Where do you personally draw the line between erotic stories and pure filth? I ask this because, at one time, it seemed that SOL was reserved for erotica and ASSTR leaned more heavily in the direction of filth. Some authors even published slightly different version of their stories on both, saving the raunchier version for ASSTR. That line seems to have blurred of late and stories on SOL seem to have taken a turn toward what used to be only on ASSTR. Has anyone else noticed that trend?
Yes. It seems like in the past couple of years SOL has attracted what I call, for lack of a better phrase,"Shock & Trash" writers. For example: "Doing an Unconsious 14 Year Old". Additionally,it is no problem figuring out who the pedos are.
Having never visited ASSTR before finding it mentioned here, I am not sure I am one to speak on this. While I have enjoyed most of what I read here, I have noticed an upsurge in titles on the feed which, if they had been there when I first visited SOL, I would NOT have stayed to enjoy the higher quality writings. I thought that by using the filters that I could avoid seeing them in the feed, but Lazeez says the filters only apply to searches and the 'new stories' and 'updated stories' listings.
As for whether the stories themselves are 'erotic' or 'pure filth', I couldn't say as I am so turned off by the titles I don't bother to read them.
In case most of your missed the prolonged discussions on the ASSTR forum, the site has essentially closed, with NO new stories being posted, and the only things now available are the 'special collection' libraries, which are still accessible since they're stored separately.
So, what are all the poor, poor pedo writers to do? Why, head on over to friendly neighbor SOL, change all the 3 - 5 year olds to "14", and dump all of their stories.
Frankly, I think everyone should 1-bomb every single of the hardly disguised 'pedo rape' stories so they get the idea they're not welcome here. If not, SOL stands to end up like ASSTR (i.e. dead in the water).
Frankly, I think everyone should 1-bomb every single of the hardly disguised 'pedo rape' stories so they get the idea they're not welcome here.
Better still, isn't it about time to delete the pedo tag AND every story that uses it.?
Ins't the reason for the 14 year old and over requirement in place to prevent the posting of pedo stories.?
Once you start moral censoring it will be difficult to stop it when you don't like the results anymore. Just take a look at other tag definitions and think about which one might call forth the next righteous uproar.
Once you start moral censoring it will be difficult to stop it when you don't like the results anymore. Just take a look at other tag definitions and think about which one might call forth the next righteous uproar.
Since this site already refuses publication of stories with sex involving under 14's, how is my suggestion the 'start' ??
Given the reasons the WM has for implementing the 14 limit, I find it hard to see how he could, in court, justify retaining the pedo tag, especially for new stories.
because 14 is still pedo
That depends upon jurisdiction. It is possible to marry at 14.
Whilst I agree with you, I didn't set the bar here.
ETA
The tag definitions state the following;
Pedophilia - An adult initiating sexual contact with a pre-pubescent
child (boy or girl, 12 or under)
I love a girl who uses 'whilst" in a sentence!!
If only I were a judge.... You could then apply that to me, whilst, no doubt dreaming of being 'sent down' ...
"Whilst" is so Dickensian you have to love it! We have no equivalent in the states that sounds so proper!
Unbeknownst to you, 2718 SOL pages contain 'whilst'. A quick glance at the first page suggests the vast majority of the authors are American.
AJ
Unbeknownst to you
"Unbeknownst" is almost as good as "whilst". I love language!
When I started this thread, I wasn't specifically thinking of all the hidden pedophilia stories (hidden because the kids are disguised as 14 year olds!) The filth that troubles me in particular is in stories that relate violence to sexual gratification. I believe that there is a grave danger in relating the two. Anyone who gets off on the pain of others is a dangerous person and I'd hate to find that stories that fed those fantasies led to them being fulfilled.
Anyone who gets off on the pain of others is a dangerous person and I'd hate to find that stories that fed those fantasies led to them being fulfilled
Well, there's rape (which is the violent form of non-consent), BDSM, rough, sadistic, snuff, torture, needles?, cannibalism, cat-fighting, violent.
When I started this thread, I wasn't specifically thinking of all the hidden pedophilia stories (hidden because the kids are disguised as 14 year olds!) The filth that troubles me in particular is in stories that relate violence to sexual gratification. I believe that there is a grave danger in relating the two. Anyone who gets off on the pain of others is a dangerous person and I'd hate to find that stories that fed those fantasies led to them being fulfilled.
While those stories aren't specifically forbidden, they're notoriously low scoring, so there's a built in discouragement against those types of stories. Unfortunately, the exact same discouragement applies to black, Hispanic, Indian or gay authors, leaving the site a largely elderly white male haven.
While I dislike the artificial age limit, I'd rather keep the site active by enforcing strict laws. If we went that way (no under 18 sex allowed), it might allow us to eliminate the voting which discourages other minority authors/readers on the site.
In short, we waste so much effort trying to separate the decent underaged stories from the crap, it confuses the issues entirely.
The filth that troubles me in particular is in stories that relate violence to sexual gratification. I believe that there is a grave danger in relating the two. Anyone who gets off on the pain of others is a dangerous person and I'd hate to find that stories that fed those fantasies led to them being fulfilled.
People are not choosing to relate the two anymore than someone chooses to be homosexual. You choose your actions, not your feelings.
I didn't even know what sex - including masturbation - was when I used to hide under my bed and imaging being trapped and helpless. I knew it felt good, but I had no idea what sexual arousal was. I was born this way, and I am no longer ashamed of it - at least when discussing it on the internet :)
There is absolutely nothing wrong with being aroused by ANYTHING... as long as it's only a fantasy!
If I understand you correctly, you are imagining something like this:
John enjoys porn and erotica. Then one day *dun dun dun* he discovers erotica about rape! Something he never thought about before. Locking himself in his parents basement he masturbates to rape porn, the desire growing inside his evil soul! One day it's just one erotica to many and he snaps!
Charging up the stairs he looks for the nearest woman and tackles her to the ground and takes her right there!
(obviously I'm greatly exaggerating, but I believe that's the essence of your concern.)
I propose the reality is more like this:
John has always been turned on by violence in bed. Only a horrible person would fantasise about things like that. It's a deep shame that he can't share with anyone. A deep shame that he is forced to live with.
Then one day he discovers erotica about rape and BDSM. He is shocked to learn that there are other people out there with fantasies as dark as his.
Meanwhile, in another part of the state, Mary believes that she is the only woman that fantasizes about being raped. The idea of being a helpless victim is a huge turn on, but she can't admit it to anyone. It's a deep shame that she is forced to live with.
Then one day she discovers the wide world of erotica and BDSM.
The find each other on the forums. Eventually they end up setting up a consensual rape scene. They are both careful, he is worried about her accusing him of rape. She is worried that he will take it to far. They set up safe words and talk about exactly what is and isn't ok. She lets her friends know that she is going on a date. They know who he is and where he lives. He has the list of what is and isn't allowed, written in her own hand in a safety deposit box a week ahead of time.
The day arrives and (as planned) he makes his move. He shoves her against the wall. he twists her hands behind her back and handcuffs them together. Flipping her over he straddles her waist and roughly grabs a breast in each hand. He calls her a slut. He demands that she sucks his cock. She refuses. He slaps her breasts hard repeating his demand... *scene fades *
He ends up meeting the girl of his dreams. Someone that is an equal partner out of the bedroom, but loves consensual rapeplay at night - at least when she is in the mood.
(obviously I'm greatly exaggerating, but that's the essence of my rebuttal)
Porn (and I assume, erotica), make people less likely to commit sexual violence. The Czech Republic, Denmark, Japan, China, Hong Kong, they all saw sexual violence decrease after porn became available.
Evidence shows that having access to porn makes people LESS likely to commit the crime.
More evidence that porn is a safety valve. Instead of committing rape and pedophilia, potential perpetrators find a less harmful outlet, masturbating to porn.
https://www.psychologytoday.com/us/blog/all-about-sex/201601/evidence-mounts-more-porn-less-sexual-assault
On the topic of pedophilia erotica... I'm torn. If that makes people less likely to do it in real life, then logic says I should support it - find someone else to write it though.
Please note that my comments specifically refer to erotica. Porn is different. Real people are involved.
To say that the Psychology Today article is flawed is a vast understatement.
All violent crime has decreased, but violent sex crimes at a slower rate than non-sex related crime.
In the other nations cited, the author fails to mention that a major factor in the decrease in sex crimes is the simple legalization of activities such as homosexual relations which were illegal in the past.
All violent crime has decreased, but violent sex crimes at a slower rate than non-sex related crime.
In the other nations cited, the author fails to mention that a major factor in the decrease in sex crimes is the simple legalization of activities such as homosexual relations which were illegal in the past.
Do you have any statistics for that? I've found tons of places pushing either misleading numbers or a political/religious philosophy, but don't have any real numbers that agree with you.
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/2032762
If (violent) pornography causes rape, this exceptional development in the availability of (violent) pornography should definitely somehow influence the rape statistics. Since, however, the rape figures could not simply be expected to remain steady during the period in question (when it is well known that most other crimes increased considerably), the development of rape rates was compared with that of non-sexual violent offences and nonviolent sexual offences (in so far as available statistics permitted). The results showed that in none of the countries did rape increase more than nonsexual violent crimes. This finding in itself would seem sufficient to discard the hypothesis that pornography causes rape.
It's a complicated topic, and rape is particularly complicated. Until recently it was literally impossible for a man to be raped in the United States because the legal definition of rape specifically required a penis inserted into a vagina.
Legal definition of Rape - before 2012: "The carnal knowledge of a female, forcibly and against her will."
The updated definition is much better: "The penetration, no matter how slight, of the vagina or anus with any body part or object, or oral penetration by a sex organ of another person, without consent of the victim"
It also wasn't until 1993 all 50 states finally recognized that a husband can rape his wife.
Many ignorant people still believe that men can't be raped, or if they are raped the perpetrator must be another man.
Yes. Look at FBI violent crime statistics.
As to the paper you cited - it deals with the period from the mid 60s to the mid 80s during which violent sex crimes increased. The article only says that it did not increase more than "non-violent" sex crimes. I did not read the article far enough to determine what is considered a non-violent sex crime. I would be of the opinion that all crime not involving fully consenting adults is violent.
What porn has done in my anecdotal experience is cause women to excuse behavior that would have been considered rape in the past.
What porn has done in my anecdotal experience is cause women to excuse behavior that would have been considered rape in the past.
I don't think anyone said it better than Bill Clinton.
"I think the norms have really changed in terms of, what you can do to somebody against their will, how much you can crowd their space, make them miserable at work. You don't have to physically assault somebody to make them, you know, uncomfortable at work or at home or in their other -- just walking around. That, I think, is good."
Yes, this is REAL quote from the former President who was accused of rape, and of course, made Monica Lewinsky and her blue dress famous.
I don't think anyone said it better than Bill Clinton.
"I think the norms have really changed in terms of, what you can do to somebody against their will, how much you can crowd their space, make them miserable at work. You don't have to physically assault somebody to make them, you know, uncomfortable at work or at home or in their other -- just walking around. That, I think, is good."
Yes, this is REAL quote from the former President who was accused of rape, and of course, made Monica Lewinsky and her blue dress famous.
I never liked Bill Clinton, but even I have to say I don't think that quote means what you're trying to make it mean.
Society is actually MUCH LESS permissive on the whole, as witnessed by #metoo lately. Or efforts in years past(during the Obama Admin) to make the definitions of rape/sexual assault so overly broad as to make the term meaningless.
The stalker laws are also often "a mess" to say the least. They have very good intentions, but the way some are written, just having a habit of being in the right places at the right(wrong) times is sufficient grounds for some of those laws to apply to you. Even if you had never taken much notice of your purported stalking victim, their noticing YOU is sufficient grounds.
We may be much more permissive about what goes on in private, but as to public/workplace behavior? You better be very careful of what kinds of behaviors you demonstrate... Well, unless you belong to a group with a protected ("oppressed minority") status of some kind.
You better be very careful of what kinds of behaviors you demonstrate... Well, unless you belong to a group with a protected ("oppressed minority") status of some kind.
Believe me, the law comes down much faster and much harsher on those 'protected status' citizens much faster than it does against WASPs. Often, those 'protections' exist in name only (i.e. people are much more cautious about callously saying unwarranted things about them), but that behavior has no legal protections.
I suspect your use of the term is a reflection, not on the sentiment expressed, but on a supposedly higher 'job quote' acceptance, but that's not a protection/guarantee, as a legal redress for past faults (i.e. it's not a protection in any sense of the word, but an attempt to correct the past misdeeds of others, as the penalties are against the companies for not hiring a representational number of certain groups. It's not a guarantee that those people will be hired, by any stretch of the imagination.
What porn has done in my anecdotal experience is cause women to excuse behavior that would have been considered rape in the past.
In what way on this one? The way this is phrased leaves me slightly confused.
Did it cause them to consider an actual rape to not be one? (I have doubts)
Or did it make them open to the idea of (consenting to) sexual activities that would have otherwise resulted in their filing rape charges? (I find this one far more likely)
On a related side, I can also see it(porn) as making it more likely that their sexual partner will pursue activities they will object to. But pursuit and carrying it out are slightly different things, asking is not doing.
As to the anecdotal evidence regarding porn, typically that takes the form of violent sex offenders normally being found with "substantial" collections of pornography, much of which is likely to be "violent in nature" as well.
Of course, even those anecdotes can often be subjective. For some LEOs, 5 porn magazines is "a large collection of pornography" and if they're BDSM oriented, well, there's your "violent in nature."
Of course for most LEOs I do think the bar is much higher than that, where you're talking about dozens, if not hundreds or thousands(or much more), of pornographic items.
That said, drawing a Venn diagram, I could certainly see why something like BDSM would appeal to a rapist(As Rape IS a form of Domination, and it both requires a large degree of Sadism to follow through in a non-consensual encounter, as well as Bondage often being a convenient means to that end--but without consent that just makes it BDS, not BDSM).
That doesn't mean that BDSM lead to their becoming rapists. Although it could be claimed "it helped give the rapist ideas," and somewhere to reference for how to go about some of what they want to do. But anymore with a lot of that, they don't need porn for that, just watch a bunch of the police procedural shoes on TV and they'll give enough of a "how to" on much of it when it comes to violent sex crimes in particular.
As to the anecdotal evidence regarding porn, typically that takes the form of violent sex offenders normally being found with "substantial" collections of pornography, much of which is likely to be "violent in nature" as well.
The subjective nature of it isn't the biggest problem. The biggest problem is this sort of thing can't identify the direction of any causal relationship, if there even is a causal relationship.
Do people commit violent sex crimes because they read/watch violent porn, or are they drawn to violent porn because they commit violent sex crimes, or to make matters even more complicated is there a third factor that drives both the propensity to commit violent sex crimes and the attraction to violent porn.
What porn has done in my anecdotal experience is cause women to excuse behavior that would have been considered rape in the past.
This is really two statements, and I don't agree with either one.
1) Women excuse behavior that would have been considered rape in the past.
I don't agree with that statement. What behaviours do you believe they are they excusing now? Women are far more likely to report rape today than in the past - society is far more understanding, and the victim is much less likely to be blamed.
We still have a long way to go, but things are better, not worse.
2) This change is caused by pornography.
If we accept your first statement as true (which I don't), what makes you think pornography is the cause?
==========
Yes. Look at FBI violent crime statistics.
I looked up the FBI violent crime statistics for the years 1960 - 2014. I found the "legacy rape" statistics you recommended I use.
That data shows that "legacy rape" peaked in 1992 with a rate of 42.8 per 1000 residents.
https://www.bjs.gov/ucrdata/Search/Crime/State/StateCrime.cfm
Think back to that era.
Buying porn involved magazines or videos purchased from trashy convenience stores or the back of vans. You could also rent it from some video stores. All of which involved carrying your "BDSM loving Sluts" video up to a stranger and buying/renting it from them.
Fast forward to today.
"BDSM loving Sluts" is available - for free - to anyone that has internet and can click "I'm over 18". All from the privacy of your home, without facing the embarrassment of anyone knowing you watched the video. Want skinny petite women that look like girls? Sure! Want something more violent? We have that! Want dominate women fucking men with a strapon? It's right here! Oh, you prefer older women? Sure! Overweight, big breasted, girl-on-girl action? Look over here! Gay Men? Dickgirls? It's all a click away, and it's all free - high quality versions are available if you have a credit card!
The last ~25 years have made tremendous changes to the availability of porn, and it's never been so freely available before.
So, what terrible change did this bring to the FBI rape statistics? Surly the huge porn boom of the late 90's and early 2000's increased the chances of a beautiful young woman being raped by tenfold!
Lets see... Oh, the legacy rape rate dropped by about 40%. It went from 42.8 to 26.4 per 1000 residents during that time frame.
Imagine that.
Legacy Rape is: Forcible rape, as defined in the FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program, is the carnal knowledge of a female forcibly and against her will. Attempts or assaults to commit rape by force or threat of force are also included; however, statutory rape (without force) and other sex offenses are excluded.
Yes, as society has slowly changed from blaming the victim, and treating raped women as "damaged goods" more and more women have begin to speak out when they are sexually assaulted.
The majority of sexual assaults are still unreported. Hopefully this will continue to approve over time.
I assume that's why the research paper I linked earlier didn't simply use violent crime as the measuring stick.
On further reflection: They have little to do with each other. The average rapist is still related to the victim. Rape is about power and control. Violent crime is normally about greed and/or anger. Obviously someone willing to do one is more likely to be willing to do the other, but I don't believe they are closely related.
To expand on my earlier answer.
Every violent crime has decreased from the peaks in the 90s. violent sexual crime has decreased much less than other violent crimes. If porn were somehow beneficial in reducing sexual violence, it would be expected that sexual violence rates would decrease more than other violent crimes - after all, that is the theory behind the paper you cited earlier.
Since with increasing availability of pornography violent sexual crimes increased faster than other types of violent crimes (during the period from the 60s to the 90s) and has decreased slower than those other crimes in the past couple of decades, I doubt that a statistically credible claim can be made that porn has been beneficial in reducing sexual violence.
I doubt that a statistically credible claim can be made that porn has been beneficial in reducing sexual violence.
I doubt that any statistically credible claim can be made linking porn and sexual violence.
Highly dubious assumptions made in assertions above include:
* Trends in reported cases of sexual violence are indicative of trends in the actual number of cases. Reporting rates and how they may have changed over time are truly unknowable.
* Any correlation in data between the two indicates a causal link.
And as REP explained, the crime data itself is meaningless. It's too incomplete and reliant on voluntary participation.
It is very obvious that the expansion of porn has had a major effect on sexual behavior. Whether that applies to non-consensual behavior, or not, is an open question.
It is very obvious that the expansion of porn has had a major effect on sexual behavior.
It's not obvious to me. In fact, I cannot see any significant change in sexual behaviour over recent decades, not since the spread of AIDS put a dampener on things.
One obvious thing is the removal of pubic hair.
Why do you say porn caused the change?
Do most porn stars shave because that's what society currently finds most attractive, or does society find shaving attractive because porn stars shave.
When you think about it that way it seems obvious that porn stars are driven by what society finds attractive, not the other way around.
Edit: A little online research seems to say that the birth of the bikini is to blame.
No. It was promoted in porn - for more visabilty- before it became common in society.
Bikinis, even very small ones, were worn in the 50s. Twelve year old girls weren't getting full wax jobs then.
Pubic trimming/shaving has been standard in some middle eastern societies for centuries.
In America, shaving your underarms became standard when clothing started exposing them. Shaving your legs became standard when clothing started exposing them.
Everyday clothing, especially bikinis, started to expose some pubic hair...
Why is the trimming/shaving that we should all expect to follow suddenly caused by something else?
I don't know if your right or wrong about why porn stars started shaving, but either way, that doesn't provide any evidence that it's the source of changing social norms - doubly so in the case of 12 year olds. That's bad parenting as far as I'm concerned.
In America, shaving your underarms became standard when clothing started exposing them. Shaving your legs became standard when clothing started exposing them.
Everyday clothing, especially bikinis, started to expose some pubic hair...
Why is the trimming/shaving that we should all expect to follow suddenly caused by something else?
I don't know if your right or wrong about why porn stars started shaving, but either way, that doesn't provide any evidence that it's the source of changing social norms - doubly so in the case of 12 year olds. That's bad parenting as far as I'm concerned.
As already pointed out, it was the "itty bitty bikini" that resulted in public shaving for women. Not porn. Porn didn't really pick up on that until the 1970's with the so-called "Muff Wars" (between Playboy, Penthouse, and Hustler) if I remember the name correctly.
