The Literotica rules are too vague!

[JDSavanyu]

I submitted a story in which a 13 year old kid brought a Playboy magazine to school in 1991, and was caught and put in detention by a teacher. That's happened to thousands and thousands of kids over the years, including me.
There were no sexual relationships of any kind with minors in the story, no explicit references or "fantasizing" or "playing doctor" or anything else that's listed in the rules involving anyone under 18, but the story still got rejected.
It was a nostalgic piece, remembering the era before you could look at any kind of porn instantly, anywhere, just with a few clicks or taps on a screen.
I can recall so many mainstream movies and sitcom episodes with the plot device of someone under 18 secretly reading a dirty magazine, after getting someone older to buy it for them.
Literotica has the same problem as YouTube: the rules are too vague. The list of guidelines needs to be longer and more detailed in every section, so writers know exactly what to avoid. And the moderators need to consider the larger context of the story before hitting the reject button.

 

[silver gurl]

It’s quite easy, 18+ only here.

 

[IrisAlthea]

https://www.literotica.com/resources/content-guidelines

Sexual activity involving characters under the age of 18 (including but not limited to explicit sexual discussion, voyeurism, exhibitionism, fantasizing, masturbation, and graphic sexualized descriptions, in addition to actual sexual intercourse). Literotica has always had a strict policy against any under-18 content, and any attempt to violate that policy is grounds for account termination.

Seems pretty clear to me.

 

[CurtGiles46]

I understand the rules, but it makes things difficult to describe your personal sexual journey. Like I saw a movie when I was 13 that had just one influential erotic scene but I’m not able to talk about it.

 

[Pairaclities]

And your problem with that is?

 

[ToPleaseHim]

I reported your post. Seriously, the site owner is the admin for the stories. Your story was rejected, so you posted the questionable plot point in the forum? Face. Palm. The rules are not too vague. 18+ only.

 

[CurtGiles46]

And your problem with that is?

I reported your post. Seriously, the site owner is the admin for the stories. Your story was rejected, so you posted the questionable plot point in the forum? Face. Palm. The rules are not too vague. 18+ only.

I hope you mean JD because I never wrote a story.

 

[ToPleaseHim]

I hope you mean JD because I never wrote a story.

I didn’t quote you so I’m not sure why you would think I was directing my comment to you.

ET: But, yeah, now I’ve read your comment and it’s problematic.

What part of no discussion of anything sexual with any minor participant is difficult to understand?

 

[Pairaclities]

The new rules are, "Keep everything Vanilla".

When the content involves under 18 years old then yes, keep it vanilla.
Over 18, all kinds of smut are acceptable. Again, what is so difficult to understand in this?

If you want to be able to participate in under 18 stories, posts, dialogue, then start your own -18 website, and knock yourself out.
However, the federal authorities will likely shut you down and charge you with myriad laws against child exploitation.
Which is exactly why this site does not permit content that involves minors. Again, not difficult to understand If you apply a modicum of rational thinking to the rules and content.
Now piss off.

 

[jaF0]

but I’m not able to talk about it.

So, why did you post it here if you know you can't talk about it here?

 

[butters]

I understand the rules, but it makes things difficult to describe your personal sexual journey. Like I saw a movie when I was 13 that had just one influential erotic scene but I’m not able to talk about it.

don't like the rules? then find a site that caters for your type of 'literary expression'. It's perfectly simple: nothing under 18.

And your problem with that is?

exactly

 

[CurtGiles46]

don't like the rules? then find a site that caters for your type of 'literary expression'. It's perfectly simple: nothing under 18.

exactly

So, why did you post it here if you know you can't talk about it here?

So, why did you post it here if you know you can't talk about it here?

I never did talk about it here. I simply posted a hint of a small detail I won’t talk about any further. I have no misunderstanding. I will follow the rules.

 

[UtilityCurve]

In the interests of peace, Lit rules apply on *.literotica.com, but Archive rules (which are undeniably more lax) apply on https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Archive_of_Our_Own (which is undeniably less read).

It was ages ago, a different Supreme Court not no say a different political climate, but my Constitutional Law professor concluded that no text-only could rise (stoop?) to the level of legally obscene, which is the point at which pornography (not itself then or even now prohibitable) becomes unprotected under the First Amendment.

But that's all academic. I got excluded for making a reference to underage drinking (no sexual content whatsoever)--the actual characters came upon a park littered with bottles and cans and so concluded. I was surprised, disappointed that this was against Lit guidelines (it is, again undeniably), but so be it: He who pays the piper calls the tune and rightly so.

 

[CurtGiles46]

Does anyone know if the written internet erotica rules were less strict during the Clinton era of the 1990’s?

I saw old stories on Fictionmania’s TG archive which definitely involved sex by individuals under 18, so I’m curious about the history of these “anti-pedophilia” story restrictions.

 

[FataMorgana]

True this. I'm constantly leafing through the handbook they give you when you join up. That and the Highway Code are my go-to reads.

 

[drusus]

Does anyone know if the written internet erotica rules were less strict during the Clinton era of the 1990’s?

The internet in the 90s was the wild west compared to now.