You May Not Write About This Scene

[Pure]

You may not write about this scene in any submissions, here.


In the picture [url below], a youthful winged male bears away a swooning young female--show full frontally. Most of her clothing has fallen away.

It's a licit and legal picture available at a number of museum websites, probably to all ages able to reach the key board.

The rules for pictures (visual depictions) are tighter, on the 'net than those for text.

Yet the _writing_ of the details, absence of pubic hair, etc. would, some think, provide fodder for the most degraded of internet denizens, the pedophile. A few even think the writing would be illegal. It can't be allowed.

The picture can be sent on a postcard, U.S. mail, to Grandma.

An interesting contrast.

=======

Warning: parental discretion advised. Youthful material some may find offensive. Check with your pastor; look at his collection, if you do not wish to expose yourself this item.


Bouguereau (famous 19th century French painter)


"Psyche and Cupid"
[youthful winged male carries off youthful female, semi-non-consensually]

http://www.artsender.com/gallery/details.asp?PaintingID=633

-----------

"Art is never pure, we should keep it far away from the innocent ignorant. We should never let people approach. Yes, art is dangerous. If it is pure it is not art."
(Pablo Picasso)

 

[Couture]

I think people have a lot more pressing matters to worry about. FEX, US citizens should be aware that if they look at the picture, they are in violation of the new child pornography bill that was passed mostly in part to John Ashcroft.

If you are in possession of such a work of art, then the burden of proof rests on you to prove that the subject was not an actual child. IMHO, we have more important things to worry about than whether or not Lit will post stories of such material here. We need to be worried about the steady erosion of our rights by these fundamentalist neoconservatives, because I don't think they allow you to even go to sites like this in prison.

 

[flawed_ethics]

That's cause it's art.

Of course, what qualifies as art? Apparently this does, and it's pretty well done, IMHO. I wouldn't pay $300 for it, but that's just me.

Romeo and Juliet implies underage kids doing the deed, yet it's acted out in High School drama classes nationwide. It also is considered art - probably why it's allowed.

No offense authors but most of the stuff on Lit, as good as it may be, quite qualifies for art. More like smut. Damn good smut, don't get me wrong! Just smut none the less.

If you go on to do great things and your Lit work is discovered after your death, then maybe some literary scholar will canonize your Lit work as 'art'. Until then, good luck.

Just my two cents.

 

[Couture]

Pardon me FE, but that is the biggest load of bullshit I've heard in a quite awhile and it totally ignores history. I'm always amazed at the way these rightwing types try to re-write history and I'm not labeling you as one of those types, but clearly you are buying the load of shit they are selling. The facts are, that most of the great artists through time have had their works called crap and pornography by the beaurocrats, critics, and theologins of their time. Ask Manet. Ask Matisse. Ask Couture (the other one).

My point is that if you take ether, give it shape with your imagination, bind it with pigment, words, or clay to perserve it for time, then by God you shouldn't be sent to jail or have your creation destroyed by a bunch of ignorant small-minded, dickless, savages who haven't had an original thought since the beginning of time.

 

[Pure]

Couture said,

//US citizens should be aware that if they look at the picture, they are in violation of the new child pornography bill that was passed mostly in part to John Ashcroft. //

I don't think that's the case, Couture. It's a painting, not a photo, and the models--IF ANY--died more than 50 years ago.

If you peruse the Supreme Court decision against Ashcroft, in Ascroft vs. the Free Speech Coalition, it's clear that photos and similar items--e.g., movies-- are the main items covered in the 1996 law about child porn that is at issue. Indeed the SC rejects the application to 'virtual images', those which are realistic, but do not involve actual minors. Read the abstract and the beginning and Section I, beginning "In 1996..."

http://a257.g.akamaitech.net/7/257/....supremecourtus.gov/opinions/01pdf/00-795.pdf


Your concern with fascistic restrictions, however, is certainly valid, in my opinion. Indeed one way to 'read' the phenomena I alluded to is that the actual restrictions, now minor, exert a 'chilling effect' in other areas, and many come to believe other things are already restricted and best be let alone. (Like the High School teacher who thinks, "Maybe we just won't study Romeo and Juliet this year, I don't want trouble with the Board.") The quaverings and misconceptions of certain literotica folks are simply the penumbra of what you describe so well.