Now granted, "reader feedback" that happened in response to that may have helped further cement in the idea that "men like that look" and also accelerated the process of normalizing the practice among women. So while it may have contributed, I would still hold to the bikini being the cause, not porn.
The bikini was around for 30+ years before bare look became common. Read any women's magazine on the issue. They universally agree that it was porn that drove and drives the trend. Since they're the ones going through the inconvenience, or pain to do this, I'll take their word for it.
Read any women's magazine on the issue. They universally agree that it was porn that drove and drives the trend. Since they're the ones going through the inconvenience, or pain to do this, I'll take their word for it.
I never read a shaved magazine.
Read any women's magazine on the issue. ... Since they're the ones going through the inconvenience, or pain to do this ...
Women are not the only ones who remove their pubic hair by shaving or any other method. I started shaving because my girlfriend did not care for 'nature's dental floss'. I have continued the practice because I hate the irritation that accompanies new growth and love the way my skin feels bare.
edit: typo
Women are not the only ones who remove their pubic hair by shaving or any other method. I started shaving because my girlfriend did not care for 'nature's dental floss'. I have continued the practice because I hate the irritation that accompanies new growth and love the way my skin feels bare.
I would agree that Oral sex is a major driving factor on why the practice continues. Although "the feel" of it, or simple hygiene for that matter also applies, even for men. It might not go so far as shaving it all off(for men in particular), but it certainly provides ample (non-sexual) incentive to not let it just grow into a bush.
The bikini was around for 30+ years before bare look became common. Read any women's magazine on the issue. They universally agree that it was porn that drove and drives the trend. Since they're the ones going through the inconvenience, or pain to do this, I'll take their word for it.
Women's Magazines are not completely reliable sources, particularly ones written more than a generation after the fact.
Yes, the bikini was created after the end of WW2. However, the initial bikini wasn't particularly small. It took until the 1960's and the sexual revolution(which admittedly, porn probably contributed to) before they became small enough for pubic grooming to even become an issue.
I would also put good odds that some prudish city councils probably had a hand in what followed at that point. As I would put good odds that "exposure of pubic hair" on a woman's lower half probably (briefly) became grounds for indecent exposure type charges in some places before they discovered it didn't work. As it had, in turn resulted in the "inconceivable" outcome of some women removing the offending hair rather than selecting a different outfit as intended by those kind of laws.
So we're back to: The bikini triggered the practice of trimming or outright removing pubes.
Pornography simply accelerated the adoption of such practices. Women's Magazines are confusing the "accelerant" part with the "cause" part. That the practice caught on after the proliferation of pornography in the 1960's and resulting sexual revolution certainly helps further confuse things in regards to what did what.
But as is plainly apparent in porn of the 1950's and 1960's "the bush" wasn't viewed as a major detractor(and it's coming back to some extent now) and likely would have lasted much longer than it did, if not for the bikini causing it to be trimmed back or even shaved off entirely after a grooming accident.
It was far FAR more likely to have been a "confluence" type event where it required
1) Women to start wearing clothing where the public region showed while in social settings. (Skimpy Bikinis)
2) Sufficient and "convenient" means of removing said hair existed. (I am thinking "safety razor" and associated products, women had already been shaving the rest of their legs for some time by then)
3) Something/someone willing to communicate and even demonstrate that doing so is "acceptable" and NOT particularly abnormal or considered deforming or anything else like that.. Something to which pornography in particular was "uniquely positioned" to do given the era.
Which brings us back to "porn contributed" to the proliferation of the practice and the speed at which it happened. But without the other two preconditions existing, it is highly unlikely it would have spread anywhere close to how it did. If only because women needed/wanted a face-saving excuse to trim/shave their bush which wasn't "so I can more closely resemble a Playboy Centerfold."
Women's Magazines are not completely reliable sources, particularly ones written more than a generation after the fact.
I guess I need to expand on this one a bit too: Women's Magazines in particular may be even worse than unreliable on this topic because they're all going to be beholden to some flavor of "feminist theory" which means there is going to be a VERY strong bias towards finding ways to blame everything they can on men. Nothing embodies "blaming men" more than linking something to pornography.
I doubt that a statistically credible claim can be made that porn has been beneficial in reducing sexual violence.
Note: As far as I know, @aqm7832b has never stated that he believes that sexual assault and porn are related - he has just disagreed with the article I linked - and provided reasonable arguments against it - only one sentence in this post is directed at him specifically.
I originally joined the conversation when I read a statement by @red61544. He believes that porn/erotic with violence causes people to fulfill the fantasy in real life. If that was even slightly true, the numbers would be very different.
Porn availability - especially violent porn - hasn't simply increased over the last 25 years, it's exploded. In the last 25 years porn collections have changed from "I have 12 playboys and 3 adult videos!" to "Which of these thousand high quality BDSM videos should I watch for the first time tonight?"
It's still an embarrassing subject, but 60% to 95% of men, and somewhere between 25% and 75% of women watch porn regularly (depending on what survey you use). Practically everyone with even the slightest desire or curiosity can watch porn that roleplays non-consensual sex. If nearly 100% of people with any interest can watch it (up from single digits before the 1990's*) then why hasn't sexual violence exploded?
If there was even a tiny, but statistically significant, correlation between the watching porn and sexual assault, then we wouldn't be having this conversation. You could easily point out statistics showing that sexual assaults increased by many orders of magnitude during that time frame.
Instead we are debating about whether the decrease in sexual assault is caused, in part, by porn providing a release of tension. I believe it does reduce sexual violence, but I need more data to prove it.
I don't need more data to prove the other statement incorrect.
* I don't have proof of the numbers, but I know that I looked when I was a teenager and couldn't find much more than light BDSM - I'm sure some existed, but it wasn't readily available.
FBI's Uniform Crime Reporting (UCR) Program
The program is good. It is intended as a means of collecting crime data from all police departments.
However, participation in the program is voluntary. The FBI does not receive crime data from all police departments and many of the nation's large law enforcement departments do not participate. There are many factors that determine how many crimes are committed in a given location, so the crime rate varies between cities. Thus the statistics generated by the FBI may be misleading, although I do believe the numbers reported each year are good for use in trend analysis.
You also have to be careful and understand how the data was interpreted. The crime rate tables typically contain a note or description regarding the data used to calculate the crime rates. For example, the statistics for violent crime rates by gender and race breakdowns are based on single perpetrator - single victim crimes. Crimes committed by multiple perpetrators and crime committed against multiple victims were excluded from the crimes considered in developing the crime rates.
Today, four annual publications, Crime in the United States, National Incident-Based Reporting System, Law Enforcement Officers Killed and Assaulted, and Hate Crime Statistics are produced from data received from over 18,000 city, university/college, county, state, tribal, and federal law enforcement agencies voluntarily participating in the program. The crime data are submitted either through a state UCR Program or directly to the FBI's UCR Program.
https://ucr.fbi.gov/
When you consider the number of law enforcement agencies in this country, 18,000 is not a significant number of participants.
ETA: The FBI does not fund participation in the program. Some of the agencies that participated in the past may not be participating now due to funding or other support issues. So there is question - Is a change in a statistic due to an increase/decrease in number of crimes being committed or due to agencies having a high/low number of crimes dropping out of the program.
You'll find similar trends on the crime victimization surveys compiled by the DOJ which uses survey data in addition to reported crimes.
You can check the referenced FAQ - How do you derive estimates for national and state data?
https://ucrdatatool.gov/faq.cfm
What you will find is:
1. A statement stating not all of those 17,985 agencies participate. They don't say how many do participate.
2. For participating agencies that provide less than 3 months of data (i.e. 1 or 2 months) the FBI estimates the remaining 10 or 11 months of data.
3. The same is true of agencies providing 3-11 months of data. But a different estimation method is used.
Not a very accurate method of determining the number of ACTUAL crimes. You might as well start with 12 months of data from one agency and estimate the numbers from the rest of the agencies.
Not a very accurate method of determining the number of ACTUAL crimes.
It's more accurate than having no information at all.
I'm not saying you're wrong in this specific case, but that's not automatically true.
http://dilbert.com/strip/1999-04-27
That is true. All I've said is you need to be careful for what you get should be questioned and examined before it is trusted.
It isn't intended to be a strict count of crimes. It's designed to show trends in crime and where resources need to be directed.
It's designed to show trends in crime
The tables of FBI crime statistics are presented as though they are based on the number of actual crimes committed. That is misleading, if you haven't found the qualifiers that say some data is manufactured. The FBI does not tell you how much manufactured data is used in its analysis. The results might be considered valid if less than say 10% of the data is manufactured. As the percentage of manufactured data increases, the less credible the results.
The annual set of crime statistics is designed to show the number of crimes committed per capita. Since the statistics are based on manufactured data, the per capita values are not accurate. The FBI does use the crime statistic to look for a trend, but attempting to analyze a trend using inaccurate data is a waste of time.
If the FBI wants to see a valid trend, the FBI has to use only the data reported by the participating agencies. The best way to do that is to only use data from agencies that provided 12 months of data.
In the other nations cited, the author fails to mention that a major factor in the decrease in sex crimes is the simple legalization of activities such as homosexual relations which were illegal in the past.
Do you have any statistics for that? I've found tons of places pushing either misleading numbers or a political/religious philosophy, but don't have any real numbers that agree with you.
I don't have a clue what the statistics would look like, but I do recall that Sodomy was illegal in much of United States until the late '80s to early '90s. Consent was irrelevant for those laws, the act itself was illegal without respect to gender of the participants. IIRC, They were removed from the books as they were considered to have specifically targeted homosexual men.
That said, I think sodomy is still technically grounds for prosecution under the UCMJ as it would take an act of Congress to change it, and they haven't bothered to.
That said, I think sodomy is still technically grounds for prosecution under the UCMJ as it would take an act of Congress to change it, and they haven't bothered to.
My understanding is that the charge of "sexual assault" is/was used to get around the old legacy rape definition.
Regardless of my enjoyment of FICTIONAL rape, the real thing is inexcusable.
If you can't tell it's one of my hot-button issues. I have three close friends and one niece that were raped at some point in the past. I often bring up the male victim / female aggressor side of rape that is ignored by so many because two of them are male.
NONE of them reported it.
As for my niece, I thank God for the attention teachers give their students in the modern era. "That's not bad, he [daddy] wouldn't do something bad to me." Innocent words from a child that still send chills down my back. The most terrifying part is that he watched my son a couple times. I trusted him. I LIKED him. It's very hard for me to let anyone - especially family - watch my kids.
My understanding is that the charge of "sexual assault" is/was used to get around the old legacy rape definition.
Regardless of my enjoyment of FICTIONAL rape, the real thing is inexcusable.
What does that have to do with consensual sodomy technically remaining as a chargeable crime under the Uniform Code of Military Justice?
My reply has nothing to do with consensual sodomy, and everything to do with me clicking on the incorrect reply button. I didn't intend my post to be a reply to yours.
Sorry about that. You bring up an excellent point I didn't even think about.
EDIT: Either I completely misread your original post, or someone deleted a post. It wasn't a simple misclick. My apologies.
If I may be so bold, that's because 'whilst' is indeed 'proper' - always amazed that it's not part of the general US vocabulary.
Pedophilia - An adult initiating sexual contact with a pre-pubescent child (boy or girl, 12 or under)
I agree. The Lolita definition has the same problem - 12 or under. I sent a message to Lazeez regarding the problem.
Pedophilia - An adult initiating sexual contact with a pre-pubescent
child (boy or girl, 12 or under)
Technically, onset of puberty is typically between 10 and 14 for girls and 12 and 14 for boys, though it can happen earlier or later in individual cases.
There are medically documented cases of onset of puberty as early as age 5, though these are exceedingly rare.
https://abcnews.go.com/Health/puberty-start-early-experts/story?id=21603265
That depends upon jurisdiction. It is possible to marry at 14.
It also depends on whose definition you're using.
A psychologist should be using the DSM for example. For them, the "stop point" for pedophilia is(or at least, used to be) onset of puberty.
People attracted to 11 to 14 YO individuals would be more correctly identified as Hebephiles(and the psychology community is still fighting over whether or not it actually is "a disorder").
The ones typified in the attracted to "15 to 19 year olds" crowd(and sometimes 14 or younger, for the "early developers") would be ephebophile.
It should also be noted that age of consent in most of the World is set at 14. A growing number of them are increasing it to 16, but they're still a comparatively small subset of the global community. Many STATES within the US have age of consent at 16 with exceptions for certain things(mostly positions of/or "Authority figures").
The list of nations or provinces that set a blanket age of consent at 18 is very short indeed. And mostly consists of former Colonies of the UK which both have English as their primary language, and are mostly white in their ethnic makeup.
Although the US of course also has a long-standing blanket prohibition against photographic imagery of persons under the age of 18 "involved in sexual activities" even if they're legally able to participate otherwise.
Canada and Australia have added their own respective restrictions as well that evidently go above and beyond even that. But those are other matters.
Since this site already refuses publication of stories with sex involving under 14's, how is my suggestion the 'start' ??
Stories previous to the passing of the law are grandfathered and don't need to abide by the current law. So the 'pedo' tag is still needed.
That aside, you have to differentiate between the reasons of the legislature to pass a law and the reasons for private people to abide a law. The 'minimum 14' rule on SOL is partly a necessary directive to authors and partly a disclaimer. It neither agrees nor does it disagree with the purpose of the law.
Stories previous to the passing of the law are grandfathered and don't need to abide by the current law. So the 'pedo' tag is still needed.
Not if they are deleted from the site.
Not if they are deleted from the site.
Currently, there are such stories on SOL, and that's why your suggestion to delete them means asking to start moral censoring, because there is no legal obligation to delete these stories.
Currently, there are such stories on SOL, and that's why your suggestion to delete them means asking to start moral censoring, because there is no legal obligation to delete these stories.
The 'minimum 14' rule on SOL is partly a necessary directive to authors and partly a disclaimer. It neither agrees nor does it disagree with the purpose of the law.
By your own admission SOL does not do things only when forced to by law.
By your own admission SOL does not do things only when forced to by law.
I'm in no position to admit or deny anything on behalf of SOL and rarely make assumptions about other people's intentions.
"Banned in Boston" is a derisive term that the city of Boston earned by their moral censorship of books, movies, etc.
"Banned in Boston" is a derisive term that the city of Boston earned by their moral censorship of books, movies, etc.
If the majority of Boston residents decided to censor books, movies etc, then it's democracy in action and is that wrong.?
If however a small but vociferous few took it upon themselves to force their views upon everyone else... That is another thing entirely and rather than being derisive, shouldn't you be showing sympathy and support to the oppressed residents of Boston.?
So are you against any form of censorship or just against that which you judge to be based on moral grounds.?
If the majority of Boston residents decided to censor books, movies etc, then it's democracy in action and is that wrong.?
The US constitution says that it is.
So why was it able to be instituted?
Because people βeverywhereβ always try to ignore such restrictions.
So they write laws which violate the constitution obviously and harass others until a supreme court rules this law unlawful.
The victims may get recompense, but the authors and instigators of this law go unpunished!
HM.
I posted;
"If the majority of Boston residents decided to censor books, movies etc, then it's democracy in action and is that wrong.? "
Apparently the US constitution says that it is.
However DS failed to state which part of the Constitution makes it wrong.
However DS failed to state which part of the Constitution makes it wrong.
1st Amendment + 14th Amendment (which resulted in SCOTUS applying most of the BOR amendments to the states).
ETA:
The US Supreme Court allowed an exception to the 1st amendment for child pornography only because of the harm done to the children used to produce it.
As a result US child pornography laws cover only photographs and video involving real children.
Stories, drawings, and photographs or videos produced using adult models who look underage are all 100% legal in the US.
In 1999, The US Congress passed a ban on virtual child pornography that would cover stories, drawings, and photos or video using adult models that look underage. That law was overturned by the Supreme Court in 2001.
Circular argument. What the courts decide is not the same as that which the Constitution states, even though as before, what you are referencing is in the Bill of Rights, NOT the Constitution.
In either case neither state or infer that a majority of citizens of a city agreeing to a course of action is undemocratic.
In either case neither state or infer that a majority of citizens of a city agreeing to a course of action is undemocratic.
1. The amendments are part of the constitution, not separate from it.
2. I never said anything about it being undemocratic.
3. The point was that certain courses of action, whether agreed to by a majority or not, violate the constitution and are therefore wrong.
what you are referencing is in the Bill of Rights, NOT the Constitution.
The Bill of RIghts IS in the constitution.
The Bill of RIghts IS in the constitution.
I want the Bill of Lefts -
to be left alone,
to be left with my money I earned,
to be left with my property I worked hard for,
to be left to worship as I wish, and a in general for all of the governments to leave me alone.
Do you live in the U.S.? If so, you should support candidates who agree with your positions. Or, as some on this forum seem to suggest, take up arms in the revolution and storm the palace gates. While you're on the way there, you can use the highways paid for by tax dollars. You can use the Internet, whose original development was paid for by the Pentagon. You can drink milk, whose price would skyrocket were it not for government payments to big dairies. The list could go on and on.
Do you live in the U.S.? If so, you should support candidates who agree with your positions. Or, as some on this forum seem to suggest, take up arms in the revolution and storm the palace gates. While you're on the way there, you can use the highways paid for by tax dollars. You can use the Internet, whose original development was paid for by the Pentagon. You can drink milk, whose price would skyrocket were it not for government payments to big dairies. The list could go on and on.
No, I live in Australia, but we have many of the same problems the people in the USA have.
First the issues you raise. The great bulk of the roads were made by people or local communities for their own reasons. Most of the early very good roads in the USA were privately built and run toll road systems, for some reason I never found the source for most of them got called Pike Roads. The changes to the migration trails to make transit easier were done by those taking the trails. It's only in the last 100 years or so the government started building roads, and then that was for their own reasons, part of which was to tax more money then siphon some off for personal projects - tax $10 for roads and spend $7 on roads with $3 diverted to their pork barrel project. Most of the Internet technology was invented by private individuals working on projects of their own. Yes DARPA did fund the project the saw the creation of TCP/IP, but they had no direct funding or involvement in the other Internet technologies. Milk must be done very weird in the US, here much of the cost is due to government interference, but I'm sure if in both countries the various levels of government didn't tax the hell out of farmers milk and other farm products would be cheaper.
Second, the government shouldn't be able to tell me what I can think or write. They shouldn't have the right to kick in my door and waltz off with my property because they suspect I don't think like them. If I don't cause anyone any actual harm they shouldn't be able to interfere in what I do.
Today most governments are into some level of dictatorship be it of the Stalin type or the Nanny state type.
typo edit
You can drink milk, whose price would skyrocket were it not for government payments to big dairies. The list could go on and on.
Missed this before. This is backwards. Milk subsidies are in the form of price supports, the government sets a minimum price for milk. In other words, you pay more for milk than you would otherwise thanks to the government.
Without the government, milk prices would collapse until production dropped to a level that is in balance with demand.
This is how most agricultural subsidies work.
I read over the weekend that there's a new craze for cockroach milk - apparently it's extremely nutritious (vitamins and antioxidants etc). Does the US government set a minimum price for cockroach milk?
AJ
I read over the weekend that there's a new craze for cockroach milk
What the fuck is cockroach milk? It cant be milk in the ordinary sense, since cockroaches are insects and milk is produced only by mammals.
Does the US government set a minimum price for cockroach milk?
Not yet, but give them time, they'll either ban it or enact price supports.
I read over the weekend that there's a new craze for cockroach milk
Damn, I had hoped that was a joke. Yuck!
Damn, I had hoped that was a joke. Yuck!
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cockroach-milk-superfood-trend-entomilk/
I typed 'cockroach' into Google and top of its autocomplete suggestions was 'cockroach milk' ;)
AJ
I typed 'cockroach' into Google and top of its autocomplete suggestions was 'cockroach milk' ;)
I hope the lazy dairy cows will exert themselves to improve their milk. I don't want to be assaulted by one of my health nut friends with a bottle of cockroach milk.
@ StarFleet Carl
https://www.cbsnews.com/news/cockroach-milk-superfood-trend-entomilk/
Double Yuck!
cockroach milk - apparently it's extremely nutritious (vitamins and antioxidants etc)
Ketchup has protein in it. Huh? Tomatoes don't have protein. Well, the tomatoes with worms in them can't be sold as produce so they use them for ketchup.
Tomatoes don't have protein. Well, the tomatoes with worms in them can't be sold as produce so they use them for ketchup.
Good one,
but plants do have protein. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_(nutrient)
Problem for Vegans is some of the proteins needed by the human body are scarce in vegetable sources but abundant in animal sources.
HM.
Good one,
but plants do have protein. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Protein_(nutrient)
True, but fruits, and tomatoes are biologically a fruit, tend to be low on protein and high in carbohydrates.
