The under 18 thing

[Lucy_Lastic]

I get the under 18 rule, and why it's there.

I don't always agree with it but there has to be a point. It seems ludicious that nobody's allowed to admit that they masturbated until they were 18 and waited until then until they had sex (particularly as the age of consent in the UK is 16).

Under age sex is illegal and nobody wants to promote illegal acts, and I get that, but why is the place awash with incest stuff? That's illegal. What's the difference?

 

[ElectricBlue]

It's got nothing to do with ages of consent or truths about human behaviour.

It's a line drawn in the sand so that Lit can reject attempts by any morality group to accuse it of hosting paedophile content - it's that simple.

 

[SimonDoom]

The rule, I believe, allows you to make a passing short comment like, "I lost my virginity at 17" or something of that sort. Look at it from the point of view of the Site, as EB replied. The Site does not want to attract anyone looking for pedo content, so it draws a bright line that forbids any more extensive or provocative discussion of ANY kind of sexual activity before 18, including spying on somebody naked, masturbation, fantasizing, etc. The laws of the outside world have nothing to do with it.

 

[lc69hunter]

My take is that she can think about what she did back then, and it will quite often fly. However, the previous two commenters hit the nail on the head.

 

[TheLobster]

Lit is an American site and 18 is the maximum age of consent there (it varies between states). Laws in other countries likely have no bearing on the site's underage policy.

 

[Lucy_Lastic]

It's got nothing to do with ages of consent or truths about human behaviour.

It's a line drawn in the sand so that Lit can reject attempts by any morality group to accuse it of hosting paedophile content - it's that simple.

I get that. But why is underage sex morally abhorrent but incest perfectly fine?

It’s more about curiosity on my part, I’m not looking to change rules, I’d just like to know the rationale behind the decision.

 

[NoTalentHack]

I get that. But why is underage sex morally abhorrent but incest perfectly fine?

It’s more about curiosity on my part, I’m not looking to change rules, I’d just like to know the rationale behind the decision.

Are you asking from the perspective of a moral stance, or the perspective of what's necessary to running a site on the internet with an eye towards keeping it on the internet? Because they're two vastly different things; in fact, I'd say that, if the rules on the site were relaxed regarding underage sex, the Incest section would be the one which would probably see the biggest influx of underage stories, other than maybe First Time. That, in and of itself, gives a clue as to why they want to keep the age at 18; Incest is conceptually squicky to a lot of people; underage is conceptually squicky to a lot of people. Incest + Underage is the horrific reality for a lot of people out there, and if the site became a hotbed for those types of stories, the level of scrutiny it sees would go WAY up.

 

[Lucy_Lastic]

I understand and have no argument with the under 18 rule. Morally I don’t understand why incest is acceptable when it’s just as nasty (and in the real world often combined with) paedophilia. I don’t see why one is ok, the other not. neither are socially acceptable.

 

[Cagivagurl]

You can add Non consent to that list as well. Totally unacceptable, and yet here it's possible...
I don't want to see the underage rules changed, but I sure would love to see the non con category vanish.
It is equally as repugnant ...
in my opinion...

Cagivagurl

 

[Lucy_Lastic]

You can add Non consent to that list as well. Totally unacceptable, and yet here it's possible...

[No personal attacks or trolling - including creating accounts for this specific purpose. Heated discussions are fine, even welcome. However, personally attacking / kink-shaming authors or readers is not allowed within the Author's Hangout. Threads which devolve into the exchanging of insults will be closed and repeat offenders will be given a timeout, per the AH rules.]

 

[Voboy]

I get that. But why is underage sex morally abhorrent but incest perfectly fine?

It’s more about curiosity on my part, I’m not looking to change rules, I’d just like to know the rationale behind the decision.

Yeah, you've got a good point and you're not the only one who's asked.

The only meaningful answer is "because the site owner says so." I know that's not a very satisfactory response, but that's as far as any of the other threads about this has ever gone. I assume this one will go about as far.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Because lines have to get drawn somewhere?
Also, is incest between two consenting adults actually illegal?
Outside of restrictions on marriage I'm not aware of any actual legal restrictions. Probably some under various sodomy laws, but that stuff all got struck down in legal battles over gay rights.

I just don't understand why people get so worked up over it.

