Wait, whaaaat???

[CJontherocks]

Okay, I know this isn't a thread about something kinky or sexy, but it certainly pertains to the audience here, so this is where I'm posting it.

I also know that I could write directly to ChargerGirl, but I think it's a discussion we all need to have... or at least it's something I'd like to hear everyone's thoughts on.

Last night (Thursday into this morning), a woman posted that she had been molested by an animal. She had to vent and get it off her chest. Some opined that perhaps the story was insincere, and that her intent was to ... "titillate" ... I believe was the word. She assured us in a subsequent post that the event did, in fact, happen and that she merely posted it here because she didn't know where else to put it.

And then this morning, the whole thread simply vanished. It's not here, it's not in my subscribed threads, it's not in my "find all posts by ___." It's just gone.

A couple of people wrote that the thread was breaking the rules, but when I asked which rule, I got no answer. I do not believe it broke a rule. Well, okay, if it was a true story, then it broke the rule of categorization... what topics are discussed in Fet. Because if it was true, then it had nothing to do with fetishes or sexuality. And if it wasn't true, then it was probably after all intended to titillate. In that case, then yes, it likely broke at least the spirit of the rule against discussing bestiality, that being (only if it was a fabrication) the underlying intent.

I have issue with the thread simply vanishing. Yes, I know... very touchy subject. But shouldn't there have been some opportunity to edit the original post to conform in a more acceptable fashion so we could discuss the issue at hand? I took the issue at hand to be this woman's emotional reaction to the incident, prompting maybe a discussion about how she could deal with the scars something like this might cause.

What I love about Lit are the thousands and thousands of ideas and thoughts, freely discussed and turned over by really awesome and open-minded people. People just don't do that in real life. I don't think that discussion needed to be rubbed out as if by some black ops hit squad. Couldn't we have corrected whatever was wrong and discussed what was right?

Please know that I do not condone and would never entertain a discussion promoting bestiality. And I understand how a thread like this could have invited comments to that effect. But to just make it disappear with no regard to those who were in the beginning stages of an intellectual discussion on the topic of a woman's feelings about a horrific event she experienced... I think that's a shame.

So now I invite your ideas on how you feel about this thread disappearing, and rebuttal or support for my thoughts. We should not be discussing the alleged incident itself. Only the aftermath and the conversation it started.

 

[chargergirl]

Hi there!

Yes, I removed the thread because it broke Rule 2 of the Forum Guidelines.

http://www.literotica.com/support/forum_rules.shtml

NO bestiality, in any way, shape, or form.

 

[CJontherocks]

Hi to you, too!

Thank you for responding. Yes, I did go back and read the forum rules for myself, just to confirm that's what I suspected. But here's what Rule Number 2 says:

2. You may not post sexually explicit pictures or stories featuring anyone under 18 years old. Literotica does not allow the posting of underage or animal sex pictures - or links to such, or text/story posts/links to advocation thereof - on the forum. This includes discussions and/or accusations involving pedophilia and/or child sex abuse.​

I first argue that the text/story/post was not explicitly an "advocation" as is clearly prohibited in Rule Number 2. There were no pictures posted, at least last time I saw the thread, and only one member posted some comment about a "chubby," which in itself could have been singled out and more appropriately been deleted or edited.

My second argument addresses the alleged act itself (which, I am surprised and dismayed to discover is merely a misdemeanor where I live).

944.17  Sexual gratification.

(2) Whoever does any of the following is guilty of a Class A misdemeanor:​

(c) Commits an act of sexual gratification involving his or her sex organ and the sex organ, mouth or anus of an animal.
(d) Commits an act of sexual gratification involving his or her sex organ, mouth or anus and the sex organ of an animal.​

I expected to see something about "intent" in the text of the statute, but it wasn't there. So I dug deeper for some definitions...