Good one,
but plants do have protein.
You're essentially talking about beans and nuts, there isn't enough protein in a tomato to feed a roach (they feed on the sugar, they're not after any proteins).
You keep saying that the bill of rights is not the constitution.
"Bill of rights" is a common term for the first ten amendments to the constitution. The first amendment is IN the Constitution. It applies as strongly as anything in the original document.
I stopped replying partly due to being offline and partly because I try to avoid talking to a brick wall. However.
"The Constitution" was signed years before the "Bill of Rights" so yes, amendments are PART of the Constitution. BUT If you care to read "The Constitution" you will NOT find the amendments in that document as they were added later.
So, when people start crying "it's in the Constitution" most often they mean the Bill of Rights, and often those same people don't actually know what is in either, and just assume.
As for those who base a case on what SCOTUS interpret, whilst their interpretation is used in law, it is most definitely NOT "in the Constitution".
Interpretations are apt to change over time, whilst as noted earlier, the Constitution has not changed.
Surely it behoves anyone who wishes to "use" the Constitution etc to justify a claim should actually understand the differences, not to mention the historical context at the time those documents were written?
Or maybe the current habit of "screw the facts" because, "he who shouts loudest wins" applies?
The simple fact is that those documents and the people who wrote and signed them into law lived in a time before many modern inventions, morals etc were even imagined. SCOTUS has to interpret because times have changed. It reminds me of a bunch of Hasidic Jews discussing if it would be ok to switch on an electric light on the Sabbath. In both cases the documents they use to guide their lives just don't contain anything relevant, thus interpretation is necessary. It may or may not become "the law" but it should be recognised as an interpretation, NOT as stated in the original documents.
"The Constitution" was signed years before the "Bill of Rights" so yes, amendments are PART of the Constitution. BUT If you care to read "The Constitution" you will NOT find the amendments in that document as they were added later.
So, when people start crying "it's in the Constitution" most often they mean the Bill of Rights, and often those same people don't actually know what is in either, and just assume.
You make it sound like these things happened decades apart. That's not true. The actual Constitution itself was written from late May until September of 1787. And yes, the Constitution was signed in 1787 - but it was not ratified then. No states ratified it until December of 1787, when 3 of the 13 did so. 8 others did so in 1788, but the last two did not do so until Congress came up with the Amendments to the Constitution in 1789, with South Carolina ratifying it after that and finally Rhode Island in 1790 - AFTER the Bill of Rights was written. The Bill of Rights then became effective in 1791.
So you're only talking about a period of barely two years here between when both items, one as the subsidiary of the other, were written.
And because the Amendments to the Constitution - all of them, even the dumb ones (I consider the 17th Amendment to be one of the worst Amendments in the dilution of State powers in the Constitution.) are still subsidiary parts of the whole Constitution and thus are 'in' the Constitution.
Because people βeverywhereβ always try to ignore such restrictions.
So they write laws which violate the constitution obviously and harass others until a supreme court rules this law unlawful.
The victims may get recompense, but the authors and instigators of this law go unpunished!
I stated this before, but all the researchβback when it was legally possible to conduct such researchβclearly demonstrates that allowing a source where pedophiliacs can work off their frustrations decreases their tendency to act out their desires (i.e. it provides a place for people to sublimate their desires in a legally 'safe' location).
My fears aren't based on our providing such a spotβaside from the likelihood of the entire site being shut down by the Canadian authorities, it's over a large number of such stories changes the basic nature and appearance of the site, and we begin the very same death-spiral which ASSTR experienced.
We need locations like that, but we can't invite every pedo lover from across the globe to dump their stories here without expecting to pay the penalties for such behavior.
If the majority of Boston residents decided to censor books, movies etc, then it's democracy in action and is that wrong?
It's not 'democracy in action', it's dictatorship of the majority.
HM.
(typo corrected)
It's not 'democracy in action', is's dictatorship of the majority.
More likely it is the dictatorship of the wealthy.
More likely it is the dictatorship of the wealthy.
Only if 51% of Boston residents are wealthy AND they are all voting in favour.
Only if 51% of Boston residents are wealthy AND they are all voting in favour.
or if the lower percentage of the wealthy manages to buy the votes.
Wrong, even if I agree with the outcome, it's still 'dictatorship of the majority' if it violates the rights of the minority (as defined in the constitution).
HM.
I'm German, I don't know the US constitution well enough, but's there. If you'd ask me the same question about the German 'Grundgesetz' I'll happily cite the appropriate passages β in German of course. You'll find similar passages in other constitutions too, the French, Danish, Italian, Swedish, Swiss, ...
HM.
I don't know the US constitution well enough
Then your claim is baseless.
Back then when I was a student we had it in civic studies and we compared the appropriate passages of some constitutions. So I know it's in the US constitution, but I've never reread the US constitution and it was nearly 50 years ago so I now can't say where it is.
Luckily the US constitution was never changed only amended, so when it was there back then it's still there now.
With constitutions of other countries you can't be so certain, some of them were edited and changed multiple times in the last 50 years.
After WW2 the Bavarian constitution was written and voted on prior to the founding of the Federal Republic of Germany, so it had many passages which became obsolete when Bavaria joined the the new German republic. One of those was the Bavarian nationality. It was like the US, every child born within the Bavarian borders was automatically a Bavarian citizen. This article was obsolete, inactive but still there for about 30 years, until it was deleted during a rewrite of some other articles.
HM.
Back then when I was a student we had it in civic studies and we compared the appropriate passages of some constitutions. So I know it's in the US constitution, but I've never reread the US constitution and it was nearly 50 years ago so I now can't say where it is.
Luckily the US constitution was never changed only amended, so when it was there back then it's still there now.
Actually, it isn't.
The US Constitution contains nothing that indicates that if the majority of residents of the City of Boston decided to censor something it would be undemocratic.
The First Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution, states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. But the residents of the City of Boston are not Congress.
The First Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution,
The Bill of Rights is very much a part of the Constitution
Luckily the US constitution was never changed only amended
But is had been re-interpreted.
Luckily the US constitution was never changed only amended
But is had been re-interpreted.
Point accepted. However the text is still there, while in other constitutions worldwide passages or clauses got added, rephrased or even deleted. You can't relay on printed editions older than a few years.
Look at the Swiss constitution, every other year βfeeledβ another sentence, clause or a few words are added or changed by the voters. That's caused by the fact a new law voted on by the public can be stopped by court, but if it's instead voted into the constitution it can't be stopped by court!
HM.
Don't know how hard it is to change the Swiss constitution. In the U.S., it's very difficult. It requires a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress, plus ratification by 38 states (3/4 of the 50). Congress finds it difficult to get a simple majority on passing an annual budget, and getting Congress to pass a Constitutional amendment (that's a permanent change, not just an annual budget) taking their own powers is a pipe dream.
Congress, plus ratification by 38 states (3/4 of the 50).
Technically it's 3/4ths of however many states there are when the amendment is ratified. At 50, 3/4ths is technically 37.5
I wonder does it jump to 39 at 51 states (38.25) or not until 52 (which would be exactly 39)?
Does it jump to
It's in the first amendment. Almost all Yanks know that.
something like, "Congress shall make no law . . . restricting freedo0m of speech and of the press."
A later amendment has been interpreted as externding those limitations to actions of more limited bodies.
A later amendment has been interpreted as externding those limitations to actions of more limited bodies.
So cripples are allowed fewer free speech rights, or they're allowed to write more pedophile stories than anyone else? 'D
(as defined in the constitution)
Where..?
1st Amendment, "Freedom of the press shall not be abridged" which has been expanded by the courts to include "artistic expression" as well which in turn leads to what some call "Freedom of Expression" and other things.
That said, the SCotUS also has historically had a tendency to leave caveats regarding "community standards." And likewise not considering strip clubs to be "of redeeming artistic value" and thus not subject to constitutional protections. Likewise, stripping down naked and walking down the street is not "protected political speech" under the 1st Amendment unless you have a properly authorized permit for your protest. :P
1st Amendment, "Freedom of the press shall not be abridged" which has been expanded by the courts to include "artistic expression" as well which in turn leads to what some call "Freedom of Expression" and other things.
Thank you for making my point.
The First Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution, states: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances. But the residents of the City of Boston are not Congress.
If you wish to use an "expansion by the courts" to justify your position, you should make that clear, claiming that "it is in the Constitution" is utterly incorrect.
The First Amendment, which is part of the Bill of Rights, not the Constitution
An amendment by definition becomes a part of the original document, therefore the Bill of Rights IS a part of The Constitution.
Amend definition, to alter, modify, rephrase, or add to or subtract from (a motion, bill, constitution, etc.) by formal procedure
Likewise, stripping down naked and walking down the street is not "protected political speech" under the 1st Amendment unless you have a properly authorized permit for your protest.
Ha-ha! Not according to the Canadian Supreme Court, which rules Canadian laws restricting women from appearing topless weren't constitutional.
Not according to the Canadian Supreme Court, which rules Canadian laws restricting women from appearing topless weren't constitutional.
Because men are generally allowed to be topless. However, a prohibition on full nudity (or bottomless) would not have the gender disparity.
Likewise, stripping down naked and walking down the street is not "protected political speech" under the 1st Amendment unless you have a properly authorized permit for your protest.
Ha-ha! Not according to the Canadian Supreme Court, which rules Canadian laws restricting women from appearing topless weren't constitutional.
Actually, only the Ontario Provincial Surpreme Court ruled on that, IIRC. And it should be noted, they can go topless because men were already allowed to do so at the time.
They still cannot (advisedly) legally go nude in public without seeking permits under "free speech" to do so, even in Canada.
Of course, Canada has an additional complicating issue with regards to full-on public nudity in general.
IIRC, public nudity is "a Federal Issue" due to protests nearly 100 years ago, and prosecution for it is reserved to "the Crown." As such the local prosecutor types can't go crazy with/against it. To the point where, if you're discrete about where you do so at least, most of Canada is effectively "clothing optional" in that you're unlikely to be prosecuted for it.
Of course, "most of Canada" would not happen to be where most Canadians live.
where most Canadians live
I am under the impression most Canadians live within 50 miles of the border with the USA, not including Alaska. The weather in Canada during much of the year (other than June, July and August) is too cold, wet, or frozen combinations of both to make nudity a practical choice. Perhaps global warming will change the situation, but it hasn't yet.
Do you think Trump will want another border wall to keep all of those cold nude Canadians who are poised on the border from coming into the US where it is warmer? :)
cold nude Canadians
Depends on whether their ancestors came from Norway.
He may need a wall to keep the Democrats and some Republicans from leaving.
He may need a wall to keep the Democrats and some Republicans from leaving.
Unfortunately, they refuse to move, even after swearing they would do so 'if Trump gets elected'. I can't think of a single one that kept their promise.
keep the Democrats and some Republicans from leaving.
Um ... why would we want that to happen?
And I'm still waiting for Jon Stewart, Chelsea Handler, Neve Campbell (who already IS Canadian), Barry Diller, Lena Dunham, Keegan-Michael Key, Chloe Sevigny, Al Sharpton, Natasha Lyonne, Eddie Griffin, Spike Lee, Amber Rose, Cher, George Lopez, Barbra Streisand, Whoopi Goldberg, Miley Cyrus, Amy Schumer, and Ruth Bader Ginsburg to leave.
Actually, the only one who SHOULD leave is Ginsburg - so that way President Trump can appoint ANOTHER Supreme Court Justice.
Wrong, even if I agree with the outcome, it's still 'dictatorship of the majority' if it violates the rights of the minority (as defined in the constitution).
In this context, you really need to specify which constitution you're referring to. It's only the Canadian constitution that determines what SOL can publish, which is why ASSTR was allowed to accept all of our fleeing pedo authors.
In this context, you really need to specify which constitution you're referring to. It's only the Canadian constitution that determines what SOL can publish, which is why ASSTR was allowed to accept all of our fleeing pedo authors.
In this case, they're not referencing Constitutional Law so much as Judicial Traditions(ie "common law"), specifically ones with a history passing through Great Britain.
Under that umbrella, "grandfather" provisions apply in most of the former British Colonies that still retain their western trappings. If your infringement occurred prior to the new law, you are rendered effectively immune from prosecution under it.
They can try to specifically disallow such things, through explicitly retroactive legislation. However the courts generally take a very dim view of that when it comes to imposing new restrictions, and they would need a very solid justification for doing so. If you're retroactively lifting restrictions, that's different, of course. :)
Generally the way they get around that is to quickly impose the new law/regulation so they can minimize the number of people who try to get "grandfathered in" under whatever the old rule was.
shouldn't you be showing sympathy and support to the oppressed residents of Boston.?
No. If the majority allow a small minority to control them then they deserve what they get.
I am basically opposed to censorship of any kind.
It seems to me that most censorship is based in moral and religious beliefs. It makes me angry when someone tell me that I and others can't do something because it is against their religious/moral belief.
People have the right to express their opinions and they should also listen to the opinions of others rather than shout them down. They don't have to accept someone's opinions, but they should at least consider them.
No. If the majority allow a small minority to control them then they deserve what they get.
True. However if as stated the majority were in favour then whilst you might not like it, it is democracy in action.
As for censorship, it is worth noting that the Bill of Rights makes no reference to pedophiles but does grant each citizen the right to bear arms. Perhaps it was intended that the one would prevent the other?
Censorship forced by the few onto the many is wrong, but if you are in the minority, you either abide by majority opinion, or move.
Note that for the majority to be in favour they each have to vote on it. A vote by elected officials alone isn't sufficient.
Censorship forced by the few onto the many is wrong, but if you are in the minority, you either abide by majority opinion, or move.
SOL is a privately owned site, neither any national constitution nor majority or minority opinions can trump the owner's decision how to operate his business. If Lazeez wants to delete stories he will; if he doesn't, then he won't do it.
but if you are in the minority, you either abide by majority opinion, or move.
Wrong. The US constitution places limits on what the government can do, whether those things are supported by a majority or not. There's actually quite a bit in the Constitution that is anti-majoritarian.
Censorship forced by the few onto the many is wrong, but if you are in the minority, you either abide by majority opinion, or move.
While I don't agree in general with censorship, I do acknowledge that it is appropriate in certain situations. For example, Hate Speech.
According to Miller v. California (1973), the U.S. Supreme Court found that the First Amendment's freedom of speech does not apply to obscenity, which can, therefore, legally be censored.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censorship_in_the_United_States
I believe that censorship for obscenity based on today's means of determining 'obscene' is inappropriate. However, I will support that form of censorship when there is a clear definition/description of how to measure 'what is obscene' versus 'what is not obscene'. So far, all we have is the 'I know it when I see it' criteria. The problem with that criteria is a prosecutor defines that a specific book or movie is obscene and other people say it is not obscene.
That is what happened to Frank McCoy. He was charge with distribution of obscene books. He defended himself by having a college professor who was a literary expert testify that the books had redeeming value; obscenity is based on 'no redeeming value'. The professor compared McCoy's books to 'Lolita' which was an accepted example of erotica that had redeeming quality. The judge who was not a literary expert stated that he disagreed with the professor and refused to accept and consider the professor's testimony.
That is what happened to Frank McCoy. He was charge with distribution of obscene books. He defended himself by having a college professor who was a literary expert testify that the books had redeeming value; obscenity is based on 'no redeeming value'. The professor compared McCoy's books to 'Lolita' which was an accepted example of erotica that had redeeming quality. The judge who was not a literary expert stated that he disagreed with the professor and refused to accept and consider the professor's testimony.
Which is where McCoy not having a large legal fund factors in. At that point, the case should have had grounds to appeal on the grounds of actions on the part of the Judge. But that takes money, something which isn't readily available to many kinds of activities.
Note that for the majority to be in favour they each have to vote on it. A vote by elected officials alone isn't sufficient.
You don't seem to grasp the concept of 'Representational Democracy'. The 'people' elect representatives, and those representatives pass the laws.
You don't seem to grasp the concept of 'Representational Democracy'. The 'people' elect representatives, and those representatives pass the laws.
There are a few small municipalities in the US that operate as direct democracies. Where all issues are decided in town meetings where votes of all the adult residents of the town are taken on each issue.
IIRC, the largest of these few towns is under 1K population.
Including inciting a riot?
Wouldn't a riot be 'public censorship' by an 'armed militia'? Which U.S. Constitutional amendment covers that? 'D
Wouldn't a riot be 'public censorship' by an 'armed militia'? Which U.S. Constitutional amendment covers that? 'D
This is an issue now on many US College campuses and it's generally referred to as a heckler's veto.
That's not generally a constitutional issue, though it could be a 1st amendment issue if a state actor gives in to a hecklers veto without resistance because the state actor agrees with the hecklers.
I recall reading about a case where Christian evangelists showed up at a Muslim street fair preaching to the Muslim fair goers, in a US city. The police forced the Christian group to leave because the crowd at the street fair was becoming violent. The Christian group sued the PD and won, the Court ruling that the police violated the 1st amendment by giving into the crowd without even trying to protect the non-violent Christian speakers.
I recall reading about a case
Is it possible you remember the name of the case, or where it happened?
Is it possible you remember the name of the case, or where it happened?
Not off the top of my head, It was a couple of years back.
Is it possible you remember the name of the case, or where it happened?
It was in Dearbornistan, Michigan, in 2010. City of Dearborn had to pay $100,000 to the Christian evangelist who wanted to hand out flyers to convert Muslims to Christianity.
The street festival did NOT charge entry fees, so had no way to restrict anyone. The police did not have the right to prohibit from entering the grounds of their festival.
http://michiganradio.org/post/court-rules-against-dearborn-leaflet-case
Note that the whole incident was recorded on video. And that Dearborn has one of the largest concentrations of Muslim population in the United States.
Thanks for the link. I'm guessing from the limited information in the news story that the federal court ruled against Dearborn and the city did not appeal to a higher court (as it could have done). Do you know whether that's correct?
If I had been the PD, I would have countersued claiming I was protecting the Muslim group's rights to freedom of religion.
If I had been the PD, I would have countersued claiming I was protecting the Muslim group's rights to freedom of religion.
The problem with that is that the Christian group has the same religious freedom which does by the way cover evangelizing and (if I remember correctly) the Muslim group that was putting on the street fair in a public (government owned) space did not have a permit that allowed them to close the area and limit access to ticket holders. The PD couldn't remove the Christian group at the request of the fair organizers, because the fair organizers didn't have the right to make such a request.
The details create a slightly different situation.
A religious group has the right to evangelize to those who are willing to listen to them, but they do not have the right to evangelize to a group that indicates they don't want to listen to what is being said to them. That is called harassment.
A religious group has the right to evangelize to those who are willing to listen to them, but they do not have the right to evangelize to a group that indicates they don't want to listen to what is being said to them. That is called harassment.
No, that's not the way US law works in regards to public spaces. If a religious group is evangelizing by speaking not one on one to individuals but rather are addressing the public at large in a public space, it isn't harassment just because you don't want to listen to them.
To be harassment, they would have to be pursuing you and trying to force you individually to listen.
That is true. However, your post seemed to indicate they were speaking one-on-one, which would be harassment.
However, your post seemed to indicate they were speaking one-on-one, which would be harassment.
No, they came in in a small group and were preaching to the crowd at large.
No, they came in in a small group and were preaching to the crowd at large.
Sorry, I meant that the fighting between the individuals indicated that the Christians were harassing individual Muslims, otherwise they'd have no one to fight other than the larger group.
You've sometimes got to read between the lines when you read these news reports to understand what's really going on. What's not said often speaks louder than the details actually released to the press.
To be harassment, they would have to be pursuing you and trying to force you individually to listen.
If Muslim individuals were picking fights with evangelizing individuals, then they were pursuing and harassing them individually. If they (the original group) was attacking the Christians in mass, then they'd be charged with inciting (correct usage of the word) a riot.
If the majority allow a small minority to control them then they deserve what they get.
In other words, following your logic, the Jews in Hitler's Germany 'deserved' to be exterminated in death camps? You should consider what you're saying before making such blatantly offensive comments.
Unlike my blatantly offensive comments about pedo authors!
the Jews in Hitler's Germany 'deserved' to be exterminated in death camps?
If you check, the Jewish citizens of Germany were a minority. It was the non-Jewish majority led by a small group of non-Jewish Germans who committed the atrocity.
If you check, the Jewish citizens of Germany were a minority. It was the non-Jewish majority led by a small group of non-Jewish Germans who committed the atrocity.
Go back and check your instigating statement, you stated that 'if a minority allows a law to be passed, restricting it', then they deserve the punishment'.
What I said was:
No. If the majority allow a small minority to control them then they deserve what they get.
My statement was about a minority controlling the majority. In Germany, it was the majority controlling the minority.
