Underage sex policy

[Aged49writer]

I believe that the policy prohibiting any mention of sex or sexual organs involving people under the age of 18 needs to be revised.

I have had two stories rejected recently because I noted that female characters sprouted breasts and pubic hair before turning 18, that male characters experienced erections before turning 18, that characters of both sexes masturbated before turning 18. I did not depict any of this directly or in detail, just in noting that the characters had a history of sexual development and, sometimes, sexual activity.

The first story was published after I removed references to past masturbation and development of breasts and pubic hair. The second one is still pending after I reluctantly made similar edits.

I agree that depicting sex between adults and minors should not be allowed. That is called child abuse. I was appalled, for instance, that a 2017 feature film depicting such an arrangement, “Call Me By Your Name,” was critically acclaimed and nominated for a Best Picture Oscar. I also have seen stories on another site that featured mature men having sex with girls as young as pre-teens. Disgusting.

But to deny that teenagers can and do have consensual sex with each other is to deny reality. Especially on a site that includes a category for non-consensual sex, otherwise known as rape. Which is real and very illegal.

So, what to do? Yes, there should be some age cutoff for explicit sex scenes. I would suggest middle-school kids should be exempt from such depictions. And certainly we should prohibit those child-abuse accounts. But we should admit that teenagers – 14, 15, 16 and 17 years old – have sex with each other. And clearly we should admit that by that age they also have developed sexual organs and interests.

End of rant.

 

[Gamina]

While I understand your frustration (it is silly to pretend people are asexual until the magical day of turning 18) I think the rule is just fine.

To many people on this site are pushing up or past legal boundaries. So if safeguarding this place against that type of people, means restrictions on the background stories our characters can share, I am all for it.

 

[KeithD]

I believe that the policy prohibiting any mention of sex or sexual organs involving people under the age of 18 needs to be revised.

You're preaching to the wrong choir. There is nothing the other users can do about this. PM your views directly to the one person who can do something about it, Laurel, the submissions editor. The rest of us have been getting this rant for ages with no ability to do anything about it, even if we wanted to.

 

[Seadog777]

While I understand your frustration (it is silly to pretend people are asexual until the magical day of turning 18) I think the rule is just fine.

To many people on this site are pushing up or past legal boundaries. So if safeguarding this place against that type of people, means restrictions on the background stories our characters can share, I am all for it.

Absolutely agree.

 

[jaF0]

So, what to do?

Get a webhosting account. Buy a domain name. Buy and install software to accept and display stories and go fer it.

 

[Treeview]

Too many people on this site are pushing up or past legal boundaries.

Not only on this site. We all can go back in our memories to the earliest group we were in. CHild care days or pre-school for many. There are always Contrarions that push boundaries for no other reason than to be just plain jerks. Then the whole lot of us suffer the consequences. They are usually bothersome too.

 

[StillStunned]

When I drive, I don't drink. Not a single drop. I don't care about legally allowed, or "you can have two glasses and still drive perfectly fine."

I know myself. If I have one glass now, sooner or later that becomes, "Well, it was already a couple of hours ago, I can have another." Or, "It wasn't a whole glass, only half, I can have another." Or, "Last time I had two glasses and it was perfectly fine, I can have another."

And before I know it, I'm drinking a bottle of wine before driving and convincing myself that I've barely had a drop.

It's the same with Lit's under-18 rule. As soon as you start compromising, you've lost. Now it's, "But that's unrealistic, we should allow a little more leeway!" Next it's "But people have sex at 16 all the time!" And before you know it, people are complaining that they're not allowed to write about how they had an exciting experience with their cousin when they were both 12.

Respect the boundaries, because they're there for a reason.

 

[Rob_Royale]

You have to love the sense of entitlement here. "I disagree. So the rules should be changed." Amazing.

 

[StillStunned]

You have to love the sense of entitlement here. "I disagree. So the rules should be changed." Amazing.

To be fair, a lot of good has come from people disagreeing with established rules. But this is probably not one of the instances where change is for the better.

 

[KeithD]

To be fair, a lot of good has come from people disagreeing with established rules.

Oh? What, for instance?

 

[Kumquatqueen]

Why do you need to describe the sexual characteristics of said under age children? Unless you want your audience to be thinking about those bits. You're not writing a medical text, so really, what would be lost?

You can refer in passing, with no sexualisation, to under-18s having had sex, with no problem at all. But as soon as it's suggested there was anything erotic about it, that crosses the line.