Even if you are writing a "first time" story it's perfectly realistic to have two 18 year old virgins. I know all the Lit Writers are Cassanovas and Lolitas, out having wild sex in Junior High, but things are different for the rest of the world.

https://worldpopulationreview.com/country-rankings/average-age-to-lose-virginity-by-country

 

[jehoram]

I get that. But why is underage sex morally abhorrent but incest perfectly fine?

It’s more about curiosity on my part, I’m not looking to change rules, I’d just like to know the rationale behind the decision.

It really has nothing to do with moral abhorrence. It has to do with legality. Underage sex is illegal, but incest isn't (although, again, there may be variation within state law). Similarly, "Non-consensual" is given only a pass when the person being attacked decides that they're all right with it.

Just about any activity is now defensible if it's done by consenting adults. This includes a lot of things that used to be illegal once upon a time, like gay or lesbian relationships or even anal sex, even when done by consenting adults, but fortunately we are living in a time when it's now part of what we consider acceptable behavior.

"Morally" and "legally" are not equivalent, despite what some people believe. That's why people trying to legislate morality are always drawing the attention of civil-rights organizations.

 

[gunhilltrain]

It really has nothing to do with moral abhorrence. It has to do with legality. Underage sex is illegal, but incest isn't (although, again, there may be variation within state law). Similarly, "Non-consensual" is given only a pass when the person being attacked decides that they're all right with it.

Just about any activity is now defensible if it's done by consenting adults. This includes a lot of things that used to be illegal once upon a time, like gay or lesbian relationships or even anal sex, even when done by consenting adults, but fortunately we are living in a time when it's now part of what we consider acceptable behavior.

"Morally" and "legally" are not equivalent, despite what some people believe. That's why people trying to legislate morality are always drawing the attention of civil-rights organizations.

The weird thing is that I have a continuing series on another site that allows down to age sixteen. And the moderators always ask me to confirm the ages of the characters with each installment. When I asked, "Why?" they say, "Because someone may start with chapter 4 and not know how old they are." But if that's what they want, then I do it for them because they are allowing me to write what I wish. Thus I dutifully list the ages at the beginning each time and everybody is happy. Except the site is so small I'm lucky to get 2,000 views with anything.

 

[intim8]

It's got nothing to do with ages of consent or truths about human behaviour.

It's a line drawn in the sand so that Lit can reject attempts by any morality group to accuse it of hosting paedophile content - it's that simple.

Yes, the rule is tactical, not legal, nor, probably, prinicple driven.

Karen can, legally as well as otherwise, make life very hard and very expensive even for people breaking no laws. And this is a subject Karen salivates over.

 

[intim8]

it's perfectly realistic to have two 18 year old virgins

It certainly was back in my day*, and it probably still is now, but these days, it feels less realistic. It feels old-timey.

*less realistic for 18 year olds to have no sexual history at all, even back in the day, and totally unrealistic for them to have had no solo sex life.

I keep wanting to write a parody story about some 17 year olds who are entirely, perfectly, iinnocent of everything. They don't even know that boys and girls are different, have no idea what their parts are for. Then the next day, they turn 18, and suddenly find themselves horny as hell, and know everything about everything.

I did see one story on here kind of like that, but it was a story about a rogue psychologists who raised orphans to have no exposure to anything, utterly separated by gender, and guarded them against touching themselves or each other. Then when they turned 18, put them in a room together to figure it all out. Which they did, quickly.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

It certainly was back in my day*, and it probably still is now, but these days, it feels less realistic. It feels old-timey.

*less realistic for 18 year olds to have no sexual history at all, even back in the day, and totally unrealistic for them to have had no solo sex life.

I keep wanting to write a parody story about some 17 year olds who are entirely, perfectly, iinnocent of everything. They don't even know that boys and girls are different, have no idea what their parts are for. Then the next day, they turn 18, and suddenly find themselves horny as hell, and know everything about everything.

I did see one story on here kind of like that, but it was a story about a rogue psychologists who raised orphans to have no exposure to anything, utterly separated by gender, and guarded them against touching themselves or each other. Then when they turned 18, put them in a room together to figure it all out. Which they did, quickly.

The funny thing is it might "feel" old timey, but it's accurate. The average age to lose your virginity in the US is over 18.
It's a bit like the name discussion that's going on. If you used Tiffany in a medieval story everyone would complain that it wasn't authentic and took them out of the story, even though the name is really that old. The "conventional wisdom" is very often wrong.

If anything, I suspect the average age to lose your virginity is going to start going UP, but that's another discussion altogether.