My statement was about a minority controlling the majority. In Germany, it was the majority controlling the minority.
Sorry, I misread it. I didn't quote your original post since I couldn't locate it with a quick search after so many posts.
I too am opposed to censorship of any kind. Let Trumpmeister the Gropenfuher say what he wishes, remember what he says, then disregard it. Remember if he is booted from office his replacement is 10 times as bad in the censorship and white power podium. The grand wizard is his backup.
Remember if he is booted from office
Won't happen.
There are only 9 Republican held Senate seats up for reelection this year. And indications are that 5 of them are safe.
So there are only 4 Republican held Senate seats the Democrats have a shot at, but there also 3 Democrat held Senate seats that are up for Reelection and are in play. So the Democrats have to run the table on the in play seats, just to get a 51/49 majority in the Senate.
But even if the Democrats retake the House of Representatives, not nearly as unlikely as the Senate, and vote out a bill of impeachment, the Democrats aren't anywhere near the 67 votes in the Senate that it would take to actually remove Trump from office.
Won't happen.
Exactly. At best such thoughts are mental masturbation, designed to make the thinker feel good.
Remember if he is booted from office
Won't happen.
There is one blessing in Trump's presidency. He's so ineffective as a deal-maker that the only significant legislation that will get through Congress this term is his tax cuts.
But even if the Democrats retake the House of Representatives, not nearly as unlikely as the Senate, and vote out a bill of impeachment, the Democrats aren't anywhere near the 67 votes in the Senate that it would take to actually remove Trump from office.
Trump will likely resign in the face of a Senate impeachment hearing, he may resign before the House actually holds the vote to impeach him.
The Republicans are terrified of their own voter base, they don't really understand what happened in 2016, they just know Trump won, and he seems to have a lot of popular support. Support they cannot afford to piss off at the present time. (Given the number of people pissed off about Trump being president, and blaming the Republicans for it--even though most of them didn't want him either, they just wanted Hillary even less)
After the midterm election, things change, particularly if it goes poorly for Republicans. The only way Trump is safe from the wrath the Republican political machinery is if the Republicans manage to keep in control of the House.
You're seeing signs of this already with the Woodward book and the Op-ed that followed it, polls aren't looking too great for the Republicans already.
The moment Republicans are certain it is safe to toss Trump out the door, they're going to do so, but until then they're going to do as little to antagonize him, and his support base, as possible. But if Trump's support base fails to keep the Republicans in power, well, all bets are off.
The Republicans are terrified of their own voter base, they don't really understand what happened in 2016, they just know Trump won, and he seems to have a lot of popular support. Support they cannot afford to piss off at the present time.
Or at any future time.
What all the analysis seems to miss is that what happened in 2016 is simply an extension of what Rick Santelli started in February, 2009, with the Tea Party.
And what the establishment seems to not quite grasp is that the base people who started the Tea Party are people who were paying attention when Ross Perot lost to Bush and Clinton, but more importantly, how divisive it was, basically giving Clinton the Presidency because the majority of those people who flipped for Perot would have voted for Bush if Perot hadn't been in the race.
So for the 7 years leading up to the 2016 election, the Tea Party had been working, not to get their own third party candidates elected, but to actually sort of work with the Republican Party, but in actuality work on taking OVER the Republican Party from within. That's one of the main reason Democrats lost more than 1,000 elected positions to Republicans during that time. And that's literally what President Trump was - the ultimate repudiation of the establishment, regardless of Republican or Democrat.
Keep in mind that the one thing the Mueller investigation has uncovered is that there WAS a conspiracy during the 2016 election cycle - except it wasn't Trump working with the Russians, it was Obama working with Hillary and using the DOJ and FBI to create a fake dossier to taint the actual election. And we know exactly who we elected to office. We know he's not a refined person, he cheats on his wives, he's been divorced. He's not a slick politician - and that's WHY we elected him. Because he's getting results - he's doing the unpardonable sin of actually fulfilling his campaign promises.
Redo of NAFTA. Out of the Paris Accords. US Embassy in Jerusalem. Unemployment at historic and never seen before levels for blacks and Hispanics. Those jobs that Barack Obama said were gone and were never coming back ... are coming back. Tax cuts that are giving ordinary Americans more money in their pockets.
When Obama got workers $40 per bi-weekly paycheck in tax breaks, Pelosi called it a huge victory. When Trump got workers $2,000 (or more) in bonuses on TOP of tax cuts, Pelosi called it crumbs. It's stuff like this that will pretty much guarantee President Trump a second term in 2020 if he wants it.
Trump will likely resign in the face of a Senate impeachment hearing, he may resign before the House actually holds the vote to impeach him.
Don't bet on that, Clinton didn't. Nixon resigned, but he resigned before the House issued a bill of impeachment, so he wasn't facing a Senate trial.
History would favor not resigning in the face of an impeachment. To date, in the entire history of the US, the House has issued only two bills of impeachment against US Presidents. Both failed in the Senate.
Trump will likely resign in the face of a Senate impeachment hearing, he may resign before the House actually holds the vote to impeach him.
That's assuming they ever find anything that legally qualifies for an impeachment hearing. If the ever try with faked up or unsupported charges they'll be opening the doors for every future president being impeached as soon as he's sworn in. To date nothing has been provided in the way of evidence, despite efforts by many to manufacture evidence just because they don't like him beating their tin God Hillary in the election.
To date nothing has been provided in the way of evidence, despite ...
True, but surely you mean 'yet' rather than 'despite'. Mueller is still gathering evidence; he has had no need to provide what he has to anyone yet.
The list of those cooperating with Mueller gets very close to Trump, including his personal lawyer, campaign chairman, and a former National Security Adviser. The latter two have already been convicted of crimes after taking plea-bargain deals. Apparently, his former lawyer secretly recorded conversations he had with Trump. Why would a lawyer do that? The answer seems obvious to me: he knew he was going to be asked to do something illegal and wanted to protect his arse.
Tick, tock, tick, tock, ...
Mueller is still gathering evidence;
I just have one question. Gathering evidence of what?
Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole thing supposed to be about Russian collusion? So far the only proof of Russian collusion has been of Democrats colluding. The 'big' indictments that have come out have been for tax fraud that wouldn't have been uncovered otherwise ... and that's it.
At this point, so far we do conclusively know this: Obama really WAS spying on Trump. Hillary conspired to produce a false document that was used as the basis for getting a warrant to spy on Trump. Oh, and there's a hell of a lot of people in the DOJ, including Strzok and Page, that have been conspiring against Trump.
Is President Trump rude, crude, and socially unacceptable? Sure. No question about it. But did he, in accordance with the law, win the election? Yep - fair and square, even when it's ALSO been proven that the DNC conspired against Bernie Sanders.
Now this supposed anonymous editorial from the New York Times is being touted as 'resistance' from within. Except that instead, if it's true, it proves EXACTLY what we've been saying all along - the deep state exists and will do anything to keep themselves in power, instead of following the actual results of the election.
Also, for some incredibly stupid reason, there's still a lot of people that think if President Trump leaves office early that means SHE gets it. I'm from Indiana, I have no issues with Mike Pence, I voted for him for Governor. A lot of other people do.
We got told for eight years that protesting against the elected President was wrong, that we were racist simply because we DID disagree with his policies and the direction he and his party were taking the country. We didn't riot in the streets, beat up his supporters - we did something much worse. We beat them at the ballot box.
I just have one question. Gathering evidence of what? Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole thing supposed to be about Russian collusion?
I don't know what Special Prosecutors in the US are supposed to do; in practice they follow where evidence suggesting criminal actions takes them.
IIRC, Republicans howled load and long when Cox went beyond his original mandate, likewise Democrats when Starr went beyond his. I think that having some position that can pursue open-ended inquiries is necessary in countries which elect their heads of state to fixed terms, especially if the criteria for removing them from office is effectively almost unattainable.
I don't know if Mueller is going to uncover evidence of what I would consider an impeachable offense. I expect he will but I'm not sure. You know, "Where there's smoke, there's fire". And smoke - criminal convictions - does seem to be coming many who were very close to Trump. I'll wait and see.
I, personally don't think it would be good for the country to proceed with an impeachment if the evidence amounts to anything less than a "smoking gun". The poison of political partisanship already makes the country effectively impossible to govern.
I definitely think Mueller should get on with uncovering whatever the evidence leads him to. I support the freedom of speech of Special Prosecutors too!
I'm certainly not going to argue, especially not here, the merits of what Mueller's doing until I see what he produces. The only reason I made any comment was I consider one implication to be downright deceitful: i.e. that the lack of proof of criminality he's provided publicly so far is evidence that there is none.
I don't know what Special Prosecutors in the US are supposed to do; in practice they follow where evidence suggesting criminal actions takes them.
IIRC, Republicans howled load and long when Cox went beyond his original mandate, likewise Democrats when Starr went beyond his. I think that having some position that can pursue open-ended inquiries is necessary in countries which elect their heads of state to fixed terms, especially if the criteria for removing them from office is effectively almost unattainable.
First, one of these things is not like the others. Starr was and Independent Counsel, not a Special Prosecutor.
The power to appoint Special Prosecutors derives from the inherent power of the US Attorney General, which itself is derived from the power given to the US President by the US Constitution. Technically the US President has the legal authority to fire a Special Prosecutor appointed under this inherent authority with or without cause, even one investigating the US President himself.
Inspired in part by the events of the Watergate scandal, the US Congress created a statutory authority to appoint Independent Counsels as part of the Ethics in Government Act in 1978 but this was temporary, it was reauthorized in 1983 and 1987 but expired in 1992 and was Reauthorized again in 1994 but expired again in 1999 and has not been reauthorized since.
While the Attorney General still made the decision to have an Independent Counsel appointed, unlike Special Prosecutors appointed under the AG's inherent power, an Independent Counsel was selected by a three judge panel and could only be removed for cause.
I just have one question.
I have a few questions.
* What if Trump has threatened Putin in private meetings with consequences should Russia do certain things in Syria or Iran, and Putin said, "And the consequences for you will then be that I release our dossier with evidence of everything your son said to my spies during your election campaign"?
* Would that counter-threat be any less effective if Trump's son did nothing illegal, merely said or did things Trump would not want the public to know?
* Would it make any difference if there is no dossier? Wouldn't Trump assume Putin knows more about what actually happened than he does? And that Putin has listened to or read everything, while he can only rely on what his son said happened.
* Does Trump trust his son? After all, he grew up in a family which doesn't place a high value on being honest at all times! Does he trust his son's judgment?
* Can you think of anything which could place the American Constitution under such direct and immediate threat than a president being beholden to the leader of a hostile foreign power for his own political survival? I can think of one: being beholden to prevent a member of his family being convicted for treason (given his personal immunity as long as he remains in office).
* Doesn't the mind-lowing naivety of approving anything that may allow the leader of a foreign power to even think they could get away with that make him unfit to hold office?
* Aren't you appalled and disgusted that secret meetings were held to discuss the Russian's offer rather than the offer being reported to the FBI immediately so that they could investigate possible breaches of electoral laws?
* Would Trump be any less unfit if he did not approve of that personally, but merely appointed people to head his campaign who approved it themselves without telling him?
* Will you vote for him again if he is nominated for a second term???
What if Trump has threatened Putin in private meetings with consequences should Russia do certain things in Syria or Iran, and Putin said, "And the consequences for you will then be that I release our dossier with evidence of everything your son said to my spies during your election campaign"?
Assuming Putin has something on Trumps son, but nothing on Trump himself, you are making a big mistake if you assume Trump would be unwilling to throw his son under the bus if it came to that.
Can you think of anything which could place the American Constitution under such direct and immediate threat than a president being beholden to the leader of a hostile foreign power for his own political survival? I can think of one: being beholden to prevent a member of his family being convicted for treason (given his personal immunity as long as he remains in office).
Trump can not be beholden to a foreign power to prevent a family member from being convicted for treason.
1. Treason is the only US crime defined in the Constitution itself.
Sorry, but even if all the allegations against Trump Jr, are true and it violates US election laws (itself not certain) this does not qualify as treason. Even if there is more that the Russians could document, almost nothing tied to the campaign itself would qualify as treason under the Constitutional definition which is quite narrow.
A conviction for Treason requires two eyewitnesses to the act of treason, this is in the Constitution.
2. The US Constitution grants the US President the power to pardon individuals for all offenses against the US. The only limit on this power is that the President can not grant a pardon for future acts. Technically, a US president can issue a pardon for in a particular case even before charges are filed. In theory, a President could even pardon himself.
* Will you vote for him again if he is nominated for a second term???
I couldn't vote for him again if I wanted to, I didn't vote for him the first time.
All very interesting but totally irrelevant to the question of whether he is fit for the job.
All very interesting but totally irrelevant to the question of whether he is fit for the job.
Agreed, however, any election law violations that may or may not have been committed by Trump Jr., without explicit advance authorization by Trump himself, would also be irrelevant to the question of Trump's fitness for the job.
any election law violations that may or may not have been committed by Trump Jr., without explicit advance authorization by Trump himself, would also be irrelevant to the question of Trump's fitness for the job.
In my opinion, that is relevant to whether he could be removed from office, but not whether he has ever been fit to hold it.
I am too bored to continue this exchange, but I thank you, DS, for at least including relevant facts in your contributions, and not just endlessly vomiting out your tribe's propaganda spiel.
In my opinion, that is relevant to whether he could be removed from office, but not whether he has ever been fit to hold it.
Perhaps, if the votes existed in the Senate to convict on a bill of impeachment, he can be removed for just about anything. However, the votes aren't there and won't be even if the Democrats win control of the Senate in November. Removing Trump from Office would take 67 votes, and only 9 Republican held Senate seats are up for reelection this year.
but I thank you, DS, for at least including relevant facts in your contributions, and not just endlessly vomiting out your tribe's propaganda spiel.
Neither the Democrats, nor the Republicans are MY tribe.
#PurpleWave
Neither the Democrats, nor the Republicans are MY tribe.
Sometimes 'not' means 'unlike others'. I admit to leaving the pronoun dangling in "your tribe's", but if I wanted to be pedantic, and obviously I do because I fucked up, my statement had the form "you verb1-ing object1, and not verb2ing object2". I did not necessarily imply that you possess said vomitous and self-delusional object2.
* * *
BTW, I noticed a difference in meaning between BrE and AmE for the word 'spiel' when writing my last post. According to dictionary.com the American meaning is:
a usually high-flown talk or speech, especially for the purpose of luring people to a movie, a sale, etc.; pitch.
In AmE it's any kind of sales pitch. But it BrE it has a distinctly negative connotation:
a glib plausible style of talk, associated esp with salesmen
So in BrE, it's more something with a plausible credulity that only the particularly credulous could fall for.
For the benefit of any Trekkies out there, unfamiliar with reality on this planet [non-restrictive appositive intentional], I am an Australian and was using the British meaning.
any Trekkies out there
Apropos of nothing in particular, since you happened to define spiel, I happen to be a professional salesman in real life. Albeit of new cars, not used cars ...
Apropos of nothing in particular
You got that right. I worked hard crafting my insults of you in particular, and Trekkies in general, and that's the worst you can manage? I'm very disappointed. :(
I worked hard
I did, too, but it was at my day job. So coming home from 10 hours at work and relaxing with a glass of wine before going to bed, since I had to get up early this morning and go in for a 12 hour Saturday, doesn't leave me much time to craft witty rejoinders. Unless, of course, you're a Star Wars fan, in which case no witty rejoinders needed, since you obviously already live in a fantasy world.
Unless, of course, you're a Star Wars fan, in which case no witty rejoinders needed
No, I'm not a Star Wars fan, on whom witty rejoinders are obviously wasted.
No, I'm not a Star Wars fan
So you DO have more than two brain cells to rub together? :)
(In case it's not obvious, I am trying to be ever so slightly humorous here. Fuck, I hate 13 hour Saturdays...)
@Ross at Play
No, I'm not a Star Wars fan
So you DO have more than two brain cells to rub together? :)
Your statement makes an assumption that is a common logical fallacy: that "IF A, THEN B" implies "IF Not A, THEN Not B".
I reject your assertion that the fact I'm not a Star Wars fan provides evidence as to the number of brain cells I can rub together, one way or the dumber.
* Can you think of anything which could place the American Constitution under such direct and immediate threat than a president being beholden to the leader of a hostile foreign power for his own political survival?
Sort of felt that we just went through 8 years of that. Since stuff was going on, working WITH Russia, while Obama was President. He was caught on camera telling them he'd have more flexibility after the election. And Uranium One. So why did Bill Clinton get that huge fee for a simple one hour speech again?
* Doesn't the mind-lowing naivety of approving anything that may allow the leader of a foreign power to even think they could get away with that make him unfit to hold office?
Seemed to work for Obama, after all ...
* Aren't you appalled and disgusted that secret meetings were held to discuss the Russian's offer rather than the offer being reported to the FBI immediately so that they could investigate possible breaches of electoral laws?
Not particularly. How appalled should I be that the whole thing was set-up and fake, being put on by the Clinton campaign?
* Will you vote for him again if he is nominated for a second term???
I didn't vote for him in the Primary. But I did in the General. And given what it appears could be running against him if he runs again in 2020, damned straight I will.
The latter two have already been convicted of crimes after taking plea-bargain deals.
Agreeing to plead guilty is not a conviction until it goes before the judge for his approval and sentencing. I still don't think Flynn will ever be convicted.
@Goldfisherman
Remember if he is booted from office
Won't happen. There are only 9 Republican held Senate seats up for reelection this year ...
I think the correct tactics for the Democrats to follow after Mueller's report comes out is to refuse start impeachment proceedings themselves?!
Instead the Democrats should say that Republicans must start any impeachment proceedings, although most Democrats would obviously then add their support. Otherwise, they should say, a partisan vote would waste everybody's time, so they'll just wait until the electorate has the opportunity to pass its judgment on the Republican Party for its failure to act first.
I think the correct tactics for the Democrats to follow after Mueller's report comes out is to refuse start impeachment proceedings themselves?!
Too late, a number of Democrats are basically running on Impeach Trump platforms, have been almost since he won election. They're going to have a hard time walking that back in a Democrat controlled House.
Too late [the Democrats have already started]
Yeah. Obviously. That's why I said, "I think the correct tactics ..."
Given the reasons the WM has for implementing the 14 limit, I find it hard to see how he could, in court, justify retaining the pedo tag, especially for new stories.
You can't include the pedo tag in new stories. You see it during posting because they never got around to picking which tags are displayed. But NO under 14 story is allowed.
If there are stories that are obviously age-inappropriate (i.e. with characters 14 years old but still in elementary or middle school), we need to report them to Lazeez so he can physically remove them from the site, and issue warnings to the posters.
We don't mind new authors, but they need to realize they can't just 'switch a few ages', but instead need to write appropriate stories for the site.
You can't include the pedo tag in new stories.
(Original reply: While you can't use the Pedo TAG for a story, it is still possible to use it as the story's genre.)
Actually, the Pedo tag can still be used as well as for the story's genre.
Edited after messaging WM.
Better still, isn't it about time to delete the pedo tag AND every story that uses it.?
Lazeez has been considering that for some time, but until now, he's been willing to 'age them out' of the system as all those stories get archived.
Ins't the reason for the 14 year old and over requirement in place to prevent the posting of pedo stories.?
Technically, no. Many authors like to write about high school students, since it's always been a common motif for authors (naive innocence vs. the more 'corrupt' adult world they find themselves in). SOL always encouraged those stories, while trying to ignore the occasional pedo story which would slip in.
But the 'under 14' age restriction is actually based on a relatively new law, holding the site's administrator responsible for every story on the site. The law actually states 'no one under 16', but he was willing to gamble that no prosecutor would risk files charges for a mild violation when the courts might find the entire law invalid.
But the 'under 14' age restriction is actually based on a relatively new law, holding the site's administrator responsible for every story on the site. The law actually states 'no one under 16', but he was willing to gamble that no prosecutor would risk files charges for a mild violation when the courts might find the entire law invalid.
(My bold)
Which is very much my point. I cannot fault Lazeez for pushing the 16 to 14. But having done so, yet ignoring those stories that fail to meet the 14 limit and keeping the pedo tag and those stories it applies to seems very much like leaving himself open to some eager beaver prosecutor.
But having done so, yet ignoring those stories that fail to meet the 14 limit and keeping the pedo tag and those stories it applies to seems very much like leaving himself open to some eager beaver prosecutor.
The law in question explicitly grandfathers (exempts) stories that already existed before the law was enacted.
The law in question explicitly grandfathers (exempts) stories that already existed before the law was enacted.
Existed in as much as it was written before the law was enacted, or existed on the site before the law was enacted?
