Forum: Author Hangout

The restrictions are similar to that passed by Australia at the same time (under which the author can be prosecuted for having written the story, as can anyone with a copy on their computer).

My member of Parliament in Australia sent me details of the Federal law there (email me if you want a copy).
The law is as stupid as it could possibly be.
The age limit is 18, it covers "material that describes" as broadly as possible, includes everything that could be done with those materials, and then applies a totally subjective test for whether or not something was a crime, i.e. "(describes) in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive."

"(describes) in a way that reasonable persons would regard as being, in all the circumstances, offensive."

Too bad they can't apply that to the laws.

Thus the whole idea of her having (or wanting) sex of any kind is a bit of a stretch.

Thus the whole reason d'etre for asstr.org vanished within the stretch of one idea merely being expressed.

If kids have little interest in sex, then why would a 400 year old kid have any more interest in it?

Because she's got the body of a kid - but keep in mind you're confusing mental maturity with physical maturity. And since my story is a fan fiction based upon TESV:Skyrim, the character IN THE ORIGINAL GAME talks being an adult in a childs body, using her size and innocent appearance to lure people so she can KILL them.

And I meant to say, before, mature physically to actually get pregnant, not intercourse. (The joys of typing on your phone while at work.)

In any event, I'm not planning on anyone having a massive sexual orgy with Babette. What I was actually doing was inventing a bit of conversation between two women, where one was asking the other about getting cured from vampirism.

I think it'd be nice at times to have a figure like you or Astrid. But I can still take care of my … personal needs. Just because my body hasn't changed doesn't mean I don't know how things work. It's not like I can get pregnant, so … it's such fun, especially those contracts for those who like to prey on little girls, to be the little girl who preys upon them

I'm not into Vampire lore. From what little I know about the subject, Vampires do not kill their victims in the process of turning them into a vampire. Why would a 10-year old child's body stop developing physically?

That depends on which set of vampire myths you are referring to. Some do have death as an integral part of becoming a vampire, some don't.

In any case, vampires are near immortal. Even if still alive, they age very slowly. A girl turned on her 10th birthday could take centuries to reach the developmental state of a human 11 year old.

. Yet when I read Ann Rice, I was left wondering 'what the hell use to vampires have for human hormones?'

Hormones are probably necessary to the production of pheromones and there are a number of ways that pheromones could be useful to a vampire.

1. Seduction as a hunting/feeding technique. If the vampire doesn't intend to kill his prey, the ecstasy of sexual pleasure makes it possible to feed without the victim noticing.

2. Under some stories, strong emotion adds flavor to the blood, enhancing the feeding experience for the vampire.

I can see it now:

Actually from most of those stories the two most popular emotion based flavors are lust and fear.

Another interesting aspect from the Atlantian nanite vampires, they can eat normal food, they are unaffected by drugs or alcohol ingested normally, but can get drunk/high by drinking blood from drunks/addicts.

don't forget the old Star Trek vampires

Like I could (hence, my name). Heck, Bones was in love with one, right? (I actually thought about her earlier in this conversation - here, have some Mortons ...)

don't forget the old Star Trek vampires

Like I could (hence, my name). Heck, Bones was in love with one, right?

I recognize that one from "The Man Trap'. Then there is the 'entity' in "Day of the Dove' and Rejac' from "Wolf in the Fold" but others escape me off the top of my head.

I'm not into Vampire lore.

There really is not one fixed set of "rules."

Wheezer gave the correct response, because you can have everything from Dark Shadows to Twilight, with Blade and Selene thrown in, and call them vampires. If you're into science fantasy (with lots of guns), I'd recommend the Monster Hunter series by Larry Correia.

The basic rule is simple - vampires drink blood. Now, whether they only need blood (human or animal) to survive or also have to eat, whether it's a curse, a disease, a virus, whether they can enter light (and sparkle!), or are instantly burned to ash - would a cross affect a jewish vampire - those are up for grabs.

The basic rule is simple - vampires drink blood. Now, whether they only need blood (human or animal) to survive or also have to eat, whether it's a curse, a disease, a virus, whether they can enter light (and sparkle!), or are instantly burned to ash - would a cross affect a jewish vampire - those are up for grabs.

In one series of Dead Tree vampire romances I read it's medical nanites developed in Atlantis (just before the fall) gone wrong.

The nanites were supposed to heal the body, deactivate and flush out of the patients system. The nanites are powered by consuming the patient's blood.

What went wrong is that the human body is constantly taking minor damage from a variety of sources so the nanites never flush out and a person does not produce enough blood to keep the nanites going indefinitely.

Prior to the fall, the patients were given blood transfusions, after, the nanites forced them to evolve to obtain blood without transfusions.

They aren't killed by sunlight, but sunlight damages the human body in a number of ways, causing the nanites to be more active and burn through their blood faster, so if they go out in daylight, they have to feed more/more often.

What went wrong is that the human body is constantly taking minor damage from a variety of sources so the nanites never flush out and a person does not produce enough blood to keep the nanites going indefinitely.

