(Yet another) underage question

[fsqueeze]

Got a finished story I haven’t yet sent in, and before I launch it I was hoping for some experienced feedback on a question regarding underage.

So a few of the scenes play out in front of a sleeping infant. The presence of the baby in the room is not highlighted or (my gosh, no) used as some strange added excitement to the events. This is an 8-10 week-old, blissfully unaware.

Do you think this would be an underage problem or no?

Thanks for taking the time to advise.

FS

 

[RejectReality]

Yep, not going to fly. Underage person is present, so it's going to get bounced.

 

[KeithD]

You don't explain why the infant is present. Depending on the circumstances, I think it could fly. If you have a scene of a Filipino bargirls taking a sailor back to her one-room hovel in Manila where a sleeping infant is off to the side, I think it could fly here. It would be showing living circumstances rather than anything sexual. The only way of knowing if something like would fly is to try it out on the system.

(hint; I've done it and it went through without question. It had nothing to do with sexuality, though. It showcased living circumstances.)

If you try it, let us know how/if it got through--letting us see the specific application.

 

[SimonDoom]

I don't think it's quite as clear cut as RejectReality does, but I think you need to ask yourself some questions.

Why do it this way? Why not write the story so the infant is in an adjacent room? What's the point?

Is there any chance at all that some reader or readers might see the presence of the child as an erotic element? Be rigorous and honest with yourself on this question. So many authors who pose questions like these are not being honest with themselves and obviously are trying to get away with something.

 

[MelissaBaby]

I wrote a story in which it was a running gag that every time the couple initiated sex, their infant daughter would start crying and interrupt them. It went through without any trouble, but the child was in another room, not in the bedroom with the parents. Also, it was a chapter in a long running series, and may not have gotten as much scrutiny as a new stand alone story

 

[TarnishedPenny]

A very young child is unaware of what is happening around them. At two months, the child is just starting to be able to recognize faces. And this one is sleeping…

My gut says that it’s OK. Even if the child was awake - and it’s not - there would be no sexuality in what it observed.

The ultimate judge is of course the site owner, Laurel. If the presence of a sleeping baby is important to the tale, I would suggest that you PM her and ask. I’ve always found her to be very reasonable.

Good luck.

 

[RejectReality]

If it's so innocuous as to pass, then what's the point of including it? You're risking an underage rejection for what?

Whatever reason the baby is there can probably be just as well ( if not better ) served by putting them in another room, or leaving the room the baby is in, which drastically reduces the chance of a rejection. Nine times out of ten, these queries don't provide important context that pushes it over the line. This may be that 1 in 10, but if so, I once again have to ask what's the point?

 

[fsqueeze]

All great thoughts. I can't thank you enough. I have a lot to consider, and my guess is that I will do some revisions. You guys are awesome! And, I'll continue checking here for further insights.
Best to you,
FS

 

[ElectricBlue]

All great thoughts. I can't thank you enough. I have a lot to consider, and my guess is that I will do some revisions. You guys are awesome! And, I'll continue checking here for further insights.
Best to you,
FS

I have a breast feeding story with an infant - it's very clear the child is asleep in another room in one scene, away with Gran in another. Get the kid out of the room, ideally out of the house, and you won't have a problem at all.

Children need to be at least fifty metres or five-hundred words away from sex, I reckon .

 

[ElectricBlue]

I've done it, because that's how those characters live; their baby stays with them. Taking showers too. The point of including it for me? I don't write exclusively about sex, but about love and relationships.

We all get that, but if you want to publish on Lit, there's no sexual activity with a child present. It's a very simple rule, and you can still write about love and relationships with the child asleep in the next room, with the door shut. Families do that, too.

It's erotica, not a diary. Why fight it?

 

[KeithD]

if you want to publish on Lit, there's no sexual activity with a child present. It's a very simple rule,

Two posters have now noted they got similar story setups through here. Sometimes there isn't another room, the fact that there isn't is a central plot point, and it's not presented as a sexual context at all.

Again, if there's no sexual connotation in the OP's example, I suggest trying it out and letting us know where the edge is in the specific case.

The bottom line is that only Laurel is Laurel here.

 

[TarnishedPenny]

There’s an old story about a couple who wanted to go out to a movie. The babysitter for their two-month-old baby cancelled at the last minute, but they decided to go anyway. Mom fed the child before they left so it wouldn’t be awake. To their surprise, they were refused entry because the movie was rated NC-17, admission to adults only ie.

The Lit rule is strict and is there for a reason, got it. But let’s say the baby was sleeping in the next room, door closed. Would that be OK? Certainly. OK, how about if the bedroom doors were open? Again, I think yes. The kid’s asleep.

Having a sleeping infant in the same room is not much of a difference, I think. A) It it cannot witness the event because it is sleeping and B) at that age it would in no way be able to understand even if it were awake.

In any case, while I respect the opinions of some intelligent and experienced commentators, the bottom line is that nobody here, including myself, is the (capital-A) Authority and it’s all armchair quarterbacking on our parts. If the author feels there’s some valid reason to put a sleeping baby in the same room, I would again suggest they put their case before Laurel. That’s where the authority lies.