Existed in as much as it was written before the law was enacted, or existed on the site before the law was enacted?
I don't know. I imagine that, at a minimum, it would have had to have been published somewhere in Canada before the law was enacted to qualify for the exemption.
It has to have existed on SOL. Stories which have been continued since are still covered by the grandfathering although from what I have seen, most authors in such cases adjust the ages or 'fast forward' to where the child has reached the age of 14.
It has to have existed on SOL. Stories which have been continued since are still covered by the grandfathering although from what I have seen, most authors in such cases adjust the ages or 'fast forward' to where the child has reached the age of 14.
Are you saying that is what the law states, or what the site rules state?
Are you saying that is what the law states, or what the site rules state?
Site rules. You would have to ask Lazeez if it is part of the law.
Site rules. You would have to ask Lazeez if it is part of the law.
As we were at the time referencing the law, the site rules are irrelevant.
As we were at the time referencing the law, the site rules are irrelevant.
The site rules are always relevant, especially when they are meant to comply with the law.
Site rules. You would have to ask Lazeez if it is part of the law.
It's the basic nature of Constitutional law (regardless of the country in question). Unless stipulated as a 'retroactive law', which might jeopardize the entire law, you can't apply new laws to potential crimes might have been committed before the law was passed.
It's the basic nature of Constitutional law (regardless of the country in question). Unless stipulated as a 'retroactive law', which might jeopardize the entire law, you can't apply new laws to potential crimes might have been committed before the law was passed.
Yet that's the exact problem I have with the courts right now. I did something that was legal then, and now I'm being screwed over by the Gestapo because they changed the law, worse, they never told anyone they changed the law.
Yet that's the exact problem I have with the courts right now. I did something that was legal then, and now I'm being screwed over by the Gestapo because they changed the law, worse, they never told anyone they changed the law.
Ahh, they got you with the whole 'distribution' clause, meaning they make the distribution of certain stories illegal, so while your writing the old story was fine, your sending it electronically isn't! Thus keeping the electronic medium in your possession, selling the ebooks or posting/emailing the stories is a new offense.
That's a tough cookie, as it's a difficult position to argue against.
Ahh, they got you with the whole 'distribution' clause
No, it was for possession of electronic copies of images from nudist magazines that were, and still are, sold in the shops.
I don't know. I imagine that, at a minimum, it would have had to have been published somewhere in Canada before the law was enacted to qualify for the exemption.
No, there were all posted to SOL before the law was inacted. Even if the story was written in 1832 in Ottawa, it wouldn't be legal for anyone to post it on a Canadian site. Believe me, several of us here thoroughly examined the law, looking for potential loopholes! (BTW, the was the basis of my first "Great Death" story, playing around with the existing, but limited loopholes.)
No, there were all posted to SOL before the law was inacted.
1. enacted, not inacted.
2. The subject of my post and the post I was replying to was broader than the pedo stories that are already on SOL. It's about the scope of the grandfather exemption in general.
Could a pedo story that was written before the the law was enacted but never published be legally published now? I would expect not.
Could a pedo story that was published before the law to one Canadian website be legally published now on a different Canadian website? I can see this maybe being the case, but I just don't know enough about the law in question to be sure, however, I would be very surprised if the grandfather exception was broader than this.
Frankly, I think everyone should 1-bomb every single of the hardly disguised 'pedo rape' stories so they get the idea they're not welcome here.
Unfortunately I don't think that's any help in getting them of the site. The one thing that would help is a serious review and stories that are obviously in the category "8 year old that is now 14" are banned immediately, including the author. That's a big job that takes time and doesn't pay anything. I think I mentioned it before but maybe a report system to get these pedo authors/stories banned eases the job for Lazeez. Getting these stories of the site is certainly better for SOL.
The one thing that would help is a serious review and stories that are obviously in the category "8 year old that is now 14" are banned immediately, including the author. That's a big job that takes time and doesn't pay anything. I think I mentioned it before but maybe a report system to get these pedo authors/stories banned eases the job for Lazeez.
https://storiesonline.net/sol-secure/user/contact_webmaster.php
Drop down option "inappropriate contents"
Provide details about the story in question and the offending content.
https://storiesonline.net/sol-secure/user/contact_webmaster.php
Drop down option "inappropriate contents"
Provide details about the story in question and the offending content.
Yes, of course, forgot about that. Thank you.
Getting these stories of the site is certainly better for SOL.
DISCLAIMER: The opinions expressed in this post do not necessary reflect my personal opinions.
I think your claim of "certainly better" is debatable. The original policy of the site was to avoid any level of self-censorship on the kinds of content that may be posted. Instead, it rigorously enforced that readers must be adequately warned about any squicks in stories they may want to avoid.
Whether such freedom of choice is good for society as a whole is debatable, but I consider that stance to be tenable. It is only fiction: no harm is caused to any real persons in the production of these stories.
Any alternative approach of attempting to define boundaries for what content is prohibited will inevitably result in an endless stream of judgement calls being made. Every choice would upset some proportion of readers. In particular, some would want all stories involving minors banned but not be concerned about extreme violence, while others would want the exact opposite.
I understand why the webmaster wants to devote their efforts to continued enhancements to a technically superb site - not on making arbitrary choices about which stories they censor and coping with the inevitable backlash that every decision would provoke.
This "zero in-tolerance" policy had to changed once Canada introduced strict new laws prohibiting explicit descriptions in fiction of sexual behaviour, or more precisely salacious behaviour, by minors or those who appear to be minors. The new boundaries are inevitably blurry in some cases, but the site is as open as possible about what its new policies are, and strictly enforces those policies when anything questionable is brought to their attention.
My view is I have no right to object to the lawful policies chosen by the management of a private business. I would have the right to object if those policies were not clearly spelled out to the site's users, or if the enforcement of those policies appeared consistently. I see no evidence of either of those things.
And I have the right to stop using the site.
So Keet, while I couldn't say your opinion is wrong, I couldn't say that the (apparently) different opinions of the site manager are wrong either. I strongly support the site manager's right to choose what they consider is in their best interests and in the best interests of the site.
To Lazeez: I trust I have not misrepresented you here and apologise if I got anything wrong.
So Keet, while I couldn't say your opinion is wrong, I couldn't say that the (apparently) different opinions of the site manager are wrong either. I strongly support the site manager's right to choose what they consider is in their best interests and in the best interests of the site.
Maybe I didn't express my thoughts enough by trying to keep it short. For one, I'm against any kind of censorship. What I was trying to express is that here on SOL it would not be censorship but about making/keeping SOL a site with certain rules. If an author wants something else then there are other sites for that. It's not about "you are not allowed that here" but "there are other places for what you want". And yes, the rules for every site can change during it's existence. There are many blogs that previously didn't bother what someone commented but now are moderated. It changed with time. So has SOl, and for the better, so I totally agree that Lazeez did a great job so far and I'm sure he will continue to do so. In short it's not about censorship but keeping/getting the type of stories that make SOL great and avoid those that could pull it in a downward spiral.
Maybe I didn't express my thoughts enough by trying to keep it short ... In short it's not about censorship but keeping/getting the type of stories that make SOL great and avoid those that could pull it in a downward spiral.
Agreed. Ultimately it is the responsibility of users who care about the future of the site to report anything they suspect may be contrary to site policies to the webmaster. My experience is that those reports are treated with the utmost importance. I approve of your choice to question whether and how enough is being done when it was not obvious to you that was so. I think everything needed is in place and is being done. I am not so certain, after your question, that enough is being done so that site users are aware of the options that exist. I have no ideas on how that might be improved.
I am not so certain, after your question, that enough is being done so that site users are aware of the options that exist. I have no ideas on how that might be improved.
Contact Webmaster could probably stand to be placed somewhere it can be seen from within the stories themselves. Most people won't go digging around for the link. (It is on the site main page)
I am not so certain, after your question, that enough is being done so that site users are aware of the options that exist. I have no ideas on how that might be improved.
I think very few people know why/when to use the link "Webmaster". A copy of the webmaster link with a different name ("Report {something}") will take down the barrier that a lot of people see with "Webmaster".
I think very few people know why/when to use the link "Webmaster". A copy of the webmaster link with a different name ("Report {something}") will take down the barrier that a lot of people see with "Webmaster".
GOOD IDEA!
If you go to your Home page and click on Webmaster, the first selection is the dialog box is "Type". If you click on the down arrow you will see both 'Feature Request' and 'Inappropriate Contents' in the options displayed. You could send the webmaster a feature request.
I would agree with you that another option on the home page between 'Webmaster' and 'Help' is desirable. I suggest it should be 'Report Abuse'. That's the link I'm accustomed to seeing on photo-sharing sites for users to report inappropriate images of children.
If you go to your Home page and click on Webmaster, the first selection is the dialog box is "Type". If you click on the down arrow you will see both 'Feature Request' and 'Inappropriate Contents' in the options displayed. You could send the webmaster a feature request.
I would agree with you that another option on the home page between 'Webmaster' and 'Help' is desirable. I suggest it should be 'Report Abuse'. That's the link I'm accustomed to seeing on photo-sharing sites for users to report inappropriate images of children.
Done!
@Ross at Play
You could send the webmaster a feature request. I would agree with you that another option on the home page between 'Webmaster' and 'Help' is desirable.
Done!
I note that the link on the home page has been changed from 'Webmaster' to 'Contact'. I do not question the webmaster's choice of action.
I note that the link on the home page has been changed from 'Webmaster' to 'Contact'. I do not question the webmaster's choice of action.
The term "webmaster" is a little outdated, it was used in the old days of the internet when a bulletin board was what we now call a forum. Most current internet users recognize "contact" for what it is while they shy away from "webmaster".
Ross is right. Generally, it's much like freedom of speech. Better to let people speak and be judged on what they say than to deny them the right to speak. There are, of course, exceptions (the classic example is you are not free to shout "fire" in a crowded theater without consequences). As to whether SOL allows or doesn't allow, that is a business and/or legal decision, and I assume SOL has whatever advice it needs to make a decision. Meantime, those who don't like those kind of stories don't have to read them.
(the classic example is you are not free to shout "fire" in a crowded theater without consequences)
It should be noted, that:
1. The original quote comes from an early US Supreme Court decision and contains the word "falsely" which usually gets left out when people quote it.
2. The decision it comes from stood for the proposition that the US Government could criminally punish any speech it chooses for any reason without limit.
3. That decision was reversed only a few years later by the same court and was thoroughly repudiated by the Chief Justice who was it's original author.
That decision was reversed only a few years later by the same court and was thoroughly repudiated by the Chief Justice who was it's original author.
Well - don't leave us hanging. tell us what he said when he reversed his earlier decision. DId he say it's mandatory to falsely shout "fire" in a crowded theater? Or maybe he said there is no freedom of speech at all? What portion did they reverse?
Or maybe he said there is no freedom of speech at all?
No, that's effectively what the original decision that the quote about shouting fire in a crowded theater comes from said.
What portion did they reverse?
All of it. The entirety of the legal holding of the original case was reversed.
Of course, the quote about shouting fire in a crowded theater was just dicta, not part of the actual legal holding, and was never binding legal precedent.
And the vast majority of the time the quote comes up, the people using it are looking to have the government censor speech they find offensive, but doesn't qualify as the sort of immediate risk to life and limb that the quote implies.
I found the initial case referred to. It is Schenck v. United States in 1919, and the opinion by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, writing for a unanimous court, read, in part: "The most stringent protection of free speech would not protect a man falsely shouting fire in a theater causing a panic ..." The punishment would be seen as proscribing behavior after the fact.
If there is somewhere a Supreme Court decision that saying that someone MAY falsely shout fire in a crowded theater, without fear of later punishment, I haven't found it. (That I haven't found it does not mean it doesn't exist.) If there is such a case, can you provide a citation.
Wikipedia says the initial opinion by Holmes was "later partially overturned" in Brandenburg v. Ohio in 1969. The Wikipedia article doesn't say (or I didn't spot it at least) who wrote the Brandenburg opinion, but since it's 50 years later, I doubt it was Holmes himself.
If there is somewhere a Supreme Court decision that saying that someone MAY falsely shout fire in a crowded theater, without fear of later punishment, I haven't found it.
That's probably because there's no case including Schenck v. United States that actually ruled that you can't.
Schenck v. United States had nothing to do with shouting "fire" in a theater falsely or otherwise.
Schenck was arrested, tried and imprisoned for publishing anti-draft leaflets.
https://www.britannica.com/event/Schenck-v-United-States
3. That decision was reversed only a few years later by the same court and was thoroughly repudiated by the Chief Justice who was it's original author.
It's amazing how 'classic quotes' frequently neglect to mention those types of details. It's easier to simply quote something which reinforced your position, than to actually read the actual details of the case!
As to whether SOL allows or doesn't allow, that is a business and/or legal decision, and I assume SOL has whatever advice it needs to make a decision. Meantime, those who don't like those kind of stories don't have to read them.
At the time, it was purely a legal decision forced upon the site against it's will. However, afterwards, as SOL's numbers improved, and the rival ASSTR sites membership began plunging precipitously, Lazeez decided (belatedly) that limiting those stories has helped to build the SOL and community, and he's now considering banning all the old grandfathered exceptions as well.
It's one thing allowing those with serious emotional issues to vent, as it's better for their emotional health, but that has ramifications when you expose the typical average reader to the same material. In that case, it hurts the webmaster's pocketbook and limits all of our options, as the failures of ASSTR make clear!
Unfortunately I don't think that's any help in getting them of the site. The one thing that would help is a serious review and stories that are obviously in the category "8 year old that is now 14" are banned immediately, including the author. That's a big job that takes time and doesn't pay anything.
The process, which SOL and sites like Amazon, B&N and Google all employ, is that they rely on official complaints. If anyone complains about an underage of 'offensive' character, the story will be pulled immediately. For Amazon, there is NO review process, the single complaint is grounds to permanently delete the story, and repeated violations for removing your account, though you are allowed to resubmit the story, assuming that you've 'corrected' the policy violations.
Luckily for us, Lazeez isn't quite so draconian, and will generally review the story (without reading the entire thing, of course), but he will read the offending passages.
Luckily for us, Lazeez isn't quite so draconian, and will generally review the story (without reading the entire thing, of course), but he will read the offending passages.
I didn't know there was such an effective process but the link "Webmaster" is unfortunately not obvious too many readers as the link to use for reporting.
I've not looked into the situation in detail, however, ASSTR is made up of two sections:
1. Where material posted on the ASS news groups are automatically archived and posted on the ASSTR website.
2. Where authors set up their individual web pages to have their stories or favourite stories or collections available to readers.
It's my understanding activity number 2 is not working in that the authors and sub-site owners can't log on and add or remove anything or change anything on their web pages at ASSTR. However, it also appears activity number 1 is still operating so the new stories posted on the news groups are automatically archived at ASSTR.
Due to the above new stories from the news groups are being added, but not being sorted into collections or added to individual sub-sites. The material appearing at ASSTR is likely on the decline as well because the news groups aren't as heavily used as they used to be, but some people still post to them.
.........................
Another big difference between ASSTR and SoL is ASSTR welcomes stories with sex of any sort and does not welcome no sex stories, although some have been snuck through by being posted to author sites directly. While SoL welcomes no sex stories and has some limitations on the types of sex stories you can post.
I've noticed an upsurge in stories where it's clear from the story descriptions that the only reason the younger person in the "relationship" is 14 is that SOL won't allow stories involving sex with anyone under that age.
That's one of a number of things that do seem to point to an immigration of writers from ASSTR as a result of their ongoing difficulties.
I have to admit, even given my liberal upbringing, there are some areas where I don't want to be inclusive and welcoming. ASSTR and SOL have had rather different focuses for quite some time, and I'm much more comfortable with the types of stories that show up here at SOL.
It's kind of like the difference between Fictionmania and BigCloset; while there is some overlap, Fictionmania leans a lot more toward Forced Fem, sissyfication, and cross-dressing, while BigCloset focuses more on gender-benders, both true TG [gender dysphoria] and magic/pseudoscience sex changes. The authors I most enjoy at Fictionmania started posting at BigCloset as well some time ago, so I very infrequently visit Fictionmania, except to reread older stories where the authors are no longer active and haven't reposted elsewhere.
The same thing happened some time back in regard to ASSTR and SOL. The authors I read at ASSTR who are still active transitioned to SOL a while back, so it's been quite some time since I regularly visited ASSTR; of course, it doesn't help at all that their search engine died some years ago, so tracking down stories that weren't in author directories or organized collections is well nigh impossible.
I have to admit, even given my liberal upbringing, there are some areas where I don't want to be inclusive and welcoming. ASSTR and SOL have had rather different focuses for quite some time, and I'm much more comfortable with the types of stories that show up here at SOL.
It's not so much about political leanings as it is about balance. If there's a healthy balance, it's easier to ignore the 'outlet vehicles' for those with questionable fantasies. Back in the day, both SOL and ASSTR had a fairly healthy balance. But, once the Australian and Canadian 'child porn' restrictions went into effect, all those 'pedo authors' quit SOL entirely and ran to ASSTR. The result, as everyone can see, is that SOL has never been better, while ASSTR can't keep it's head afloat, and it's only a matter of time until it finally gives up the ghost.
Admitting all those pedo authors who are now without a home just isn't a good move. The huge influx of pedo authors damn ASSTR, as the 'average' reader fled the site, with most decent authors following them as they suddenly found themselves without readers, and a huge strain on their professional standing for even associating with the site.
If we allow these people a home, they'll do the same thing here. They'll chase away huge numbers of readers, making it more difficult for Lazeez to keep the site operational, authors will begin questioning whether they want to belong to the site, which only further exacerbates the problem.
This is no longer a question of what we'll allow, it's a question of survival: the readers, the authors and the sites. Given the potential costs, why risk it, especially when these 'new' authors aren't exactly bringing much of value with them. They're hardly top of the line authors.
If we allow these people a home, they'll do the same thing here. They'll chase away huge numbers of readers, making it more difficult for Lazeez to keep the site operational, authors will begin questioning whether they want to belong to the site, which only further exacerbates the problem.
I can say the same for MM sex stories.
I can say the same for MM sex stories.
I had to stop and consider my arguments before posting a response. But I'm not arguing that we rush to judgment, or penalize stories for content. What I'm objecting to is the very real dangerβas illustrated by the self-destruction of ASSTRβthat a few pedo authors fleeding there may inflict on ASSTR. I wouldn't begrudge giving authors a new home, but they need to do more than just 'disguise' their stories true content by changing a couple of ages. If they want to post new stories, which are appropriate under SOL, then more power to them. But as it stands, they're doing more than just writing bad porn, they're threatening the sites survivalβwhich a few random stories by a random gay author might inflict, despite anyone's homophobia.
The key isn't that we have a few dated pedo stories. It's that they're likely to encourage other ASSTR pedo authors to join them, carrying their pedo-rape stories with them and making the same superficial changes.
If anyone dislikes gay love scenes, you can simply chose not to read the story, but if they overturn the 'typical' stories on the site, they're more likely to chase away readers than a couple stories readers personally object to based on content.
It isn't the pedo content, or even the rape content, it's the sheer number of authors from ASSTR, whose content isn't allowed under SOL, who are looking for a home to house their entire bodies of work accumulated over the past multiple years.
If they want to write new content, or balance the content, that's fine, but I'm afraid of what a sudden influx will do to a currently stable site.
SOL did well with a few stray pedo stories before, however it's done much better with NO new pedo stories since. And it was the sudden onset of pedo authors from a number of other story sites which initially spelled the doom of ASSTR.
If anyone dislikes gay love scenes, you can simply chose not to read the story, but if they overturn the 'typical' stories on the site, they're more likely to chase away readers than a couple stories readers personally object to based on content.
The reason I thought of MM stories was because of the one-bombing comment. That's what happens with MM stories. That's why my short story "The Hitchhiker" will never appear on SOL.
Btw, I don't believe it's the pedo stories that's causing ASSTR a problem. I believe the admins simply don't have the time or inclination to keep it running. From what i read in the group emails, they have the money through donations.
Btw, I don't believe it's the pedo stories that's causing ASSTR a problem. I believe the admins simply don't have the time or inclination to keep it running. From what i read in the group emails, they have the money through donations.
Ah, but it's a question of whether they'd put in the effort if their readership hadn't dropped so significantly over the past several years (since the influx of several others sites pedo authors). That's about the timespan we both quit the site entirely, because our readers had quit using the site.
I'm sending an email about your other point.
I may be guilty.
In the ASSTR Yahoo email group, I encouraged ASSTR people to come to SOL. I thought it would increase the SOL readership and authors. I haven't been on ASSTR in years, but thought only authors/stories that are compatible with SOL rules would come over.
shouldn't we differentiate the content instead of the aged aspect of the characters?
