USA, it's a Lit thing. It doesn't mean only 18+ stuff happens IRL, it's just decent, if only, for the content available on the Internet and by the site owner's preference.

I think it's the thing that sets Lit apart from every other 'theoretical' porn page on the Internet -- also the news links on the main story index page.

If the age limit rule changed I will probably stop posting here.

I have no problem with the rule, my problem is writers trying to squeeze an inch outta the rule. I grew up 50 years ago when age wasn't a problem, and I'd be a sinner today for what I did (and all did) in those days. But all my Ma said was BE CAREFUL. I was involved with all kinds of gals, young gals, old gals, married gals, and cousins. But I have no ants in my pants to write underage stories.

 

[mikey2much]

they say a picture is worth a thousand words

If the site really worried about underage items then I would think that some of the pictures posted in the fem boy thread in GLBT would set off all sorts of alarms but until somebody complains, nothing will be done.

I am not the sort of guy to drop a dime on anybody, but some of those kids can't be over fourteen. This is the kind of thing we are faced with here. Now that I have mentioned this thread I am sure somebody will remove it. And in a way it will be me that caused it.

Most people look down their noses at folks like us that like to read and write about sex. Hell when I was a kid porn was sold out of the trunks of cars by shady people who were just passing through. I admire Laurel and Manu for starting this site, it took some guts and now that it is a success, it is only natural that they would want to protect it.

They want the traffic that giving us perverts what we want brings but they are also wanting the approval of the public in general. That will never happen, the church will always be against any sex that they can stop. If the church had its way we wouldn't have this site to post to. They are always going to be there trying to stop the people from getting what they want.

 

[sr71plt]

I don't know if it's the approval of the general public they want as much is it is that they want to keep vigilantes and special scrutiny off our backs.

 

[Ldy_Sea]

18 is the age limit in most US states, not all. In Hawaii 16 is legal.

Does that mean if I wrote about a 16 year old hooker in Honolulu servicing the 7th fleet, it would be okay on this site? No it wouldn't. All characters must have passed their 18th birthday, it doesn't matter if they are a Tinme Lord taking daddy Tardis on a joyride, or Marty McFly and his Delorean. The only exception are fictional non humans. .

Unfortunatly many stories violating that rule slip through. Theres one I reported twice in Incest. It specifically states that the two girls whose birthdays are seperated by a day (One is born on Monday, the other on Wednesday) so the traditional family gangbang when children came of age happened the day between their birthdays (Tuesday). In other words one is still 17 as she is tied down and practically raped by her relatives. Yet this story has been on this site for years and hasn't been taken down after being reported.

Take from this what you will.

 

[JAMESBJOHNSON]

A local sheriff surfs the internet for items that violate the local law, orders such items, and extradites and has the state attorney prosecute the creators of the items. Its perfectly legal and folks from far away have been convicted and gone to prison. Doesn't matter if you live in California or Maine. If he gets a copy of the forbidden fruit youre screwed.

 

[Neverlander]

So, to loosely group the responses in this thread, they seem to fall into these rough categories:

1. Criticisms of my examples, some of them valid.
2. There's a rule to be followed, no discussion.
3. Everybody does it (i.e. applies a limit).
4. Some sites don't, so go there.
5. #$%@&^$%!!!

Aside from the occasional sputtering outburst of random rage, I've found it interesting to read all these responses. What was missing was a discussion of why the rule is perceived to be necessary. Missing, that is, until Mr. Snoopercharmbrights posted links to previous conversations of more than a decade ago. Voila! Very cogent and reasonable explanations from Ms. Laurel as to why she and her partner decided to make the rule - that's what I was looking for. I was particularly impressed by her evident reluctance to censor anything, but felt that in the current climate (then and now) it would be more trouble than it's worth to allow that particular genre. This is quite understandable, I suppose, given the world-wide reach of this site. Canada - Canada, for goodness sakes, that bastion of common sense! - criminalizes writing fiction about pedophilia, let alone practicing it. So I guess that even though we in the US have our wonderful First Amendment, not everyone does. Personally, I have no desire to read about feces, rape or football, but I wouldn't dream of denying others the pleasure! In this particular case, however, evidently the paranoia and hysteria of the times has led reasonable people to make a rule for their own and others' protection. One can't argue with that.

As for the discussion being "SO boring," Mr. Snoopercharmbrights, it would be well to remember the quip that defines an idiot as someone who doesn't know what you learned yesterday. I don't know if it was George Carlin who said that; it could have been.

 

[sr71plt]

You don't seem to be comprehending that a discussion on the forum on whether the rule is necessary is just irrelevant (irrespective to how often it comes up anyway--why don't you save us effort and frustration and read some of the old threads on this?). This is a privately owned site. The owners set the parameters on what they will allow to be posted here--and they have done so. They don't normally follow the forum discussions. Any discussions you have on this should be made directly to them--Laurel and/or Manu--via the PM system. Understand now?

 

[soflabbwlvr]

So, to loosely group the responses in this thread, they seem to fall into these rough categories:

1. Criticisms of my examples, some of them valid.
2. There's a rule to be followed, no discussion.
3. Everybody does it (i.e. applies a limit).
4. Some sites don't, so go there.
5. #$%@&^$%!!!