Thanks Couture. As always.

 

[KillerMuffin]

You're not the first person to get on his or her high horse because you can't write about 15 year olds fucking on Lit.

The webmasters set this rule 3 years ago because they believed then--and they do moreso now--that it was the best thing to do for their website. The key words here are THEIR WEBSITE. Notice it's not a publicly owned website. It's not a Pure-Owned website. It's not even a group-owned website. It's their website. They made this decision and they did not do so lightly.

This is what, the third thread in a week about this? What do you hope to accomplish? To force someone to view the world the way you do? That's wrong. To show some inherent hypocrisy in the situation? Let he who is without sin, bud bud.

It's not changing. Get over it.

 

[MathGirl]

Encore!

I seem to say the same thing every time this comes up. Although Muffie just said it, I'll do it again. It's their site, so they get to set the rules. We want to play on their site, we follow the rules. I think the advantages far outweigh any perceived downside.
MG

 

[Pure]

Hi KM,

As you said, recently, in 'explaining' the existence of cliques. (I recommend it to you.)


I am trying to have an intelligent discussion that carries some sort of respect between participants. Please have the courtesy to treat others with the same respect you expect to be treated with. Thank you in advance for your consideration.

This is pretty crass, and far beneath you:

KM: You're not the first person to get on his or her high horse because you can't write about 15 year olds fucking on Lit.

You have no idea what I write, or wish to write, if anything.

This is what, the third thread in a week about this? What do you hope to accomplish? To force someone to view the world the way you do? That's wrong.

It's the first thread I've started, the second I've been involved in.
Why the hysteria? Are you afraid to see discussion of the dangers, confusions, inconsistencies, and misconceptions in this area? Consider spending time on something meaningful to you, rather than hollering and screaming here in this thread.

J.

 

[Pure]

MathG
//I seem to say the same thing every time this comes up. Although Muffie just said it, I'll do it again. It's their site, so they get to set the rules. We want to play on their site, we follow the rules.//

It's a self described 'free speech' website, if you look at the organizations touted on the homepage. Those are the rules I'm playing by. No doubt the conversation will 'bore' you, so, as they say, don't let the door....

How's that six pack going?

J.

 

[Couture]

There's sites that won't accept stories they don't like. There's sites that won't accept stories written by men. However, there's plenty of unmoderated places to post your stories whatever the content.

And the act I was speaking of was the protect act. Signed into law last month by GWB. I imagine it will meet with a similar fate in the Supreme court unless of course the neoconservatives have six or so years to pack the courts with judges who don't care about the constitution.

 

[Pure]

Hi Couture,

Thanks for clarifying. Yes, the prospects of a 'stacked' SC are pretty scary.

I looked at passages in two laws, which are, or are like what you're talking about. I give the critical passages, below. They attempt to regulate material 'harmful to minors.' The first [Online Protection] is indeed broad so as to include written text, since the focus is on 'obscenity.'

The second [Internet Protection] does also deal generally with 'communication' in part A--virtually trying to absorb the COPA--- but in its second part {B}, perhaps designed to stand when the other part falls, it is clearly in the main vein regarding 'pornography.' So yes, *in theory*, the painting of Bouguereau could in theory be deemed such, although the presence of his 700 paintings in hundreds of museums, and in reproductions sold at hundreds of internet sites would probably prevent anything from happening in practice, since the law specifies a test of 'appeal to prurient interest' of the 'whole work', and 'without artistic or scientific [etc] value'-- standard obscenity ingredients.

As you also know, these acts have never--YET-- gotten off the ground-- they're on 'hold'--since they are held (at Appeal and SC level] unconstitutional in restricting adult speech.

Best,
J.