SoL's minimum age is 14, if the story now has a 14-year-old instead of the former younger age and there are no discrepancies in the storytelling (14-year-old going to elementary school/early middle school, behaving way younger, having an "older sibling" that is under 14, parents that would be too young to have a 14-year-old), then it shouldn't be frowned-upon too much.
Surely the same is happening with SoL authors who post on 18+ sites.
This beggars the question as to how you define 'filth' as opposed to erotica; most of the responses on this thread seem to be preoccupied with paedophilia, which is rightly abohorent to most people - and I'm not condoning that one - but surely, as one man's partisan, is another man's terrorist, is this not down to personal taste? If the tale's prologue indicates something which is not to your taste, why bother reading it? And if, on reading a tale - which for argument's sake contains paedophilia, contrary to the description - is it not just simply removed on being reported?
This beggars the question as to how you define 'filth' as opposed to erotica; most of the responses on this thread seem to be preoccupied with paedophilia, which is rightly abohorent to most people - and I'm not condoning that one - but surely, as one man's partisan, is another man's terrorist, is this not down to personal taste?
The issue here is the OP himself fixated on the Pedo side of things, and to further muddy things, he's using the more "recent redefinition" of the word to mean "anyone under 18" which created all kinds of issues.
I generally agree with much of the American Psychology Association's membership(I think I have the right group?) in thinking that pedophilia is best left with its original definition. That of an adult sexually desiring pre-pubescent children. As there is no clear biological or evolutionary "advantage" to be found in doing so, in fact it can cause disadvantages(death/"lasting harm" to the child), as such it can reasonably be viewed as "biologically abnormal."
As to the ones who are pubescent, or have nearly achieved nearly adult levels of physical development. Things get more complicated there.
From a biology standpoint, and in particular an evolutionary biology standpoint(creationists need not apply, unless they're amenable to operating under that pretext). Preferentially selecting a younger (repoductively viable) mate for the purpose to perpetuating the species is a very valid tactic, and highly effective. As such there is noting "biologically abnormal" about being sexually attracted to pubescent (and later) children. Seeing as it is not "biologically abnormal" to do so, then it becomes extremely difficult to view the issue as being "a psychological problem" that needs corrected.
In fact, it can rightfully be argued that by criminalizing the under 18 crowd, the legal system, and society, is actually creating psychological harm on a very massive scale rather than preventing it. Because society, and many legal systems have made explicitly clear an otherwise "perfectly normal biological imperative" is deeply wrong and not to be done under any circumstances and you're a terrible person for even considering it.
But that's the psychological side from broad end of the adult side of things. In the more narrow range, there are in turn other more "predatory issues" in play which actually have nothing to do with the attraction to adolescents, but rather much more to do with the power/influence disparities in play; those actually ARE psychological issues.
On the adolescent side of things, there is evidence to both suggest the prohibitions are both psychologically helpful, and harmful. It really isn't something I've looked into too much, but it seems to me that "on balance" it probably comes out about even, although some evidence in many cases may suggest otherwise, mostly because it is illegal to "properly" study much of the issue anymore, leaving only the traumatized victims of actual sexual abuse as the ones available "for study" after the fact.
Some older studies exist, and indicated that under the right circumstances, allowing adolescents "to explore their sexuality" with persons of their own choosing, on terms of their own choosing, could actually be highly beneficial. However, laws and ethics panel guidelines changed not long after(possibly even during?) that one so no follow-up could, or can, happen on that one at present.
On the physiological side however, and this is 800 pound gorilla in the room. We have the actuarial tables for pregnancy outcomes by age of the mother. THAT one makes a strong case for age of consent being 18 for most women, and possibly even as late as into their early to mid 20's(!) for others.
Really at present, I think the issue regarding the legal definiton (18) is a mixture of religious influences, and social expectations that children be expected to at least complete High School before starting a family.
Honestly, I wouldn't be too surprised, barring some other "medical event" happening, to see age of (sexual) consent get raised into the 20's within my lifetime as the expectation shifts in completing at least some college before starting a family(and they have that actuarial table to point to as an excuse).
The one thing that could change things quickly, outside of religious circles, is the advent of a very highly effective, low cost, and minimal side-effect form of birth control which was "very low maintenance" on the order of something only taken a handful of times a year. If the risk of (teen) pregnancy as a result of intercourse was essentially lowered to a "1 in several million chance" I strongly suspect age of consent laws would eventually "reverse" and head back towards the younger side of things. As IMHO, the age of consent laws were more about preventing teen pregnancies, and the mothers dropping out because of them, than anything else. (Early Naked In School stories basically employed that rational. "The Shot" was developed, 0 side effects, fully effective birth control, two versions, one only needed once every 6 months, the other was a shot taken yearly. Oh, and it protected against most STDs as well, of course.)
Of course, the wild card in all of this is all of those adolescent teenagers running around with cell phone cameras taking naked pictures of themselves and each other. Laws are going to have to adjust to reflect that new reality, That also includes acknowledging that teenagers are going to have sex. It doesn't matter how illegal you make it, they're going to do it anyway. So the next 15 years will be "interesting" to watch to see how certain laws evolve as the first of the teenage sexters start getting into their 40's. They may leave Age of Consent alone, but the ("under age") imagery laws may be changed considerably.
... to see age of (sexual) consent get raised into the 20's within my lifetime as the expectation shifts in completing at least some college before starting a family(and they have that actuarial table to point to as an excuse).
I don't really see that happening, at least not long term. The sexually active youth of today will be the ones making the rules in the future. In addition to that, the population of those that 'breed like roaches' (and are about as worthless) will outnumber those who value education over sex. Unless things go the way things did in China as far as limiting the number of offspring, those with their hands out demanding the general public support them will outnumber those able to provide such support. As long as the government insists on 'helping' them by making them more dependent, things will never get better. BTW, wasn't the 'octo-mom' on government assistance and conceived using fertility drugs paid for by the medical program she was on? Yet people who need medical treatment to survive can't get much help at all.
those with their hands out demanding the general public support them will outnumber those able to provide such support.
Once again, by that, are you referring to the corporations getting huge government guaranteed contracts, with little oversight, based mostly on political contributions, or the 'working poor', who despite working 3 jobs, can't make ends meet and often face jail or homelessness if they get sick and can't make their payments?
Otherwise, quit making the same old bogus claims about the 'worthless poor' who'd be RICH if they only applied themselves. Those claims have been proved false time and time again, yet they keep get pulled out and recycled every election cycle.
or the 'working poor', who despite working 3 jobs, can't make ends meet and often face jail or homelessness if they get sick and can't make their payments?
I am not talking about the 'working poor' or the 'worthless poor' as you call them. I am referring to those who refuse to work and play the system because they can make more money sitting on their fat behinds collecting a support check. I'm talking about those that sneak into the country and want support from government programs.
False claims? No. I've talked to people like this in person. I know people personally that have convinced professionals that they have a disability so they can collect, while people with obvious handicaps have to fight through the system for years to get anything at all. Don't tell me I should report them because it does no good. After all, I'm just one person. Who is going to take my word over medical professionals who have been hoodwinked.
THAT one makes a strong case for age of consent being 18 for most women, and possibly even as late as into their early to mid 20's(!) for others.
One aspect you seem to have overlooked in the sexual interaction of females under the age of 18 is the age of their partner. I suspect that the majority of the sexual encounters, especially those leading to pregnancy, are with under 18 males.
ETA: do you have any statistics indicating the age of the fathers of the under 18 pregnant females.
I generally agree with much of the American Psychology Association's membership(I think I have the right group?) in thinking that pedophilia is best left with its original definition. That of an adult sexually desiring pre-pubescent children. As there is no clear biological or evolutionary "advantage" to be found in doing so, in fact it can cause disadvantages(death/"lasting harm" to the child), as such it can reasonably be viewed as "biologically abnormal."
As to the ones who are pubescent, or have nearly achieved nearly adult levels of physical development. Things get more complicated there.
The N.Y. Times published a horrifying piece today (June 1st, 2018) noted that, as of now, there's a grand total of 1 state (out of 50) that does NOT support child marriages. The story reports multiple cases where the families pressure pre-teen rape victims who are forced by their families (who don't want the bad-press, particularly since they're liable to be charged with child neglect) to marry their rapists.
That that is disgusting, yet NO ONE is up is arms about it, although we decry any third-world nation which has the exact same laws on their books.
yet NO ONE is up is arms about it
I doubt most people know about the law. I heard about it before in a custody battle, but didn't know it was prevalent in most states.
The N.Y. Times published a horrifying piece today (June 1st, 2018) noted that, as of now, there's a grand total of 1 state (out of 50) that does NOT support child marriages. The story reports multiple cases where the families pressure pre-teen rape victims who are forced by their families (who don't want the bad-press, particularly since they're liable to be charged with child neglect) to marry their rapists.
That that is disgusting, yet NO ONE is up is arms about it, although we decry any third-world nation which has the exact same laws on their books.
Part of the problem here is: Please define "child" in this context?
Unless my home state happens to be the lone exception, and my recollection is it was not unique, the minumum age for Marriage in my home state progresses as thus:
18 for marriage without parental consent.
16 with parental consent of the minor.
14 to 16 requires judicial review and parental consent.
Younger than 14? Not happening. (and even if it wasn't explicitly illegal, the "judicial review" stage would likely present road blocks regardless)
Younger than 14? Not happening. (and even if it wasn't explicitly illegal, the "judicial review" stage would likely present road blocks regardless)
I wasn't talking about 'younger than 14' (in reference to the NY Times article I was quoting), which is a largely arbitrary limit which SOL selected, thinking they could stretch the law slightly and get away with it. There aren't really any states that allow under 14-year-olds to marry. But ... the end result is that many 'court approved' marriages are pushed by the family, who convince their dependent children to press for the marriage in order for the family to avoid shame and/or prosecution for child neglect charges.
The number of cases of true "child marriages" is exceedingly small. I personally, and professionally, know large numbers of people who married well under 18 years of age with no worse outcomes than those who married in their 20s.
The numbers of such marriages which, in NJ would qualify as statutory rape are very small, and of those all but a handful involve months of difference between it being legal intercourse and rape.
I notice that the proponents of these laws do not propose eliminating Romeo and Juliet laws which likely encourage childhood sexual activity.
The issue here is the OP himself fixated on the Pedo side of things, and to further muddy things, he's using the more "recent redefinition" of the word to mean "anyone under 18" which created all kinds of issues.
Please reread the original post. I never mentioned pedophilia. In a subsequent post, I stated specifically that my intent wasn't to discuss pedophilia; the "filth" I had in mind was sexual violence though I also abhor the thought of an adult having sex with a child. Posts on this forum tend to quickly go far afield from the OP intent, so it is a good habit to reread the original post prior to criticizing it.
how you define 'filth' as opposed to erotica
I remember a photo of model Edie Campbell with the word 'filth' painted in red across her naked chest. Definitely not erotica :(
AJ
the question as to how you define 'filth' as opposed to erotica
If you want to tease your mate in bed by stroking their skin with feathers ... erotica is you use a feather duster. Filth is you use the whole chicken.
I thought the US doused their chickens in chlorinated water to kill the salmonella etc that makes UK chickens so filthy. ;)
AJ
I thought the US doused their chickens in chlorinated water to kill the salmonella etc that makes UK chickens so filthy.
And you think that buying their chlorinated, radioactive, genetically-modified food will make Britain great again?
People need to get back to nature. Gaia is a wonderful mother if you treat het with respect.
Just saying. Not trying to change the conversation.
On note; standards change, morals change, laws change. One person's erotica is another person's filth is another person's fantasy. What is written about isn't necessarily what is. Otherwise, are some of you saying that a woman's rape fantasy and role play means she actually wishes to be raped.
Pedophile fantasy is just that. Fantasy.
Personally, my eyes don't turn that short.
Pedophile fantasy is just that. Fantasy.
That's true, until someone acts out on it, in which case it's no longer fantasy, it's an actual crime. But once again, the research, which is no longer legal to conduct anymore, clearly demonstrates that pedophile fantasies decrease the incidence of pedophilic (sp?) acts.
I hope Britain continues to resist GM food: there's a strong public consensus against it but so many politicians in power accept donations from GM companies.
I also hope Britain continues to resist irradiated food. I know it's not radioactive, but there are better alternatives available.
Allegedly the strength of the chlorinated water the US uses is weaker than British tapwater. I'm not worried about that, because I usually (against the latest govt advice) wash chickens before cooking them. However I have concerns about US battery chicken conditions and the amount of antibiotics they use.
As for Britain being great, that ship sailed long ago and I wish the govt would recognise it instead of wasting money pretending to be a sort of USA-lite world police force.
AJ
Damn, that didn't work. I tried to poke you in the eye to provoke a reaction and you responded with rational arguments. :(
Allegedly the strength of the chlorinated water the US uses is weaker than British tapwater. I'm not worried about that, because I usually (against the latest govt advice) wash chickens before cooking them.
Chlorinated tap water varies by location, and generally speaking I think you would find most localities only put in "just enough" chlorine to kill off whatever the baseline level of bacteria is considered to be for their area/water source. Why expend resources, and waste money, on something you don't need to?
Why expend resources, and waste money, on something you don't need to?
Because that's what the government is for?
Because that's what the government is for?
Don't confuse the payroll with material expenses. In order to maximize the one, they'll minimize the other, Administrators are generally reliable for that much. Unless of course, no incentive exists to cut costs elsewhere, and admittedly, government enterprise often suffers from that.
Don't confuse the payroll with material expenses. In order to maximize the one, they'll minimize the other,
Yeah! The GAO focuses on low-bid purchasing and the administrators pat themselves on the back with pay raises.
However I have concerns about US battery chicken conditions
I've always objected to using chickens as batteries, they just aren't powerful enough to power a car, and there's no plug for smartphone use. 'D
Series-parallel is the key to chicken batteries.
I won't tell you where the USB port is...
We have the actuarial tables for pregnancy outcomes by age of the mother. THAT one makes a strong case for age of consent being 18 for most women, and possibly even as late as into their early to mid 20's(!) for others.
No, what it makes a strong case for is sex education, ready availability of birth control to minors, women's reproductive rights, proper pre- and post-natal health care, and all that other good stuff that gets the right wing's panties all in a wad.
what it makes a strong case for
I agree. Raising the age of consent from 18 will not stop younger people from having sex. Without education and birth control, the under age females are likely to be come pregnant.
Your state isn't the lone exception, because my home state is more strict. 18 for marriage without parental consent, 16 with parental consent. No one under 16 can marry, period. 16Ββ18 are minors, but I wouldn't call them "children".
Age of consent is 16 in my home state, which IIRC is actually a lot more widespread in the U.S. than 18. 18 is just in the cultural consciousness because that's what it is in California, where much of our mass media is produced.
Age of consent is 16 in my home state, which IIRC is actually a lot more widespread in the U.S. than 18. 18 is just in the cultural consciousness because that's what it is in California, where much of our mass media is produced.
18 is in the mass consciousness because there is a Federal Law from the 1980's that prohibits the production of pornography involving anyone under the age of 18.
So because they can't legally be in porn, that must mean they cannot legally have sex, right?
Although the Age of Consent also being 18 in California probably helps as well, as that increases the odds of shows being produced/set in Cali where the characters are likely to bring up that little tidbit of information as well. So because they saw it in a movie/on TV it must be true, even where they live, where ever that may be.
Age of consent is 16 in my home state...
And how many pregnancies under sixteen occur in your state? Or in any state?
And how many pregnancies under sixteen occur in your state? Or in any state?
Too many. I couldn't find a break down by state and the most recent data I could find only goes up to 2012.
The link below shows live births by age for the US for the years 1940-2012.
In 2012, nationally in the US, there were 3672 live births to mothers younger than 15. That averages 73 live births to mothers 10-14 per state.
Keep in mind that those numbers are live births. Many girls that age that turn up pregnant are forced/coerced into having abortions. Also, risk of adverse outcomes that would naturally prevent live birth are somewhat higher in the 10-14 age group. So, there would have been even more pregnancies in the 10-14 age group, potentially significantly more.
https://www.infoplease.com/us/births/births-age-and-race-mother
In 2012, nationally in the US, there were 3672 live births to mothers younger than 15. That averages 73 live births to mothers 10-14 per state.
I checked out the link you provided and found an interesting footnote. The numbers provided do not include 100% of live births!
Data for 1940β1955 are adjusted for under-registration. Beginning 1960, only registered births are shown. Data for 1960β1970 based on a 50% sample of births. For 1972β1984, based on 100% of births in selected states and on 50% sample in all other states. Beginning 1989, births are tabulated by race of mother; previously based on race of child.
And how many pregnancies under sixteen occur in your state?
In 2013, the most recent year I can find data for...
Three.
As someone who posted on both sites for some years β and the same stories on both sites β I'd disagree with that characterization of ASSTR.
For that matter, SOL was hardly devoid of perverse junk. The other day, the random story from the archives feature on the home page kicked up something which was billed as a first-time story. Since I like those, I downloaded it. The first-person character was a schoolgirl with a slight build who had not grown pubic hair yet, but she had 37-DD bras β which she was not wearing that day. That was only the beginning of what yanked me out of the story.
If you write stuff that some people would censor, you tend to hang out at sites that don't censor much. That means that your stories show up beside stuff that you can't stomach.
ASSTR and ASSM had nominal rules that the stories needed to involve sex. Nevertheless, the story code β tag β 'nosex' was used rather frequently. I remember an Aster story of the two sisters he wrote about β in that story, they were quite young and having an innocent day on the lakeside. Nobody challenged my _Seed Grain_, which was as non-sexual a story as one could imagine.
Both examples, of course, were from regular writers on the site. Perhaps if some new writer had submitted a detective story with absolutely no sex, he would have had more problems.
The distinction I find is that the SOL readers are terribly intolerant of flash fiction and other short stuff. I have received 2 letters saying that particular stories were too short. It seems to me that, with the length in KB up there in the description of the story, people who want length could skip short stuff.
Most of what I had on ASSTR but not here was fairly short β under 10 KB, and much of it WAY under. My average vote score has dropped since I started bringing it over.
Most of what I had on ASSTR but not here was fairly short β under 10 KB, and much of it WAY under. My average vote score has dropped since I started bringing it over.
SOL scoring has always favored long stories over short, long chapters over short ones, and series over single stories. Personally, I tend to stick to around 20 chapters, each varying from 2,000 words to 8,000 (though my early works went as high as 14,000). But the 50+ chapter stories tend to score the highest, overall.
SOL scoring has always favored long stories over short, long chapters over short ones, and series over single stories.
That's "reader" scoring
That's "reader" scoring
Sorry, it's the 'SOL scoring system', as expressed by SOL readers.
Other sites don't have the same scoring system, so readers don't get a chance to 'punish' authors they dislike, while different readers on different sites have different expectations (as my reflections on how SOL and FS readers react differently to the exact same story demonstrate).
...putting paedophilia and chlorinated chickens to one side... and a tee shirt worn by some obscure personality, still looking for opinions on what is considered filth, as opposed to erotica?
filth
Definition of filth (from Merriam-Webster)
1 : foul or putrid matter; especially : loathsome dirt or refuse
2 a : moral corruption or defilement
b : something that tends to corrupt or defile
(From Wikipedia) "Distinction is often made between erotica and pornography (as well as the lesser known genre of sexual entertainment, ribaldry), although some viewers may not distinguish between them. A key distinction, some have argued, is that pornography's objective is the graphic depiction of sexually explicit scenes, while erotica "seeks to tell a story that involves sexual themes" that include a more plausible depiction of human sexuality than in pornography."
There is a distinction made in the laws of Canada and Australia. They do not prohibit statements about minors engaging in sexual activities. They prohibit descriptions of those activities.
SOL applies a similar distinction to stories which have characters younger than 14 ... you may say sexual activities happen, but you can't describe them happening.
PS. Authors with any doubts about what is allowed on this site should always ask the webmaster. He's always willing to say whether or not something is acceptable, and explain why.
still looking for opinions on what is considered filth, as opposed to erotica?
Filth is based on the individual's moral beliefs. Since people in general have different moral beliefs, the addressing whether a specific action is filth will do nothing more than generate argument.
For me, I consider the descriptions written about a mature adult seeking to engage in sexual activities with preteen children to be filth; regardless of how adult-like the descriptions try to make the child appear. If the age range of the child is 13-15, then I would probably say it is filth also.
Sexual activity between people under the age of consent is normal. Adults describing such activity for the purpose of sexually titillating other adults would come close to being filth also, but it would be dependent on the plot, the relationship to the plot, and how those descriptions were written.