I've had a couple convoluted sentences referring to people losing their virginity at the age of consent here (16) but making clear that any fun stuff that I'm going to describe didn't happen until 18. Despite the conflict with the law being a bit weird, I have no problem with the Lit rule at all - the amount of really unnerving stories of child sex abuse that appear on other sites is something I'm very happy for Lit to avoid.

 

[Rob_Royale]

Oh? What, for instance?

The Declaration of Independence.

 

[KeithD]

The Declaration of Independence.

Dumb me. I thought this was referring to Literotica.

 

[Helgamite]

I believe that the policy prohibiting any mention of sex or sexual organs involving people under the age of 18 needs to be revised.

I have had two stories rejected recently because I noted that female characters sprouted breasts and pubic hair before turning 18, that male characters experienced erections before turning 18, that characters of both sexes masturbated before turning 18. I did not depict any of this directly or in detail, just in noting that the characters had a history of sexual development and, sometimes, sexual activity.

The first story was published after I removed references to past masturbation and development of breasts and pubic hair. The second one is still pending after I reluctantly made similar edits.

I agree that depicting sex between adults and minors should not be allowed. That is called child abuse. I was appalled, for instance, that a 2017 feature film depicting such an arrangement, “Call Me By Your Name,” was critically acclaimed and nominated for a Best Picture Oscar. I also have seen stories on another site that featured mature men having sex with girls as young as pre-teens. Disgusting.

But to deny that teenagers can and do have consensual sex with each other is to deny reality. Especially on a site that includes a category for non-consensual sex, otherwise known as rape. Which is real and very illegal.

So, what to do? Yes, there should be some age cutoff for explicit sex scenes. I would suggest middle-school kids should be exempt from such depictions. And certainly we should prohibit those child-abuse accounts. But we should admit that teenagers – 14, 15, 16 and 17 years old – have sex with each other. And clearly we should admit that by that age they also have developed sexual organs and interests.

End of rant.

I honestly agree with the policy. It prevents the Feds from interfering and shutting it down. keeps the creeps and (BAD) pervs off and makes the site much enjoyable to read and write on. Yea It can make writing some stories tricky, but that can be a good thing. make you use your imagination to write a story that tells what you want without going down that slippery road.

 

[KeithD]

As long as real-life underage photos aren't shown, there's nothing for the feds to shut down. Writing about underage isn't against federal law.

 

[Helgamite]

As long as real-life underage photos aren't shown, there's nothing for the feds to shut down. Writing about underage isn't against federal law.

Convicted offenders under these statutes face fines and up to 2 years in prison. Federal statutes specifically prohibit obscenity involving minors, and convicted offenders generally face harsher statutory penalties than if the offense involved only adults.

Section 1470 of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits any individual from knowingly transferring or attempting to transfer obscene matter using the U.S. mail or any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce to a minor under 16 years of age. Convicted offenders face fines and imprisonment for up to 10 years.

There are also laws to protect children from obscene or harmful material on the Internet. For one, federal law prohibits the use of misleading domain names, words, or digital images on the Internet with intent to deceive a minor into viewing harmful or obscene material (See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252B, 2252C). It is illegal for an individual to knowingly use interactive computer services to display obscenity in a manner that makes it available to a minor less than 18 years of age (See 47 U.S.C. § 223(d) –Communications Decency Act of 1996, as amended by the PROTECT Act of 2003). It is also illegal to knowingly make a commercial communication via the Internet that includes obscenity and is available to any minor less than 17 years of age (See 47 U.S.C. § 231 –Child Online Protection Act of 1998).

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/us/child-pornography-writer-gets-10-year-prison-term.html

child obscenity laws exist dude. the last link shows a precedent for a writer who wrote an underage child having sex etc receiving prison term. so yes. It Can send you to prison.

 

[ToPleaseHim]

As long as real-life underage photos aren't shown, there's nothing for the feds to shut down. Writing about underage isn't against federal law.

It is, however, deplorable. And those bucking against this particular rule are people I would advocate for avoiding entirely.

 

[KeithD]

It is, however, deplorable. And those bucking against this particular rule are people I would advocate for avoiding entirely.

There's quite a difference between 17 and 10. The mainstream writes about 17 without a second thought.

 

[Helgamite]

There's quite a difference between 17 and 10. The mainstream writes about 17 without a second thought.

under the eyes of the law, there is no difference or very little difference between 17 and 10.

once you hit 18, they don't give a rats flying ass about you. while 17 and under, they will care. you are still considered a minor at 17 under federal and MOST IF NOT ALL states.