======

Excerpts:

http://www.epic.org/free_speech/censorship/copa.html

Child Online Protection Act, Title 14, [1998]


"(6) MATERIAL THAT IS HARMFUL TO MINORS.—The term 'material that is harmful to minors' means any communication, picture, image, graphic image file, article, recording, writing, or other matter of any kind that is ob-scene or that—
"(A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest;"
(B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual act, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast; and

"(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

====
http://www.ifea.net/cipa.html

Children's Internet Protection Act Title XVII

"(6) MATERIAL THAT IS HARMFUL TO MINORS.—The term 'material that is harmful to minors' means any communication, picture, image, graphic image file, article, recording, writing, or other matter of any kind that is ob-scene or that—"(A) the average person, applying contemporary community standards, would find, taking the material as a whole and with respect to minors, is designed to appeal to, or is designed to pander to, the prurient interest;"

(B) depicts, describes, or represents, in a manner patently offensive with respect to minors, an actual or simulated sexual act or sexual contact, an actual or simulated normal or perverted sexual act, or a lewd exhibition of the genitals or post-pubescent female breast; and"

(C) taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

 

[wildsweetone]

I'd seriously like to know, who defines what is art and what is not?

 

[Rainbow Skin]

No-one 'defines' art, but that doesn't mean there aren't standards, canons, tastes, agreements. In the last resort you might have to spell out borderline cases in a law, or go to court. The Lady Chatterley case made the standards of the prosecutor look ridiculous and acknowledged that society had moved on.

I can't see how or why writing should fall under any different standards to any other depiction. Stripping a child naked to photograph it is one offence, but others sharing or using a depiction (written, photographic, whatever) are committing a different one, and that's the one the obscenity test is for.

Romeo and Juliet has a 13-year-old having sex, but is in no danger from the wording of that act, or from any sensible member of contemporary society's moral standards. The act was inoffensive for the time, its depiction was inoffensive for its time, not designed to appeal to prurience; these days it's a valuable work of art, the depiction isn't patently offensive, it doesn't harm minors, etc. etc.

Any of the authors regularly posting here could easily write a tasteful, non-prurient depiction of 13-year-old sex. The reason we don't (if we wanted) is that Literotica doesn't pick and choose the very best, but allows anything that meets basic standards. Open the floodgates, and the vast majority of underage depictions would be filthy, prurient, obscene, and therefore illegal. It's not worth trying to pick out tomorrow's Romeo and Juliet or Jean-Baptiste Greuze from the sewage.

 

[Pure]

Hi Rainbow,

Those thoughts are well said, and I respect that. There are certain mistakes, however, so don't take it as indicating that I'm unaware of the quality of your posting.


I can't see how or why writing should fall under any different standards to any other depiction. Stripping a child naked to photograph it is one offence, but others sharing or using a depiction (written, photographic, whatever) are committing a different one, and that's the one the obscenity test is for.

Well, the standards *are* different, for written vs. photograph. (It appears you know this, but I'm not sure.) I'd suppose the reasons are several. Photos have more impact (hence possible 'prurient' appeal'). Written stuff is arguably closer to 'speech', which is protected very well. Last, in the case of youth and children, the photo (unless it's an adult pretending) involves an actual child; the writing does not. This issue already came up to the supreme court re 'virtual images', and Ashcroft et al. lost on the issue of actual involvement, which the court held to be pretty much determinative.

Your last sentence is not quite accurate. Child *pornography* laws cover the making, acquiring and sharing of visual depictions, e.g., photos, movies, etc. Your sending or receiving or possessing or storing on harddrive, the thing, even in 'private correspondence' is a crime. "Obscenity" is a broader category, emcompassing the written in respect of its public dessemination e.g., commercial) but not usually in private correspondence.


Romeo and Juliet has a 13-year-old having sex, but is in no danger from the wording of that act, or from any sensible member of contemporary society's moral standards. The act was inoffensive for the time, its depiction was inoffensive for its time, not designed to appeal to prurience; these days it's a valuable work of art, the depiction isn't patently offensive, it doesn't harm minors, etc. etc.