Aside from the occasional sputtering outburst of random rage, I've found it interesting to read all these responses. What was missing was a discussion of why the rule is perceived to be necessary. Missing, that is, until Mr. Snoopercharmbrights posted links to previous conversations of more than a decade ago. Voila! Very cogent and reasonable explanations from Ms. Laurel as to why she and her partner decided to make the rule - that's what I was looking for. I was particularly impressed by her evident reluctance to censor anything, but felt that in the current climate (then and now) it would be more trouble than it's worth to allow that particular genre. This is quite understandable, I suppose, given the world-wide reach of this site. Canada - Canada, for goodness sakes, that bastion of common sense! - criminalizes writing fiction about pedophilia, let alone practicing it. So I guess that even though we in the US have our wonderful First Amendment, not everyone does. Personally, I have no desire to read about feces, rape or football, but I wouldn't dream of denying others the pleasure! In this particular case, however, evidently the paranoia and hysteria of the times has led reasonable people to make a rule for their own and others' protection. One can't argue with that.

As for the discussion being "SO boring," Mr. Snoopercharmbrights, it would be well to remember the quip that defines an idiot as someone who doesn't know what you learned yesterday. I don't know if it was George Carlin who said that; it could have been.

Here's the thing. We've had this discussion many times already over the past several years. You didn't bring anything new to the table, except some examples that you thought were kind of clever. To the rest of us, you looked like just another pedo-panderer trying to skirt the established rules of the site. Had you initiated the discussion in another manner, you might have drawn different responses.

But in the end, it really doesn't matter. The site isn't a democracy. Campaigning for a change in the rule would be fruitless. Most of us here have accepted the rule and the reasoning behind it, no matter how tenuous it may be. This isn't the place for that.

 

[PennLady]

Aside from the occasional sputtering outburst of random rage, I've found it interesting to read all these responses. What was missing was a discussion of why the rule is perceived to be necessary. Missing, that is, until Mr. Snoopercharmbrights posted links to previous conversations of more than a decade ago.

I get what you're saying, but the problem is that a discussion of why the rule is perceived to be necessary is irrelevant. We as users can certainly speculate on it, or debate it on various levels, but what it comes down to is that we do not make the rules, Laurel and Manu do.

 

[oggbashan]

... What was missing was a discussion of why the rule is perceived to be necessary. ...

Literotica is based in the US. There are many organisations in the US that regard any online erotica as evil, corrupting and pernicious. You don't have to look very far to find them.

In the UK, any suggestion of sexual activity with children under age can ruin an individual's career and family life.

My opinion, and it is only my opinion, is that the owners of Literotica have made a sensible rule that protects this site from all but the most rabid anti-erotica campaigners.

It may be nonsensical that rape, extreme BDSM, wife abuse etc are permitted as fiction/fantasy but sexual activity under the age of 18 is banned.

But Literotica's rule protects this site and us from attack.

In the UK, if I wrote and posted stories on sites that accept numerous stories about sex with children, I could be accused by association of being a paedophile even if my stories never include any sexual activity with people under 18.

The accusation, even if wholly untrue, that I am associated with a paedophilic site, could lead to my computers being seized by the police, my name plastered all over the local media as an accused paedophile - and the mud would stick even if I was proved to be innocent. As a prosecutor in a British court put it in the last month - "being acquitted of paedophilia by a jury is not the same as being innocent - all the jury decided was that the particular accusation was not proven beyond reasonable doubt".

That was an outrageous statement. The jury took fifteen minutes to decide that the accusations were groundless. But they can't say that. All they can say is 'Not Guilty'. A judge can decide that the prosecution has not proven there is a case and declare the defendant innocent - but that is very rare and usually because someone else has been charged with the offence.

Literotica tries to stay away from the contentious issue of sex while 'underage' and I think that 18 is a reasonable compromise given differing laws in US States and in other countries.

In some countries all of us Literotica authors could be charged with serious crimes and even face the death penalty - for writing and publishing fiction.

 

[PayDay]

I have no problem with the rule, my problem is writers trying to squeeze an inch outta the rule.

THIS THIS THIS THIS x INFINITY---^

 

[jonthechaosman]

The scenarios are interesting but I think they are just ways to get around the 18 and over rule for sexual activity set by Literotica's owners.

The acid test is whether the reader might think one or more of the characters is under 18. If the story suggests that they are or might be, then it shouldn't be posted on Literotica.

The actual age doesn't have to be stated specifically. If the description and characteristics suggest pubescent or mid teens - it should be rejected.

Until I came to this site I had never read so many stories of High School students who were 18 and extremely sexually active. I know that sometimes Seniors or particularly unsuccessful students get past the 18th birthday while still in High School but I find it irritating that in most of those stories it seems as though the authors intent is to write an underage story and they put in a throwaway line about the kids eighteenth birthday to get it past the rule.
I approve of the rule. I don't approve of those who try to get around it or push the IMHO quite reasonable boundaries.



.

 

[sr71plt]

Until I came to this site I had never read so many stories of High School students who were 18 and extremely sexually active. I know that sometimes Seniors or particularly unsuccessful students get past the 18th birthday while still in High School but I find it irritating that in most of those stories it seems as though the authors intent is to write an underage story and they put in a throwaway line about the kids eighteenth birthday to get it past the rule.
I approve of the rule. I don't approve of those who try to get around it or push the IMHO quite reasonable boundaries.



.

Uh oh, LC's gonna get cha.

No, wait, that hypocrisy is just for me. Nevermind.