Which gets into all kinds of other weird science that we're still trying to figure out, and probably won't have entirely worked out for decades to come.

We know a LOT of the aging process comes as a result of accumulated cellular damage. There are large amounts of data now being collected about various means of slowing or even partially reversing some of this damage.

If all goes well, in about 20 years, when I'm hitting my 60's. We'll have a host of medicines to let me enjoy my 60's while enjoying the metabolism of a 20-something while likely feeling like I'm back in my 30's or early 40's. I still may not make it to 100 even with those goodies, or much past it(although I had (great)grandparents who did, so my odds are decent), but getting there may not be so bad for me as it was for my Grandparents(and others on this board). But that's a digression.

Now that's aging due to cellular damage. What about the aging due to physical maturation? How are the two aging processes related? Are they related? In what way?

Something triggered the release of those hormones to initiate the process of entering puberty, so what did it? Will slowing down the aging process due to cellular damage likewise slow down the maturation process?

I still may not make it to 100

If you want that check out this on Wiki
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calorie_restriction
It's been known for about a hundred years to substantially increase the lifespan of rats.
***
I read about a recent study in The Economist. One group on a low calorie diet had a gene switched off and fared no better than the control.
That gene is triggered by famine, then causing redoubled efforts to cannibalise aging mitochondria (for their nutrients). Mitochondria are known to produce far more free radicals as they age.
***
But, you might be less keen when you learn what is needed for this to work :-)

Except, we all know from watching the news on a regular basis, that sex with children IS physically possible. The only reason why it isn't more common, is because kids that age have no real desire to engage in it.

By "child" in this case, I'm assuming you mean someone who has not yet entered puberty. And in that context I'm generally agreed.

If pressed (say by a brother, father or cousin) they may consent, but they'll rarely initiate it, and most times they'll avoid it, even when being forced to consent.

Back to general agreement, assuming 2 things:

1) The child in question is sexually inexperienced.

2) The child in question, if sexually experienced, hasn't had a "pleasurable experience" while engaged in the act. (and considering many, if not most people, are "bad at sex" that isn't hard to imagine)

For most children, their main interest in things will be "is it fun?" and "does it make me feel good?" (And making them feel good is likely to make it "fun" for them. As that is an all too common crtieria given by children for why anything might be "fun")

For a child that simply walks in on someone having sex, they're likely to simply declare the typical "Sex is gross" response and go elsewhere, as you mention.

But in the event someone is around without scruples, and they work the child past the "it's gross" stage, the situation is likely to change. I'm not saying that is a good thing, it just happens to be a thing)(with a long list of reasons why NOT to do so). So it still runs back to "Someone deliberately introduced a child to sex" whether that someone is a 30-something pedophile, or a 13 year old introducing an 11 year old who then initiates a 9 year old in turn.

It just happens that the odds are very good that the 13 YO will be terrible at sex(like most young people), so the 11YO won't enjoy the experience, and that'll be the end of it. Or if the 13 YO is somehow good at it, the 11YO won't be as skilled, so the 9YO won't enjoy it, and it ends there.

That makes sense, but ... you've got to consider, if she's permanently 10 years old, her body will never produce enough hormones for her ever to reach sexual maturity. Thus the whole idea of her having (or wanting) sex of any kind is a bit of a stretch.

...EXCEPT, depending on the lore, the vampire lives on the blood of others because they cannot produce it themselves. So HER ability to produce hormones doesn't matter, it's the hormones of her victims that matter. Being female, and also presuming one of her main lures is sexual in nature(as often is the case for vampires). That would mean her victims are usually male. Which would give her a healthy amount of testosterone as well. With medical knowledge at this time indicating "elevated testosterone" should lead to increased sexual aggression....

But even without heading down that particular garden path, a 200+ year old vampire in a child's body would be more than aware that sex is going on around them, even if they have no physical imperative to participate. At some point, they're probably going to "try sex out" just to see what the big deal is all about.

This also ignores all the vampire lore about their being sexual predators, and the possibility that the vampire who "turned" her may have raped her at some point(or someone else did at some point). With the additional add-in that the vampire/rapist knew how to pleasure her, and did so.

I'm given to understand that while pre-pubescent are unlikely to initiate sexual activities on their own. Once they realize such activities "feel REALLY good" and so long as nobody gives them reason not to do otherwise, they're going to be fairly eager to "Feel good" again. See also: masturbation, I definitely remember having already been doing that on my own by the age of 8, and probably was doing so earlier than that. As I recall, what little medical research done into this area suggests most people have "discovered" it by their 2nd or 3rd birthday, although parents (obviously) usually discourage the behavior with varying degrees of success(some will just learn how to better hide it), and then it's just a matter of when the child "re-discovers" it. Which admittedly for some may be during or after puberty.

The specifics of what little I recall as the subject matter being considered may have changed over time, but the underlying (sexual) act of genital play was already in action by then.

without needing to do the caloric restriction.

Yeah. With that need, who would want to live long anyway? That gives a whole new meaning to 'life sentence'.

Could we, perhaps, put the author in jail for the next decade?

Make that 15 years!