While this is correct in terms of likely events, Couture is correct that the wording of current laws permits their application --if ever the courts unblock them-- to pieces like "Romeo and Juliet", and indeed the SC mentioned that in striking down certain 'online protection' laws. The reason is that the acts (see excerpts) *define* (i.e. attempt to) 'harm to minors' as being certain sexual depictions, and the onus is put on the prosecuted to prove 'artistic' or 'scientific' merit.


Any of the authors regularly posting here could easily write a tasteful, non-prurient depiction of 13-year-old sex.

This is not so easy as it seems. "Catcher in the Rye" is pretty tasteful _in my book_ but it's excited school boards. That very famous children's author, whats her name {Judy Blume}, with dozens of books, often prizewinning, did a very tasteful youth sex story which outraged some {_Forever_, iirc}. Conclusion, unless things are exceptionally vague (like the ole movies that pan to the fireplace) someone is going to yell about 'prurience.' You are right, however, that most courts, outside the bible belt might ultimately side with you, but that might cost a heap.


The reason we don't (if we wanted) is that Literotica doesn't pick and choose the very best, but allows anything that meets basic standards. Open the floodgates, and the vast majority of underage depictions would be filthy, prurient, obscene, and therefore illegal. It's not worth trying to pick out tomorrow's Romeo and Juliet or Jean-Baptiste Greuze from the sewage.

I don't agree with this because it's a fairly hypothetical and 'contrary to fact' scenario. For one, as you say, Literotica publishes filthy and the prurient written material along with some more literate 'erotica.' It's not legally obscene--in the last thirty years-- because, in a national scene, almost no written material, no matter how nasty, prurient, perverted, violent, etc. is subject to censorship. The courts, in fact, reject the argument that there must be high literary value to be protected. That would be like saying "Your political pamplets or postings are not to be censored is they read like there are written by a scholar."

So in fact the floodgates are open, if the author can spell, write sentences, etc. One illegal activity is banned (child sex). Many other illegal activities--violence and bestiality--go to the sister site. Certain other illegal activites remain on the main board (incest), depicted in as much 'prurience' or graphic detail as the author wishes; coincidentally, they are the most popular with the readers yielding hundreds of thousands of hits.

Your phrase "and therefore illegal." is not accurate, given the *current* state of the law --including the blocking of the 'online' and 'internet' protection laws. That is the central misconception around these parts. There is in fact, nothing illegal about writing and dessiminating a *text* about minors in sexual acts, no matter at what level of 'prurience' or 'graphic detail.' That's how seriously the first amendment is taken these days in the national, high level courts.

There is no evidence, judging by Laurel's statements, as to your
'doesn't want to be bothered to choose the artistic and literary youth material.' Rather they claim, that although the material is now legal, it's remotely possible that the 'online' laws will be so encompassing as to sweep up ANY depictions of minor sex. As to 'real motives', my opinion is in agreement with those who hold it's actually a matter of the owners' personal tastes--which they have a right to--in view of the remoteness of the possibility.

You've raised many good points. Thanks for listening.


J.

 

[Pure]

Wild Sweet, (with a note to Flawed) ,

I'm not going to get into the intricacies of 'art' unless you tell us your own theory!! Rainbow hit some of the points.

_Flawed Ethics_ however made some good points, which I fear got too little attention. (Flawed, are you there?)

FE:
[Why does the Bouguereau get to sell on the 'net?] That's cause it's art.

Of course, what qualifies as art? Apparently this does, and it's pretty well done, IMHO. I wouldn't pay $300 for it, but that's just me.

Money is very important in determining art. Did you note that the_print_ of "Eros and Psyche" costs $300? (at the url). Maybe the original is worth millions. If I, however, take a (posed) picture of a youthful carrying-off scene, as in the painting, and sell it for $10 dollars, the police will come knocking. I'd be in some danger even if I just painted it, even without models.

Titian, Michelangelo, etc., and a whole line of 'greats' worked for the elite, those with money. The tastes of those with money, then, are one ingredient in defining art. This is particularly evident say, with something like the Guggenheim Museum. Those with the wealth to make major donations to museums are extremely influential (of course, in part, through offering their private collections to the museums as a tax dodge.)