Peace.

 

[Bramblethorn]

We all get that, but if you want to publish on Lit, there's no sexual activity with a child present. It's a very simple rule, and you can still write about love and relationships with the child asleep in the next room, with the door shut. Families do that, too.

It's erotica, not a diary. Why fight it?

That kind of content has sometimes passed; I recall reading one where the couple are fooling around under the covers when the kid walks in, oblivious to what's going on. But I get the impression moderation on this has tightened in the last couple of years.

 

[alohadave]

But I get the impression moderation on this has tightened in the last couple of years.

It's not just here. Another site I frequent just banned all under-18 content (and what they do have is high school age stuff) because their hosting provider told them they didn't want it.

They are no longer accepting any stories with under-18, and will be removing all old content as well.

It seems like removing even the appearance of anything that even looks like underage to avoid problems is the strategy.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I don't have to fight it. It is accepted. More than once. And I don't think by mistake. You guys may think to know the rules here, but maybe you don't. Laurel's site, Laurel's decisions.

The guy is asking for advice without going to Laurel. Your advice takes him closer to the line than saying don't go there at all. It's surely wiser to encourage him to think why the child needs to be present for the purposes of the story.

I've lost count of the number of babies born in my stories, and not one story has been rejected or quizzed, which I put down to my simple strategy - 500 words away, and the kid out of the room when there's sex going on. It's an easy approach, and doesn't affect the story telling in the slightest.

 

[Bramblethorn]

The guy is asking for advice without going to Laurel. Your advice takes him closer to the line than saying don't go there at all. It's surely wiser to encourage him to think why the child needs to be present for the purposes of the story.

I've lost count of the number of babies born in my stories, and not one story has been rejected or quizzed, which I put down to my simple strategy - 500 words away, and the kid out of the room when there's sex going on. It's an easy approach, and doesn't affect the story telling in the slightest.

Well, not if the kind of stories you want to tell are set in a modern-day Western setting where the protagonists can afford to have a separate room for the kid to sleep in.

There are many places and times where the entire family would be sleeping in one room. That somebody wants to place a story in one of those settings doesn't mean they're deliberately looking to sail close to the line.

 

[yukonnights]

The guy is asking for advice without going to Laurel. Your advice takes him closer to the line than saying don't go there at all. It's surely wiser to encourage him to think why the child needs to be present for the purposes of the story.

I've lost count of the number of babies born in my stories, and not one story has been rejected or quizzed, which I put down to my simple strategy - 500 words away, and the kid out of the room when there's sex going on. It's an easy approach, and doesn't affect the story telling in the slightest.

You've not read the story, so how would you know if your suggestion changes it? Ruben and I have a long standing freindship that includes shared proofreading — I trust his judgement and his relationship with Laurel. Perhaps the story does need the baby in the room to build on the circumstances and setting. The worst that can happen is the story is sent back for editing. I think a note to Laurel in the submission/review should resolve the question. If it's rejected, then it can be resolved in some clever edit — if it's a one room shanty, a blanket tacked to the ceiling separates the 'little peeping-tom'.

 

[RejectReality]

Everybody can, "Yeah, but," the thing to death, but there's zero indication this happens in a one room cabin in the backwoods of Kentucky, or whatever single room situation you want to present. Absent that, getting out of the room with the sleeping baby is the sensible thing to do, not only from a standpoint of avoiding rejection, but from a standpoint of the characters getting interrupted mid-coitus. If that's the plot reason for the baby being there, having them in the next room can accomplish that as well. If you need them to wake up for plot purposes, you'd have to go out of your way to come up with a scenario that is not believable. The trope is that babies are as volatile as nitro glycerin, and the slightest thing can set them off.

If the baby is in the room and doesn't wake up prior to the sexual participants reaching completion, it's practically a Chekov's gun.

I'm sticking to my guns here. Having the baby in the room is needlessly playing with fire except in the most narrow circumstances.

 

[ElectricBlue]

I'm sticking to my guns here. Having the baby in the room is needlessly playing with fire except in the most narrow circumstances.

Agree this.

Funny how every piece of advice how not to compromise the Lit eighteen year rule seems to turn into a debate, as to how close to the line you might be able to go, if Laurel will let you.

It's almost as if a bunch of people want to find reasons to allow the eighteen year no sex rule to be broken.

This has turned into argument for argument's sake, whereas most threads about the eighteen year line are, "Fuck no, just don't go over it."

 

[stickygirl]

There was a time when the age of sexualisation was close to ten yrs. Given some of the horror stories in the press there is no age limit to some monsters. If some folks had their way, they'd paint half the sperm blue and half pink. The goalposts have moved in the last few years and the site will always err on the side of caution.

Is it the end of the world anyway if it's rejected, you can amend and resubmit? Frustrating but not unusual. Keep us posted and we can watch your story's progress, hopefully unencumbered.

~side note - that may be the first time I have written the word unencumbered

 

[AlinaX]

encumber, v. to fill with cum
cucumber, v. vegan variant of encumber