...putting paedophilia and chlorinated chickens to one side... and a tee shirt worn by some obscure personality, still looking for opinions on what is considered filth, as opposed to erotica?
Generally, 'porn' is considered to be descriptions of the act (ex: "tab p into slut b"), whereas 'erotica' are descriptions of the 'feelings' involved. As a result, 'porn' is more often the purview of male writes, whereas 'erotica' is most often written by women.
Generally, 'porn' is considered to be descriptions of the act
That may be your personal opinion, but I don't think the majority of us agree with you.
Before you respond, remember one thing. The personal definitions of porn are so diverse, poorly stated, and without support that the SCOTUS could not define porn in a measurable way.
Before you respond, remember one thing. The personal definitions of porn are so diverse, poorly stated, and without support that the SCOTUS could not define porn in a measurable way.
Again, I'm describing gross generalization. Men tend to deal with the visual, while women tend to deal with emotions. Thus men like descriptive acts, while women tend to favor how sex 'makes them feel'. However, there are plenty of men and women who are perfectly capable of crossing over those theoretical gender lines, but enough stick to them for the stereotypes to continue. They're not 'fantasies', instead they're tendencies.
I label my stories using the lowest common denominator βporn, filth, garbage... etc.
It reminds me that there are a LOT of people who would happily silence me, so I should not get into bed with censors unless absolutely necesarry nor should I use labels that can be turned against me.
Not to derail the conversation, but on the original topic: If when I signed on to the site initially I saw a the Steven Seven and like stories on the opening page, I likely would have moved on without reading further.
Defining the point at which a person is a pedo is not so easy.
The EU/UK/US societies have one idea of acceptable age of consent, but even within them, there are exceptions.
Outside of them, it's all over the map. China for instance, sets a hard line at 14.
What that tells me is, a large part of what's considered acceptable has social and religious pressures pushing it.
For myself, I always dated older women until I was in my thirties, at which point, I met my wife who was the youngest women I'd ever dated. That being within four months of the same year I was born.
I try my best not to judge a culture and people based upon the culture and people I was raised by. That set up a series of conflicts in my travels. After much temporizing on the subject, I set my own hard line in my mind.
That line is based on the natural line. By the age of 15, the majority of females are capable of surviving and thriving after childbirth. 15 is therefore my hard line. Nature sets that line and as such, is an independent source.
I have a secondary soft line. That is for those women who are underdeveloped for their age. Assuming no genetic factors, they just need more time. It is also for those on the more advanced scale at late 14.
That is supported by nature, over a third of the world's population, and historical precedent.
That done, I began judging the people in the societies I found myself in by that standard. Once set, it was the last time I ever worked any contract in the middle east, parts of Africa, and parts of India. While the pedos are around the world; effectively, state sanctioned pedophilia exist in those areas.
Actual pedos try to justify their act by any number of means, but in the end, they are a child molester deviant that should be removed from the world and would be if I had my way about it.
For myself, I always dated older women until I was in my thirties, at which point, I met my wife who was the youngest women I'd ever dated. That being within four months of the same year I was born.
I try my best not to judge a culture and people based upon the culture and people I was raised by. That set up a series of conflicts in my travels. After much temporizing on the subject, I set my own hard line in my mind.
You probably don't want to look at the information being compiled by groups like the International Society of Genetic Genealogists(ISOGG) among others then.
From what they're finding, "Generation" length is rather gender specific, for reasons that are perhaps a bit apparent. :)
From what they can tell using Mitochondrial DNA(which you can only get from your mother, who could only get it from her mother, and so on), the typical "average generation" for women is about 22 to 25 years.
"Average generation" for men however? 33 to 37 years. Do the math on that one as to what that means for historical human behavior regarding mating.(Edit to add: This would also hold for my specific iteration of the male-line family tree. No children of my own, in my late 30's, 3rd of 3 generations born in the 20th Century, and only 3 generations born in the 19th Century as well. Don't know about the 18th Century.)
That said, ISOGG also has a pretty good writeup making a compelling argument that primitive societies appear to have started as being matriarchal in nature, and even provide interesting examples involving mythology and fairy tales to help demonstrate it. (In particular the trope about a male suitor being tasked by the father with a series of quests which are more likely to kill the suitor than not--because the throne will be inherited through the daughter after the queen passes, so a successful courtship isn't high on the King's list of desired outcomes. This would also be where the other tales about kings conspiring to bed their daughters comes into play(so they can keep their crown). Or Oedipus and his mother, or Ulysses in the Odyssey with respect to his wife. Obviously those societies were already "in transition" away from matriarchy, but the influences are there to be seen all the same.)
I have looked at it. They didn't start until 2005, but much of the work encapsulated there could be found in other locations. Nothing there was significant enough to change my hard line which was set 1996 time frame.
I do understand what you're getting at, but it changes nothing in my mind.
Outside of them, it's all over the map. China for instance, sets a hard line at 14.
Mexico has states just like the US. In Mexico, age of consent varies from state to state as it does in the US. 2 or 3 Mexican states have the age of consent as "puberty". Literally, on the female side, if it's old enough to bleed, it's old enough to breed. To my knowledge, this is the lowest age of consent globally, excluding countries that don't have an "age of consent" at all.
Mexico has states just like the US. In Mexico, age of consent varies from state to state as it does in the US. 2 or 3 Mexican states have the age of consent as "puberty". Literally, on the female side, if it's old enough to bleed, it's old enough to breed. To my knowledge, this is the lowest age of consent globally, excluding countries that don't have an "age of consent" at all.
True in writing, but not so much in practice with the exception of these three Mexican states:
1. MichoacΓ‘n - 12; This state I've never visited, nor would ever. Cartel activities are renowned for this area. I suspect, but don't know for sure, that the age of consent here was due more to that than any traditions of indigenous people.
2. Morelos - 12; Laws for this small state are not so clear. It was originally a carve out for the Nahua indigenous people. The most recent information I have says it's more related to cartel activities now. I only briefly visited in 94, not really learning much about until after the fact.
3. Nayarit - puberty; This was a carve out due to Huichol and Cora indigenous people. The cut out was specifically for them. Visited here in 94 as well. It was dangerous then, and I imagine has only gotten more so since.
I don't agree with any of them, and as such treated them as I do other state sanctioned areas.
Some back story here. The contracting I used to do was 100% travel. The people who run those circuits generally form their own little cliques/flexible communities. I spent the better part of twenty five years doing it.
The gentleman who hooked me into that circuit had much the same background as I had. Difference with him though, he had a knack for getting into some damn hairy situations.
After he got shot for the second time in 97, we decided to sit down and come up with no-go criteria as the world from our perspective was getting a bit rougher. In the brainstorming session, one of the criteria we decided on was the age of consent.
That seems counterintuitive on first blush, but it's not really. As a general rule, if a society and people care so little for their own that they'd allow their children to be raped and abused with state approval; what trust can a foreigner place in them to not kill or otherwise harm them?
Age of consent, KNR insurance rates, recent history of conflicts, known organized crime, and a few dozen other things we used to rate countries for risk/benefit analysis of potential contracts.
The internationals that would and have contracted many of us do this as well. For them, the metrics are different with different goals. It's 100% about profits for them and damn the morals/risk to lives. At some point, we have to protect ourselves, this was one of the methods we developed to do so.
It's our opinion that folks considering travel should think about such things before they jump off into the deep end.
I'm very late to the party, but want to add my opinion nonetheless.
There are two issues - one is the site policy and the law that's the reason for it, and that's what it is. If I don't like the policy, I can go somewhere else.
The other issue is the wish to censor some content. And it seems to me that much of the discussion here centers on doing the things described in stories in the real world. In my opinion, they are totally different things. They are fantasies and nobody is harmed by them. I wouldn't do some of the things that are described in some of the stories I read. I wouldn't do some of the things that I'm writing about (and I'm pretty sure that some of those are illegal where I live). That's why I read and write about them, because it's an outlet.
Regarding the age of consent, well that's laws that are made by old men who have their own (often religious) belief system. I feel that often the things politicans put into law don't hold up very well if looked at objectively. And any fixed age can never fit a real life situation.
Regarding the age of consent, well that's laws that are made by old men who have their own (often religious) belief system. I feel that often the things politicans put into law don't hold up very well if looked at objectively. And any fixed age can never fit a real life situation.
While many are initiated by old men, it is not always so. Regarding religion, that is not entirely true. There are AOC laws where the predominant religion of the country would have it much lower.
As for a fixed age, you're making a mistake using the term 'never'. There are many situations where a fixed age fits a real life situation. While puberty varies by the person, mental capacity of the vast majority is relatively fixed.
You're going to have a hard sale trying to convince even a few people that a prepubescent girl or boy of ten years old is fit physically or mentally for sex. So there's one fixed age that applies to 'real life situation'. There are others, but that should be sufficient to make the point.
There are AOC laws where the predominant religion of the country would have it much lower.
True. My perception in that regard is colored by the society I'm living in.
While puberty varies by the person, mental capacity of the vast majority is relatively fixed.
I don't believe that's true, but I don't have any objective arguments for that. I'm extrapolating that from what I see in a side job. We offer courses that require a minumum age of 18, and most of the people attending are that age. And I assure you, the mental capacity of them is very varying indeed.
You're going to have a hard sale trying to convince even a few people that a prepubescent girl or boy of ten years old is fit physically or mentally for sex.
I'm not trying to. But in a way you are making my point, you said "prepubescent", that's not a fixed age but it's a very individual state.
There are AOC laws where the predominant religion of the country would have it much lower.
True. My perception in that regard is colored by the society I'm living in.
True, and by the decisions by the sundry pedophile priest's who've influenced the laws over the years. The current Catholic loss of parishioners contributions speaks largely of the failure of such an approach.
You're going to have a hard sale trying to convince even a few people that a prepubescent girl or boy of ten years old is fit physically or mentally for sex.
I'm not pointing the finger at you, but I see gross hypocrisy in Western society's condemnation of age-of-consent laws in "primitive" societies. I view those attitudes as just another form of religious prejudice.
As recently as 1880, the age of consent in the UK was 12, and in most American states it was only 10.
I'm not pointing the finger at you, but I see gross hypocrisy in Western society's condemnation of age-of-consent laws in "primitive" societies. I view those attitudes as just another form of religious prejudice.
As recently as 1880, the age of consent in the UK was 12, and in most American states it was only 10.
Most times when that statement is made followed by a 'but', that's exactly what they are doing, pointing a finger. So let us dispense with the word tap dancing shall we?
I'll not repeat the play on words regarding the word 'assume'. You have made a number of assumptions in your post, but let us address the thinly veiled condemnation based on 'religious assumption'.
Religion (Christianity, Islamic, Judaism, Buddhism, Taoism ad nauseam) had zero input on my views in this regards. Further, reaching back 140 years in an isolated manner as you've done is misdirection at its worst, and hypocrisy of its own sort at best.
140 years ago, life expectancy was no where near what it is now. There are many factors in this, but pregnancy by immature bodies was one of the reasons for high infant/mother mortality rates. By the logic used, it could be said that modern medical knowledge was unnecessary.
People have learned and evolved, does that make them hypocritical?
Not everyone and everything is painted by religious prejudice. The assumption of that is itself a prejudice. Think about it.
There are many factors in this, but pregnancy by immature bodies was one of the reasons for high infant/mother mortality rates.
That's probably true, on the other hand that's why we have contraceptives today. So if a law was to protect young people from pregnancy, isn't that outdated and could be replaced by better education and easier access to condoms and pills?
Also, that we live longer now doesn't mean that a person's mind develops slower, does it? Puberty and sex drive develops, no matter how old we might get.
Of course the catholic church frowns on using contraceptives, which is why there are deeply religious people who don't use them. I read an article a few years ago that this was a main factor for the spreading of HIV/AIDS in some african regions.
Staying away from religious statements. Getting into that bog goes down a wormhole of conflicting belief systems that cannot be resolved.
Speaking only to physiological and psychological concerns, We've advanced a lot there as well. Pregnancy was only one of many problems. Physically and mentally it's not healthy. Nature tried to clue us in here, but some folks just seem to be broken and want a child sexually. I don't need a religion to tell me that's wrong, all I need is modern medical references.
The aforementioned bog is where the moral and ethical concerns have their roots. It was not from that standpoint that my position on this was taken.
Culture does have a lot of influence, but then again, we get back into the bog as religion of various types heavily influenced cultures as they are.
The only semi-objective means of addressing this is through a physical and mental health lens.
Nature tried to clue us in here, but some folks just seem to be broken and want a child sexually. I don't need a religion to tell me that's wrong, all I need is modern medical references.
It is my opinion that wanting something (having fantasies) is not wrong. Your medical references say that it's bad to actually act on it which is a completely different cup of tea. Psychology might say it's wrong to think about something, but I question who decided that and why.
The aforementioned bog is where the moral and ethical concerns have their roots. It was not from that standpoint that my position on this was taken.
Culture does have a lot of influence, but then again, we get back into the bog as religion of various types heavily influenced cultures as they are.
The only semi-objective means of addressing this is through a physical and mental health lens.
The challenge here is that some ARE "physically ready" as even young teens. As to the psychological aspect regarding sex, the indicators are quite literally "everywhere" no doubt helped along by clinicians with agendas of their own.
But at least where the research side, rather than clinical, is concerned, all indications are that trying to "push back the clock" once the person expresses sexual interests only serves to "psychologically harm" the individual in question.
Which brings us back to sex and age, when approached "rationally"/objectively, shouldn't be a series of age lines in the sand. It should be treated as a sliding scale which is unique to each individual, the challenge is in how any such "gatekeeping" actions/measures are put into place. And the bigger problem is the legal side, because lawyers and politicians both need/love their clear lines in the sand.
Most times when that statement is made followed by a 'but', that's exactly what they are doing, pointing a finger. So let us dispense with the word tap dancing shall we?
I won't argue with you if you're convinced my words meant the opposite of their literal interpretation.
I made an observation about the attitudes of some in our society. I think it is hypocritical to condemn other societies for something ours did too until recently. That's all.
PS. Perhaps you're not familiar with my style of arguing with others. When I intend to insult someone I make sure there is absolutely no doubt that I have intentionally insulted them.
But I will apologise for this. With hindsight, it would have been better if I had not made my post @ you. Instead, I could have begun with the words "Someone above made this statement:", then copied your words and manually showed them as a quote, and continued on with my post as before.
The site makes it too easy sometimes to just highlight words and click, with the result it appears to be a challenge to the person quoted, rather than a comment about those words directed to the whole forum. I've seen many fights develop on these forums caused by that "helpful" feature of the system. I do not want to be dragged into another of those.
I made an observation about the attitudes of some in our society. I think it is hypocritical to condemn other societies for something ours did too until recently. That's all.
Fair enough.
I have a different view of that, but I can now see where you're coming from. Hypocrisy is the rule of the day if society is to be judged against historical examples of itself.
There are societies today that judge people by their skin color or place of birth. Much like the west did not long ago.
There are societies today that view women as not much more, if any better than cattle, much like the west did in years gone by.
Cherry picking examples from one point to another for comparison, doesn't lend itself to painting an accurate picture. It must be the whole unit of society that hangs in the balance, not just specific points chosen, when it comes to painting the whole of society today as being hypocritical.
I'm not going back 200 years to a time when slavery was acceptable to determine if I'm being hypocritical in condemnation of any society that accepts it overtly or covertly. If something like that means I get painted as hypocritical, so be it.
Fair enough.
I have a different view of that, but I can now see where you're coming from.
Thank you. Honestly, I did attempt to avoid causing you any offense.
You accused me of "Everything before the 'but' is bullshit". I know that's often true with many people - but not with me. It is not true either with at least two other regular contributors to this forum. May I elaborate ...?
There are several contributors here who have said they have High Functioning Asperger's. I am one of those. It think it is no coincidence that all of us work/worked in the IT field and so many of us ended up here in our sixties.
Those with HFA are infamous for being literal in our statements and our interpretation of others' statements. We tend to hold our opinions passionately, are usually constructive and genuinely enjoy being helpful to others in our fields of expertise, and will continue debating calmly and civilly in the face of some level of provocation. BUT, when our patience runs out, and we feel compelled to fight back, we do not hold back! We say EXACTLY what me mean.
I trust the unnamed others will not be offended by that assessment. To me, saying someone is always up-front in stating their opinions is a compliment. :-)
I trust the unnamed others will not be offended by that assessment. To me, saying someone is always up-front in stating their opinions is a compliment. :-)
No offense taken, as I'm clearly the biggest 'literalist' and 'reactionary' to criticisms on the entire Forum!
HFA was first mentioned in 43 I believe. However, it wasn't well known in the west until Lorna Wing came along in 1981 to make it so.
Even then, it took another decade before it became mainstream. That was much too late for it to help me and a few million others.
HFA runs deep among engineers and scientist as well. For that matter, I still question the diagnosis due to that. Is it an actual condition, or is a marker of a higher level intelligence?
For the record, it's not just IT types that have it.
For that matter, I still question the diagnosis due to that. Is it an actual condition, or is a marker of a higher level intelligence?
I don't know what it is, but extreme aptitudes in very specific fields seems like a reliable indicator.
One of my specialities was high school mathematics. I never did any homework; I'd already finished the extra problems during class time. I never did any revision before exams; I knew I knew it all already. I always walked out of three-hour exams at about the two-hour mark. In my final exams in high school I got 100% and 98% in Maths I and II.
But I'm not a genius. My superhuman abilities are strictly limited to subjects where I can understand a system completely. Then I can invent ways of using the system that no one else would imagine possible.
But I could never even be good at the pastime I'm most passionate about, the card game bridge. It never occurs to me to try to get inside an opponent's head and do something so they'll falsely believe what I want them to think. All of my worst personal conflicts, and several were horrific, were directly caused by either me saying the literal truth and the other person believing I was attempting to manipulate them, or the other person attempting to manipulate me and me interpreting them literally. Basically, I am incapable of guile. It is those things led to my self-diagnosis that I'm somewhere on that spectrum.
From what you say, I'm sure you can relate to the kinds of things I'm saying.
From what you say, I'm sure you can relate to the kinds of things I'm saying.
I can. I am fair at math, but no savant by any stretch of imagination. Spatial relations is another story.
HFA runs deep among engineers and scientist as well. For that matter, I still question the diagnosis due to that. Is it an actual condition, or is a marker of a higher level intelligence?
For the record, it's not just IT types that have it.
I'm inclined to think HFA is a legitimate thing for a small number of people. Most others are in the category "of don't give a (expletive)" and know they can get away with it. (And are likely getting a "third party diagnosis" without their input on things)
The rest are clinicians looking for a checkbox to hit so they can get reimbursed for billable hours.
I'm inclined to think HFA is a legitimate thing for a small number of people. Most others are in the category "of don't give a (expletive)" and know they can get away with it. (And are likely getting a "third party diagnosis" without their input on things)
The rest are clinicians looking for a checkbox to hit so they can get reimbursed for billable hours.
Your cynicism regarding a subject about which you know very little is unbecoming.
HFA is undefinable, there's no test for it, and it is untreatable - but it is VERY REAL!
The closest thing to a diagnosis would be a list of questions for which a significant group would answer overwhelmingly yes, while the remainder of the population would answer overwhelmingly no.
The closest thing to treatment is helping those become aware of and alert to situations where they tend react differently than most others. For example, however incomprehensible it is to us, we will encounter enormous problems in our lives if we are not constantly beware of the fact that "normals" lie all the time, even when there's no compelling harm they want to protect themselves from which may come from telling the truth.
The closest thing to treatment is helping those become aware of and alert to situations where they tend react differently than most others. For example, however incomprehensible it is to us, we will encounter enormous problems in our lives if we are not constantly beware of the fact that "normals" lie all the time, even when there's no compelling harm they want to protect themselves from which may come from telling the truth.
This is more coming from someone who has been on the receiving end of "Third party diagnosis" where people try to place me on the aspergers/autism spectrum. I just bothered to look into HFA specifically, was aware of Aspergers previously. I'd have a "hallmark" for it in that I didn't start talking until after I turned 4 years old.
The problem is, I was taken to a speech pathology/child development center for evaluation. I stared down the clinicians, further, if they broke eye contact with me while talking to me, I'd stop paying attention to them. ;)
(That they subsequently "trained" me to not seek eye contact to help mitigate that issue. Something which lingers to this day, would also cause people to "mis-diagnose" in my case, because for me it was a learned behavior.)
I also grew up in a family where pedantry was a form of humor. So I am often deliberately literal in my responses to others, because they so rarely expect a literal response back.