So a $200 book is far more likely to escape censorship, than a $10 book. A recent example was Madonna's "Sex" book. Somehow it's more 'offensive' to (so-called) 'society' if Joe Worker whacks off, than if the Duke of Salisbury does; maybe because if all the workers did that, who would tend the estates of the Duke?

Best,
J.

 

[cahab]

Pardon me FE, but that is the biggest load of bullshit I've heard in a quite awhile and it totally ignores history.

What you say is true, but FE's defence whilst I attempt to write art both on Lit and off it, all but one of my own submissions have been submitted intending to be smut. If that's the case with most other people, then (his?) point was valid.

 

[BlackSnake]

I like William-Adolphe Bouguereau work

 

[flawed_ethics]

Again, just my two cents. If I do this three more times, I'll give ya a dime.

[UNDIRECTED RANT]

Fuck, if I had known the intent of this thread was to bring to light the minor's rule on Lit, then I doubt I woulda commented. I thought this was about art.

The picture can be sent on a postcard, U.S. mail, to Grandma.

An interesting contrast.

I still stand that nothing here on Lit is art. A masterpiece? Well, I haven't read every submission on Lit, but it's possible. A good read? Indeed. Anything that can stir the fancy and flight of imagination of a person, to get their thoughts to persue the matter or further the discourse of an issue is well worth being written (typed, in Lit's case). I contend that strict erotica is easily used as a tool to stir the reader's fancy, since the human being is at it's core a horny creature. I speak as a twenty-three year old man who has been exposed to perhaps too many overflowing tank tops this summer, but as an otherwise normal man nonetheless. That's not to say sprinkling erotica in a work cheapens a work - it shows good taste if done properly.

Although the written word can be artistic in it's play of words, I view it in a different light than that composed by a painter's brush or a camera's lense. Maybe, as Corture proposes, I have been reared to view things as told, but looking at the image in hand stirs thoughts of classical works. Something as I've been told (in books) that I might find on the ceiling of the Sistine chapel, or perhaps at Chicago's art museum (sorry, I forget it's name). The work, even though it may very well depict underaged bodies, doesn't strike me as such. I see and feel a flight of fancy.

That the characters might be underage is not the intent of the image, as I see it. It's purpose is to express. If someone wants to stand on their soapbox and demean and sling dirt at the painting for suggesting the use of naked cherubic imagery in art, let them. It's their own little world they'll have to live in.

I agree that Ashcroft's view of the world is one of paranoia, where people must repress themselves to walk around in an ironic gesture of freedom. But if people wish to be free, they will act it. Our American history is filled with events where the right to freedom has lead to oppression. Slavery. St. Valentine's Day massacre. Prohibition (19th Amendment, was it?). Who can vote. These were the norm, and expected. I think it's great that while these seemingly absurd* ideas existed, they were ultimately struck down. Corture is right in pointing out the flaws in ignoring history. I think it's funny then, that she (Corture is a she, right) is afraid that a group that might try to cover history will succeed. People won't forget and will always fight for change. If it means war, so be it.

I despise politics, so I'll mosey on.

As for Lit's stance on 18+, I agree. While sexual maturity is not a fixed number but rather a physical and mental state, there are those who lash out at thoughts of a sixteen year old having sex. (I want to lash out at the thought of some adults I know that have sex, but I know better.) There are those who lash out at gay and anal sex too (Santorum, anyone?). So far as I'm concerned, Santorum can fuck himself with a broom. But they exist, and so long as they have an opinion, they should have a voice. And so long as the issue is unsettled, they should continue to fight for what they deem right. And those who feel the age should be lowered should continue to retort. Discussion of differences in opinion is what makes America interesting.

I personally believe if people took on more responsibility for their own actions (including parenting), then such issues would not exist. But I'm often told to shut up, so go figure.