939.22  Words and phrases defined. In chs. 939 to 948 and 951, the following words and phrases have the designated meanings unless the context of a specific section manifestly requires a different construction or the word or phrase is defined in s. 948.01 for purposes of ch. 948:

(34) "Sexual contact" means any of the following if done for the purpose of sexual humiliation, degradation, arousal, or gratification:

(a) The intentional touching by the defendant or, upon the defendant's instruction, by a third person of the clothed or unclothed intimate parts of another person with any part of the body, clothed or unclothed, or with any object or device.
(b) The intentional touching by the defendant or, upon the defendant's instruction, by a third person of any part of the body, clothed or unclothed, of another person with the intimate parts of the body, clothed or unclothed.
(c) The intentional penile ejaculation of ejaculate or the intentional emission of urine or feces by the defendant or, upon the defendant's instruction, by a third person upon any part of the body, clothed or unclothed, of another person.
(d) Intentionally causing another person to ejaculate or emit urine or feces on any part of the actor's body, whether clothed or unclothed.​

939.23  Criminal intent.

(1) When criminal intent is an element of a crime in chs. 939 to 951, such intent is indicated by the term "intentionally", the phrase "with intent to", the phrase "with intent that", or some form of the verbs "know" or "believe".
(2) "Know" requires only that the actor believes that the specified fact exists.
939.23(3)
(3) "Intentionally" means that the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified, or is aware that his or her conduct is practically certain to cause that result. In addition, except as provided in sub. (6), the actor must have knowledge of those facts which are necessary to make his or her conduct criminal and which are set forth after the word "intentionally".
(4) "With intent to" or "with intent that" means that the actor either has a purpose to do the thing or cause the result specified, or is aware that his or her conduct is practically certain to cause that result.​

The gist of my argument here is that none of what the OP described fell into any of these definitions or descriptions of a criminal act. There was no intent, a critical element of the offense, and there was clearly no purpose of sexual gratification. Incidentally, my state (I'm next door to you) does not describe "bestiality," but does mention it in one or two of its statutes. The act of sexual gratification was the closest I could come to what is described. This woman did not seek out or promote the animal's alleged behavior, and could not reasonably have expected or anticipated that it would happen. My yardstick is this. If this was brought into court, just as it was described, do we think this woman would be prosecuted for a crime?

I consider this as well... what if the offending animal had not been a dog, but a human? What would we be calling this alleged incident then?

Okay, so let me close by acknowledging that the most prudent course of action in this case may have been to just make the discussion go away, considering all the FCC rules and Federal and state laws that Lit has to comply with. And I truly do appreciate that you made a judgement call basd on your understanding of the rules. You are empowered, and we as members, rely on you to make those calls. So thank you for that.

I just think it's a shame that we couldn't talk to that woman about her emotional reaction to that experience.

 

[chargergirl]

It's the site owners' preference that bestiality not be discussed in the forums. They make the rules. There are many states where under age is considered 16. The site owners have chosen 18 and drew the line there.

All the laws you cite don't matter a bit, as this is a privately owned and run site. If they choose to disallow it, then that's how it is.

 

[CJontherocks]

I understand and agree that to err on the side of caution makes sense in order to avoid any costly and tedious litigation that might detract from Literotica's service. And yes, naturally the owners of the site should certainly reserve the right to run it however they feel will be in the best interest of the company and its purpose.

I just thought it was weird that the thread simply vanished and wanted to talk about that. And it was kinda cool to exercise my brain here for something other than sexual gratification. Damn, I made all those brilliant arguments and got shot down like a tuba player at the prom.

I've seen discussions moved to different areas before. I didn't know they were sometimes just erased, never to be see again, not even by Chuck Norris.

Thank you, ChargerGirl. I hope none of what I said was offensive in any way. See you around.

 

[chargergirl]

I understand and agree that to err on the side of caution makes sense in order to avoid any costly and tedious litigation that might detract from Literotica's service. And yes, naturally the owners of the site should certainly reserve the right to run it however they feel will be in the best interest of the company and its purpose.

I just thought it was weird that the thread simply vanished and wanted to talk about that. And it was kinda cool to exercise my brain here for something other than sexual gratification. Damn, I made all those brilliant arguments and got shot down like a tuba player at the prom.

I've seen discussions moved to different areas before. I didn't know they were sometimes just erased, never to be see again, not even by Chuck Norris.

Thank you, ChargerGirl. I hope none of what I said was offensive in any way. See you around.

Not at all!