 

[KeithD]

under the eyes of the law, there is no difference or very little difference between 17 and 10.

once you hit 18, they don't give a rats flying ass about you. while 17 and under, they will care. you are still considered a minor at 17 under federal and MOST IF NOT ALL states.

Did you not notice my post that there's no federal law against underage written prose and that the mainstream does it all of the time? The fed laws, such as they are, concern real underage people, not fiction. Literotica is a fiction site.

Hello, hello. Wake up to the point. I have no interest in writing underage here. The site has a right to set its submissions requirements. But I also don't have interest in disinformation being pushed here. Just stop it. The assertion was on activity by the feds.

 

[Helgamite]

Did you not notice my post that there's no federal law against underage written prose and that the mainstream does it all of the time.

Hello, hello. Wake up to the point. I have no interest in writing underage here. But I also don't have interest in disinformation being pushed here.

did you not notice my post proving you wrong? I did put in the evidence. HELLO HELLO?!

 

[KeithD]

did you not notice my post proving you wrong? I did put in the evidence. HELLO HELLO?!

Your post didn't prove me wrong. I've been in this business for decades (most likely longer than you've been alive and most assuredly more professionally). You're not going to tell me what can be written and what can't under federal law--and I'll continue to assert you are pushing disinformation on this regarding Literotica so long as you peddle the disinformation. Other authors can check it out for themselves.

Literotica's underage policy for written prose isn't based on anything having to do with federal law, and mainstream publishers publish works describing underage sex whenever they want to.

 

[Helgamite]

Your post didn't prove me wrong. I've been in this business for decades. You're not going to tell me what can be written and what can't under federal law--and I'll continue to assert you are pushing disinformation on this regarding Literotica so long as you peddle the disinformation. Other authors can check it out for themselves.

so apparently anything that disagrees with you is disinformation. even tho one author has been arrested serving 10 years for writing a very grotesque book depicting underage children, including sex. plus the fact that I have shown you statutes that shows the feds have already made laws depicting sex or obscene references to underage(MINORS) in writing. INCLUDING fiction.

yea, I'm done arguing with you. you wanna believe what you want, go ahead. there is no changing your mind i see. SMMFH!

 

[UtilityCurve]

Convicted offenders under these statutes face fines and up to 2 years in prison. Federal statutes specifically prohibit obscenity involving minors, and convicted offenders generally face harsher statutory penalties than if the offense involved only adults.

Section 1470 of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits any individual from knowingly transferring or attempting to transfer obscene matter using the U.S. mail or any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce to a minor under 16 years of age. Convicted offenders face fines and imprisonment for up to 10 years.

There are also laws to protect children from obscene or harmful material on the Internet. For one, federal law prohibits the use of misleading domain names, words, or digital images on the Internet with intent to deceive a minor into viewing harmful or obscene material (See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252B, 2252C). It is illegal for an individual to knowingly use interactive computer services to display obscenity in a manner that makes it available to a minor less than 18 years of age (See 47 U.S.C. § 223(d) –Communications Decency Act of 1996, as amended by the PROTECT Act of 2003). It is also illegal to knowingly make a commercial communication via the Internet that includes obscenity and is available to any minor less than 17 years of age (See 47 U.S.C. § 231 –Child Online Protection Act of 1998).

https://www.nytimes.com/2001/07/14/us/child-pornography-writer-gets-10-year-prison-term.html

child obscenity laws exist dude. the last link shows a precedent for a writer who wrote an underage child having sex etc receiving prison term. so yes. It Can send you to prison.

Of course, you're only as safe as your last Supreme Court ruling (in the U.S., obviously), but Nabokov is still legal. And it doesn't come down to "but it's great art" (it's not) it "for him we make an exception" (we don't), but we were taught (and I believe law students are still taught) that words alone cannot be obscene, full stop.

They can be profane, inappropriate, sickening or even dangerous, but not obscene. Once that is established, the laws you cite are inapplicable. I am not aware of any successful prosecutions for obscenity (including kiddie porn!) that did not involve imagery (still or motion). Writing about kidnapping a child in pursuit of performing unlawful sexual acts upon him is prosecuted under conspiracy or attempt and then only upon at least one predicate act (buying rope is something.)

 

[KeithD]

so apparently anything that disagrees with you is disinformation.

No. I went to university to learn this stuff and then practiced it for some forty years. You have four stories posted here (actually only two--one is in series). I see no evidence you know what you're talking about on this topic. I disagree with you because you are peddling disinformation on this issue.