So yes, Corture, I didn't consider the history of the situation. I don't think it need be considered. Everyone has their own view of what is and isn't art. Give me Manet. Give me Matisse. Throw on Couture (the more renown one) for good measure. I'll probably agree - they made some good stuff they were ridiculed for. But if I think some of their 'art' is still crap though, who other than the artists are to say otherwise?

I feel the 18+ rule should stand. It keeps the barbarians at bay. State that you feel otherwise, but don't disobey it, unless you want a poor reputation. This isn't a government, it's a privately run site that is under constant pressure from radicals-with-money (I call them republicans) to shut it down. There are other sites you can cater to if must satisfy your itch.

Yeesh.

[/UNDIRECTED RANT]]

*I say seemingly absurd, since it must have been the case at some point in our nation's history that such actions were proper. Our nation doesn't view these issues as such now, except the deep south, but hey, you can't win them all.

 

[Pure]

I just had an enlightening experience. Saw the list of books most attacked and or banned, in the 1990s. It's like a goddam who's who!

Why do censoring folk pick on the GOOD stuff?**

100 books, from the American Library Association.

http://www.ala.org/Content/Navigati..._Frequently_Challenged_Books_of_1990-2000.htm



** Why does the crappy "prurient" stuff Flawed talks about, receive so little attention?

 

[Pure]

I'll bump this once, since the 'art' issue still hangs.

Trying to make sense of the fiery exchange of Flawed Ethics and Couture.... It seems that FE is saying there's art and there's crap, and that's pretty much self evident. (And mostly it's crap at Lit.) Couture wants to say, "Wait! At any point in history in the pile labelled 'crap' {or degenerate or incomprehensibl} are some artistic masterworks. One thinks of Manet's Dejeuner sur L'Herbe, and Joyce's Ulysses. Du Champ "Nude descending a staircase" labelled "an explosion in a shingle factory." And the moral angle is often there, though the critics never say "Brilliant and artistic, but immoral."

Fortunately the Supreme Ct of US has thus far taken the view that 'quality' is largely irrelevant. A sexy work needn't be Joycean to be protected. It's pretty funny however to watch defense literary experts testify about the merits of "Dick Man Fucks Sally's Asshole." *Almost* total crap can avail itself of the 'artistic' or 'literary' defense against obscenity. An as yet unrecognized masterpiece can thus likely escape censorship.

What makes a given text, say a short story, a piece of literature, an artistic (in the narrow, non-SC sense) endeavour. I don't have a short answer, but clearly richness and freshness--often surprise-- count a great deal. You cannot stop half way and project the end. The boredom of porn is legendary because of its impoverishment of content. The standard progression makes predictions possible from the first line "When Dylan saw Mom in the swimming pool, her erect nipples were clearly visible when the filmy white top became soaked." Neither richness nor freshness goes the whole way toward making something 'artistic' or of 'good quality.'

"Art" in the narrow sense can't be a defense at literotica, but it's interesting to contemplate a lean in that direction. Not unlike 'Clean Sheets.' I wonder if, in some ways, it might be the case that CS would take more chances that Literotica, since the store of tales has less dirt (crap) in it. Having resolved to open the doors to crap, there is more reason to be prudent about possible gray legal areas (or so they might become).

J.

 

[oggbashan]

Safety First

I think that the 18+ rule on Literotica (and on some other "erotic" sites) is the safest way to run an erotic site at present.

Who knows what legislation might be enacted in any number of countries that could make erotic sites illegal?

There are people out there who would love to close down Literotica, any adult clubs/bulletin boards and sweep the Internet clean of any sexual activity.

The 18+ rule recognises the danger that all of us could face.

The rule protects Literotica and us as individuals. Whatever artistic or free speech objections we might have against that rule we should follow the 18+ convention because it is the safest way to avoid criticism and attack on the site and on us as participants in this site.

If I find apparently under 18 material on a site that I visit, I leave as soon as possible. If it seems to have appeared without the site owner's knowledge I might send a email suggesting that the owner could look at the item. If under 18 material is common I do not want guilt by association so I leave and scrub my files as clean as if I had been attacked by a virus. I suggest that anyone reading this should do as I do.