 

[intim8]

The funny thing is it might "feel" old timey, but it's accurate

Yes. I think I remember checking, and the average was actually just under 18 (probably depends on which survey you look at), but barely, meaning it is still not unrealistic. But as a grumpy old man looking in from the outside, it seems like middle school kids are screwing themselves silly.

If anything, I suspect the average age to lose your virginity is going to start going UP, but that's another discussion altogether.

I think it already is, but more, fewer people are having sex at all, and those that do, starting later and doing it less often. It's a worldwide phenomenon in 1st world countries that a lot of conversation is happening over.

 

[Voboy]

When I first started writing here, I fretted about the 18 thing. I thought stories set in high schools would be completely unbelievable.

Now I've written a bunch of those, and they've all come out well. I no longer even think about the "realism" of the under-18 rule.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I understand and have no argument with the under 18 rule. Morally I don’t understand why incest is acceptable when it’s just as nasty (and in the real world often combined with) paedophilia. I don’t see why one is ok, the other not. neither are socially acceptable.

I think @NoTalentHack sums it up best. The site owners have drawn a hard line in the sand to protect themselves from any legal attacks for content that could be illegal - paedophile content. Whatever moral beliefs one might have about anything else that is hosted here, if it's between adults, there's nothing illegal about the content. That's the difference.

It's a limited freedom of expression the site has given us writers, with a clear line that keeps the site safe. That's fine by me. And the other bit is simple too - if you find content abhorrent, don't read it, don't write it, steer clear of it. The site gives you the ability to do that, and anyone can operate a reverse arrow key. But you don't get to operate my reverse arrow key, that's my choice, not yours to make for me. Someone seeking to impose their morality on others is far more problematic than the content, surely.

 

[Levorotatory]

Yeah, you've got a good point and you're not the only one who's asked.

The only meaningful answer is "because the site owner says so." I know that's not a very satisfactory response, but that's as far as any of the other threads about this has ever gone. I assume this one will go about as far.

I agree. Moral arguments make no sense, as there are plenty of things permitted here that are far more questionable than two 15 year olds discovering sex with each other's enthusiastic consent. Legal arguments make no sense because fictional depictions of illegal things are not themselves illegal - the mainstream is filled with depictions of murder, including the gory and graphic, and outside of the theocracies of the world that outlaw all sex outside of marriage, those 15 year olds wouldn't be breaking the law anyways. This is a site owner preference. It may be a preference of convenience to avoid needing to defend against prudes who don't support freedom of speech and are particularly triggered by the idea of people under 18 having sex, but it is a site owner preference nonetheless.

It would be nice if authors didn't feel the need to remind readers of character ages multiple times to get stories published though. An "all characters over 18" disclaimer at the beginning and nothing in the story that is inconsistent with the characters being over 18 should be sufficient, without going through every character's birthday when it is extraneous to the plot and is obviously only there for rule compliance reasons.

 

[Kelliezgirl]

Just a thought experiment here, but suppose everyone is wrong about the reasoning behind the under 18 rule.
Everyone assumes it's because they want to keep the site out of trouble, but we also know that there are plenty of places that allow it and there are no repercussions.
Maybe the truth is Laurel and Manu just don't approve of under 18 so they don't want it on their site.

 

[RejectReality]

Laurel has said in the past that she wanted a line drawn to keep the creepy stuff off the site, and ended up settling on the 18 limit because it was the legal age in the U.S. Nothing more. Nothing less.

It was easier to draw that bright line in the sand than to continually explain why ( for example ) 16 and 17 are okay, but 14 and 15 aren't. There's something to point to with 18.

 

[OffNSFW]

In my dealings with the rule, I've found it to be fairly reasonable. People below the age of 18--AKA legal children in the United States--are not allowed to appear in situations that are designed to turn the reader on and get them off. Nobody wants to look like they're in the business of furnishing child pornography.

I've written a story for this site in which an adult character alludes to having had sex while underage. It isn't elaborated upon and isn't treated as part of the "action." It is simple characterization that helps to explain why this person is the way they are. Since it cannot be said to be a sex scene in any sense, it appears in the story. I imagine if I were to have dramatized the event that this character had described, it would have been rejected.

Again, reasonable.

 

[Astrotrain]

Laurel has said in the past that she wanted a line drawn to keep the creepy stuff off the site,

And yet there's a whole section dedicated to incest. I think most of the people who think text stories about underage sex are creepy would say the same thing about incest.