I don't like being forced to protect myself that vigourously but the dangers to all of us from those who want to sanitise the Internet are real.

Og

 

[Couture]

To me, there are two different kinds of art that are sometimes both in the same. The simplest to describe as art, is work that is good craftsmanship. This is largely things that are free from mistakes and show that someone took a large degree of time and patience to complete.

Then, there is originality. This is much harder to classify and is much of the time classified as crap. This is when someone comes along and says, "I'm not playing by those old rules anymore. I'm playing by these new rules instead."

You want to know the truest measure of art? Art survives. Crap perishes.

Anyway, who knows what gems may one day be found from the Lit archives? There are some gems here, I've read them. Fresh material and well crafted material on par with some of the published stories I've read. And, you know I hate it when someone trashes stuff because people masturbate to it. Good writing makes you *feel*. If you don't feel something when reading White Oleander, something is really wrong with you. But, why should sadness be more prized that the joyous intensity of orgasm?!?

In real life, given the choice between sorrow and orgasm, I'll take orgasm any day of the week! If I had a magic button to press for instant orgasm, for sure, I would have some serious ass carpel tunnel in my finger.

So, while Flawed Ethics says, tomato. I say, tomaaaahhhhtoooeeemygaaawwwd!

 

[Couture]

Okay, Ogg, did Nabachov, say "You know this whole Lolita story could piss people off. I better not write it."

Or did Shakespear go, "You know this Romeo and Juliet business with them being young and killing themselves. Well, someone might sue me later."

So really, the only good thing about limiting the age at Lit, is that it limits the clientelle. Same thing with the decision to not allow really hard-core stories about rape and bestiality. It sort of makes Lit the country club of adult story sites. Okay, well, you may see a few golfers fucking in the bushes, and I saw some beer cans on hole 5. Not to mention the practical jokers who killed the grass around hole 8. I guess the like the bare look.

Anyway, my point is that Lit chooses to limit the stories that are posted in order to limit their clientelle. There are other places that don't censor at all. And the quality of the stories at some of the uncensored sites would probably surprise you.

I could go down the list of really great authors. Anyway, give Oosh a read to see what I'm talking about.

 

[Pure]

Interesting question then,

If Lolita were reduced to novella length and form, would it be postable at Literotica? I seem to remember a (frustrating for a teen ager) lack of graphic detail, and according to Weird Harold, that sexual-detail-less-ness is what is required for an 'underage' story to make it past the Powers that Be.

 

[oggbashan]

Okay, Ogg, did Nabachov, say "You know this whole Lolita story could piss people off. I better not write it."

Or did Shakespear go, "You know this Romeo and Juliet business with them being young and killing themselves. Well, someone might sue me later."

Anyway, my point is that Lit chooses to limit the stories that are posted in order to limit their clientelle. There are other places that don't censor at all. And the quality of the stories at some of the uncensored sites would probably surprise you.

I could go down the list of really great authors. Anyway, give Oosh a read to see what I'm talking about.

Nabachov knew he was writing at the limit of what was allowed at the time and choose to challenge the definitions. It was a conscious choice and he knew that he might fail.

In Shakespeare's England the age of Romeo and Juliet was not an issue. Shakespeare and his contemporaries were very close to the edge of the law of their time on political comment. They were constantly in danger of Royal displeasure or their patron withdrawing support.

Literotica chooses to play safe on the adult issue. So do I, and in the longer term it is safer for anyone. I do not want Literotica to disappear overnight as some Yahoo adult clubs have done. The issue is not artistic freedom but survival of a site.

I have visited many other sites. The quality or otherwise of the stories on them or Literotica is not relevant. Will the site be there next week, next month, next year? Will the members be investigated by the FBI or the local police force because of guilt by association?

The point I made before is still valid. There are a large number of people and organisations who would do almost anything to close down all erotic sites on the Internet. They are a real threat to all of us and I refuse to pretend to be an ostrich with my head in the sand. If you look at some of the "moral" crusading sites you might be shocked by how much they hate us.

Og