It isn't that I fail to comprehend the practice, or needed to have it pointed out to me that they weren't being literal themselves. I understood it fully, I even employ the practice myself. I just find it to be "more trouble than it's worth" to varnish the truth when I don't think it should either be needed or results in giving a technical answer which would thus become technically wrong if "amended" to satisfy the boss-guy on the other end. (such as the answer to "Will doing ___ fix this problem?") :)
I don't know, it could be purple oompa-loompas doing the fandango causing the issue, but I'm reasonably certain it will fix the problem...
That isn't always an Autistic or Aspergers patient with poor impulse control giving literal answers because they cannot help themselves. It is the result of an intelligent person who probably has three or four other options for what the issue might be. But they cannot progress further until a next step is taken. As such knowing it could either be step 1 of 1, or step 1 of 4(for example) they're simply being honest and taking pride in their work by being right, which means precision takes precedence over social convenience.
Which isn't to mention the whole thing about many intelligent people tending to have highly refined bullshit detectors, and a lot of them develop low tolerances for it over time. That often translates into their slowly "evolving" into something not much unlike an Autistic or the Aspergers types, as they begin to favor precision over social niceties. Which brings us back to the "I don't give a shit, and I know I can get away with it. So stop wasting my time and get to the point" club.
I retract my words "you know very little" based on this statement alone.
I just find it to be "more trouble than it's worth" to varnish the truth
Can we agree on this proposition?
The lengths that a majority of people will go to to "save face" are insane and counterproductive.
So my opinion - and I consider identifying whether you are asserting something is a fact or an opinion is an essential element of being honest - is that the uselessness of many clinicians' efforts treating those suspected/labelled as having HFA is caused far more by the absence of effective options than any considerations of "billable hours".
So my opinion - and I consider identifying whether you are asserting something is a fact or an opinion is an essential element of being honest - is that the uselessness of many clinicians' efforts treating those suspected/labelled as having HFA is caused far more by the absence of effective options than any considerations of "billable hours".
It is opinion, but one based on my understanding of how the reimbursement works for most people in the United States presently. A "diagnosis" is required for payment to be made, ergo, the medical practitioners "find one" for their client that is in need of assistance, even if their needs may not align properly with that particular diagnostic code.
It is opinion, but one based on my understanding of how the reimbursement works for most people in the United States presently.
There's a joke here somedwhere, which I can't figure out now, along the lines that I live in a country where the doctors are honest and medical payments are socialist. Your cynicism about what happens in the US may well be justified.
That isn't always an Autistic or Aspergers patient with poor impulse control giving literal answers because they cannot help themselves. It is the result of an intelligent person who probably has three or four other options for what the issue might be. But they cannot progress further until a next step is taken. As such knowing it could either be step 1 of 1, or step 1 of 4(for example) they're simply being honest and taking pride in their work by being right, which means precision takes precedence over social convenience.
That could have been a page out of my life, though I neither judge myself as intelligent or unintelligent. Precision has always taken precedence in my life and work. No one ever contracted me on a project for my social graces. I was the person they wanted in the background to get the project off the ground, but when the curtain called, they wanted me out of the building. Sometimes rude, sometimes crude, and almost always, socially unacceptable.
Then again, I've never had a design fail, or kill/maim/harm anyone unlike some others I'm aware of. The latter is the primary reason I've retired. My last project, the PM informed me the acceptable mortality rate for the construction phase was 6.7. Therefore he expected me to 'loosen up' my interpretation of the codes. Twenty four hours later I was on a plane homeward bound. They ended up losing twenty four people. It was not happy making for the PM and my replacement when the Thai government got involved over that.
I'm inclined to think HFA is a legitimate thing for a small number of people. Most others are in the category "of don't give a (expletive)" and know they can get away with it. (And are likely getting a "third party diagnosis" without their input on things)
I'm inclined to believe there is at least some factual basis to that. What the percentage breakdown is, I've no idea. As such, I'm not inclined to agree or disagree with the 'most' categorization. The lack of data on that makes an accurate summation impossible without better data sources. There are most certainly people like that, just don't know how many.
140 years ago, life expectancy was no where near what it is now. There are many factors in this, but pregnancy by immature bodies was one of the reasons for high infant/mother mortality rates. By the logic used, it could be said that modern medical knowledge was unnecessary.
This is false, and poorly understood. People living to see their 80's were fairly common even in the 18th Century. Life expectancy at time of birth was quite poor, which is where that 30-something life expectancy came from. Childhood mortality was a major bitch.
However, once a person made it to puberty, their life expectancy had already increased considerably(life expectancy into their late 40's), and by the time they hit their 20's they were already looking at a 50 to 60 year life expectancy.
Also "pregnancy by immature bodies" evidently includes women in their 20's in some cases, the actuarial tables exist to support this. Are you suggesting AOC needs to be increased to 25 because 18 wasn't enough?
By studying census records of the early 1800's in Pennsylvania, a person who lived to the age of 50 had about a 50% chance of dying before reaching 60. A 60 year old, 50% chance of dying before 70, etc
Through my genealogical research, I don't know if there was an age of consent in Pennsylvania in the 19th century and earlier, other than a presumed "at puberty" Men were charged with bastardy and both sexes with rape, fornication, adultery and incest.
It was a crime to have sex with someone you weren't married to (fornication) but it was only really enforced on men and almost always after a pregnant woman went to court to offer him the choice of marriage, child support or jail. This, Fornication & Bastardy are inexorably linked in the criminal records.
Men and woman were both charged when having sex with someone else's spouse.
You're going to have a hard sale trying to convince even a few people that a prepubescent girl or boy of ten years old is fit physically or mentally for sex. So there's one fixed age that applies to 'real life situation'.
Nope, there is no fixed age there either.
While onset of puberty before age 10 is rare, it is not unheard of either.
https://www.livescience.com/33170-youngest-age-give-birth-pregnancy.html
Lina Medina, a Peruvian girl born in 1933, began menstruating at the age of eight months, was tragically raped as a 5-year-old and gave birth at six years, five months. She is the youngest confirmed mother in medical history. Medina is still alive today. Her son, born by caesarian section, was raised as her brother.
A
ETA: I will agree the no prepubescent child is physically "fit" for sex. And it's exceedingly unlikely that a prepubescent child will be interested in sex.
However, you need to define what you mean by mental "fitness" when it comes to sex.
Personally, I don't think mental fitness for sex can be laid down as purely or even primarily a matter of age and biology.
While onset of puberty before age 10 is rare, it is not unheard of either.
Lina Medina, a Peruvian girl born in 1933, began menstruating at the age of eight months, was tragically raped as a 5-year-old and gave birth at six years, five months. She is the youngest confirmed mother in medical history. Medina is still alive today. Her son, born by caesarian section, was raised as her brother.
When I first read that report, my first impulse was 'guess who fathered the child but the girl's own father', followed by my noticing that, nowhere in the historical article did it ever mention how the child was conceived (the history piece never mentions a rape of any kind). In those days, when women needed a man's 'permission' to work, a family generally couldn't turn their backs on an abusive father's financial contributions in helping the family to survive.
When I first read that report, my first impulse was 'guess who fathered the child but the girl's own father', followed by my noticing that, nowhere in the historical article did it ever mention how the child was conceived
I've read other articles on this particular case that had that information. Of course, this article has the mother's age at birth at 6.5 and the other articles I have read on it put the mothers age at birth of the child at 5 years 7 months.
If I remember correctly, the father was one of her uncles and he went to prison for it.
Another interesting tidbit from those other articles, was that according to the doctors who delivered the baby by c-section, they were shocked to find that the girls internal genitalia appeared to be fully developed other than size.
While many are initiated by old men, it is not always so. Regarding religion, that is not entirely true. There are AOC laws where the predominant religion of the country would have it much lower.
The AOC laws in the United States are almost entirely religious in nature.
The weird thing is the religions in question don't seem to have an actual doctrinal basis for having done so aside from some misguided attempts to prevent whoredoms and adultery.
The other issue is the wish to censor some content. And it seems to me that much of the discussion here centers on doing the things described in stories in the real world. In my opinion, they are totally different things. They are fantasies and nobody is harmed by them. I wouldn't do some of the things that are described in some of the stories I read. I wouldn't do some of the things that I'm writing about (and I'm pretty sure that some of those are illegal where I live). That's why I read and write about them, because it's an outlet.
Virtually ALL the research in the field (before the research itself was banned by a new spate of 'child protection laws') proves that allowing pedophiles access to pedophile stories helps them cope and decreases their incidents of recommitting crimes against children. Thus, the very same 'child protection' laws have Increased the incidents of violent sexual acts against children that they were designed to stop. However, you'll NEVER see that reported in the media, as those reactionary laws were very popular and boosted the careers of many associated politicians.
That said, as I've already noted, there's a clear conflict between allowing those individuals to have an outlet, and flushing your stories website down the tubes (as happened to ASSTR after SOL got out of the market). All of the pedo-lovers jumped ship, inundating ASSTR with more pedo-stories than it could process, which only chased away the 'average' readers who were keeping the site afloat.
There are decisions, there's are 'informed decisions, and then there are the repercussion for those decisions. Although each should be evaluated, they rarely are!
By the way, there is currently nothing which would stop a U.S. site from hosting those types of stories, but the financial concerns have meant that few would even consider offering them!
That said, as I've already noted, there's a clear conflict between allowing those individuals to have an outlet, and flushing your stories website down the tubes (as happened to ASSTR after SOL got out of the market).
I have no clue about actual numbers and statistics. If you want the site to cater to the lowest common denominator, as in nothing that might someone feel uncomfortable... well then goodbye to MM stories and BDSM stories. And stories with political contents. And stories with religion in them. I don't know where one would draw the line here.
A BDSM community site I'm a member of has introduced filters for their galleries. Don't like scat pictures? No problem, enable the filter and they will be hidden *everywhere* on the site for you. If I read it correctly above there are filters here but only for paying members (so those you already know will stay) and not effective everywhere, so they are not helpful in this regard...
On the other hand, if you gave me a filter for MM I might have set it. And then I would never have read Dance of a lifetime. So it's not a perfect solution either.
I have no clue about actual numbers and statistics. If you want the site to cater to the lowest common denominator, as in nothing that might someone feel uncomfortable... well then goodbye to MM stories and BDSM stories. And stories with political contents. And stories with religion in them. I don't know where one would draw the line here.
The question is a matter of balance. As long as a site has a balanced content, then a few malcontents don't amount to much. With SOL, we already have a hostile site for gay and minority authors, which is WHY we have so few choosing to post here. They can see the writing on the wall! But, while some would strenuously object, they're not likely to pack up their bags and abandon the site.
The problem, IMHO, with ASSTR is that, once SOL turned it's back as an outlet for those stories, the balance on ASSTR was tragically altered, and more and more, the pedo stories took over the 'recent stories' list and caused both authors and readers to flee in droves.
As long as there were multiple sites to carry the load, so that no one site had to carry the burden of every pedo-lover, it wasn't an issue.
My observations wasn't a plea for sites to cater to their lowest common demoninator, rather it was a concession that, in SOL's case, the site's success justifies the very decision that was forced down its throat! Once they banned in pedo-stories, SOL's financial situation improved considerable, and better authors flocked her, bringing more readers as the availability of more new stories attracted them.
Again, there are decisions, often half-baked, but then there's also the ramification to those decisions. In the case of the pedophilia laws, they've actually increased the amount of pedophilia abuses against children, rather than reducing them. In the case of websites, SOL learned that reducing the frequency of those very stories established a base for their financial security.
But you're right, an outright bad on those stories is detrimental to a society's overall mental health. However, in the face of mounting opposition to any sites which support those stories, there's no way that individual websites can bear the complete burden alone.
You'll also note that the few tirades against politics in stories are almost exclusively for stories which don't support the reader's political persuasion. However, the arguments rarely last very long before everyone moves onto other topics. The danger, is when ALL the stories take on a political or religious framework, that the site's balance starts to shift the site chases away those few dissenting voices.
It would seem there are some people here who think there is nothing wrong with a twelve years old having sex.
My statement regarding life expectancy is true and we'll understood.
Generalizations and specific are two different things. There will always be those people who defy odds and live longer than others. They are the exceptions not the rule. To state that, or imply that, longer lifetimes as a rule occured then, is false.
As for increased AOC to 25, again you get into extremes. Again, there will always be the exceptions to the rule.
We can tap dance around this until hell freezes over. How about each of you grow a set and state what age you find it acceptable instead of redirection/logical fallacies.
It would seem there are some people here who think there is nothing wrong with a twelve years old having sex.
There is nothing wrong with anyone having sex as long as they are emotionally and physically ready and it's consensual. I have no clue how many twelve year olds are out there that fit this description.
Still, the original question was on which types of stories should be censored, and to me these types of real world implication doesn't weight in on that much other than from the legal standpoint.
No one I've ever met would say they were emotionally ready by twelve. There were a few early bloomers on the rez that probably could have handled physically, but even that is questionable.
Regarding the original question, that got derailed mid thread and not by me. Is it right to write and read about it? That's another murky bog in and of itself. There was in fact research that suggested such was a release if it could be believed. The issue with that is, the same groups were behind the effort to normalize pedophilia in the DSM V. That effort got axed by their peers. It leaves a question as to who is right or wrong that inevitably ends up as a matter of opinion.
I came up with what I feel are logical answers to the reality of it and apply that logic across the fantasy and physical spectrum.
That btw, cuts another way. There are many being jailed because they had relations with a 16yo. Poor choice in my opinion, but not a jailing offense either. That is stated as opinion, as I would not condemn someone who did so, it's just not my personal choice.
By fifteen, they know damn well what they are getting into and are usually physically able. As with anything there are exceptions to that rule.
At some point a line has to be drawn. If you don't stand for something, then you stand for nothing, so I was told as a child. I happen to believe there is a lot of truth in that.
The issue with that is, the same groups were behind the effort to normalize pedophilia in the DSM V. That effort got axed by their peers.
It wasn't axed by their 'peers', but by the very same draconian 'child protection' laws which have produced more pedophilia abuses! And it wasn't a 'single questionable report', but the predominance of established research, which was essentially halted when it became a crime to include discussions of child abuse in medical research itself! The law applies equally to fiction, non-fiction, personal therapeutic therapy or research into existing problems. The law is blind to the differences between those various forms.
Essentially, we're arguing the exact same point, but I'm adding that, in the face of mounting opposition, the government overwhelming penalizes protesting voices! If you don't like that, then take it up with the politicians responsible for such repressive laws, rather than the websites who face punitive actions if they continue fostering it.
It wasn't axed by their 'peers'
I followed that closely when it was occuring. We'll have to agree to disagree on that point.
At some point a line has to be drawn. If you don't stand for something, then you stand for nothing, so I was told as a child. I happen to believe there is a lot of truth in that.
I stand for consent and the freedom that consenting people should be able to do what they wish as long as that doesn't have negative impact on others (and I don't include others not liking it as negative impact). I stand against arbitary rules that don't take the individual that those rules claim to protect into account.
It would seem there are some people here who think there is nothing wrong with a twelve years old having sex.
Careful trying to construe that from my statements, particularly given emphasis on "of their own initiative."
12YO "sex" would likely consist of "show and tell," and some fondling/masturbation. Frankly beyond that is territory I knowingly chose not to contemplate, as I find the fondling/masturbation aspect w/pre-teens awkward enough as is. (Knowing full well I have memories of masturbating (in private) in the time frame which would have been 2nd Grade, which is much younger than 12)
But as mentioned while the "probable outcome" is "only" that, there are the precocious among us all the same.
There also is a world of difference between a 12YO doing so in the company of a peer vs doing so with a 30-something present. Although there are studies.... Regardless, even with those studies, if the adult initiated it, it's likely to be harmful. The challenge is determining which is which without going full on "big brother" on everybody everywhere.
My statement regarding life expectancy is true and we'll understood.
Generalizations and specific are two different things.
Not true, claiming life expectancy of 35 in regards to people's sexual decision making 200 years ago is patently wrong. By the time they reached their teens, simply by virtue of having survived childhood and reaching adolescence, they could reasonably expect to live to see at least their late 40's. 80 year olds were "reasonably common" but a very small overall percentage of a given population cohort(all people born that year, lived to see age 20).
But when it came to 50 year olds, once you add in "born in X Year and lived to have a 12th birthday" they were absolutely common. Anecdotally you could view that with the U.S. Constitution stipulating minimum age for PotUS as 35 years old. If life expectancy is only 36 in 1800, that seems to be a downright odd thing to mandate.
The other thing to remember is average life expectancy is an average, not a median, not a mean. And when the age groups most vulnerable to disease are the very young and very old, living in an era where disease is poorly understood. It isn't surprising to see high mortality rates for those under the age of 10. But that cycles us back to "if average life expectancy at birth is 35, and roughly a third of them will be dead before they turn 10, what does that mean for the rest of that cohort's lifespan?"
Remember, a big part of the reason for large families was because you couldn't count on popping out 2 kids and expect they'd live long enough to pop out 2 more of their own. So you have 6+ children so that in the event that something happens and kills most of them off, at least 2 remain who can go on to have children of their own. The 35 year life expectancy wasn't the consideration, childhood mortality rates were the concern.
There will always be those people who defy odds and live longer than others. They are the exceptions not the rule. To state that, or imply that, longer lifetimes as a rule occured then, is false.
I enjoy a good genetic legacy(even tested and verified as such at this point), but I have a family tree with all kinds of ancestors and relatives making it into their 60's, 70's, and 80's throughout the 19th century. Sure, I have others who died younger(usually due to accidents or warfare), or MUCH younger(childhood mortality rates), but as rule the expectation is that if a person lived long enough to become a teen, they're very likely to see their 50's at the least.
This isn't just anecdotal evidence from a family tree taken in isolation, this is information from demographers, gerontologists and a number of other experts who study these things as part of their jobs.
As for increased AOC to 25, again you get into extremes. Again, there will always be the exceptions to the rule.
But then who is the rule being written for and for what purpose?
If the rule is there to protect women from becoming pregnant before they're physically capable of safely carrying it, then the fact that some 20 year olds aren't physically capable of carrying a child to term is relevant.
Of course, this ignore IUDs, shots, or other contraception options which can be employed to mitigate that specific issue rather than prohibiting people from having sexing sex with them under penalty of law.
We can tap dance around this until hell freezes over. How about each of you grow a set and state what age you find it acceptable instead of redirection/logical fallacies.
And the problem here is you're trying to use age as proxy for something with which it is a poor proxy for. My personal line is apparent physical development paired with a psychological component. Personally I am more than fine with 18.
But I also know that is a myth, and reality will never conform to that short of someone figuring out how to medically intervene to make it so. Teenagers are going to be teens, and that means sexual activities are going to happen. Pretending it doesn't happen doesn't make it not happen. The healthier approach is finding a way to work with how things are rather than ignore reality.
The other thing to remember is average life expectancy is an average, not a median, not a mean.
Mathematically/statistically speaking, there are three calculations/values that fall under the general definition of average, the mean the median and the mode.
However, the mathematical mean is almost always what people are referring to when they say average general parlance.
Remember, a big part of the reason for large families was because you couldn't count on popping out 2 kids and expect they'd live long enough to pop out 2 more of their own. So you have 6+ children so that in the event that something happens and kills most of them off, at least 2 remain who can go on to have children of their own.
People had large families because those kids were an economic benefit, such as extra hands to work in the fields. Once minimum age labor laws and mandatory school attendance became law, kids cost money instead of bringing it in, and fertility dropped.
The grandparents in my story are based on a real family in my tree. Grandma was 15 and Grandpa, her 3rd cousin, was 30 when they got married in the 1936 and had 15 kids. One of their daughters married her sister's son. Her sister was 18 and also married a guy 15 years older in 1938, and they had 18 kids.
It was the 1920's and 1930's (in my neck of the woods) that saw the most children. Back in the 1800's it was usually 8 to 12.
People had large families because those kids were an economic benefit, such as extra hands to work in the fields. Once minimum age labor laws and mandatory school attendance became law, kids cost money instead of bringing it in, and fertility dropped.
Minimum Age labor laws have carve-outs which still remain for "family farms" and "family business" as well.
What changed was the % of population actually working on the farm dropped precipitously after WW1 in particular, due in large part to mechanization on the farm.
That the "family farm" exemption also only applied to immediate family may also come into play, but to a lesser degree.
You're also ignoring events like your brother comes to stay with you and help at the farm due to the mine he was working at being closed due to a dysentery outbreak.
A year and a half later, and 5 dead kids, my great grandparents were visited on their family farm by the county sheriff, told to get everyone out of the house, given $300.00 and had their house burned down.
I can also point to a great-grandaunt on a different family line, over a thousand miles away who lost her mother(who is in "my line") and 4 of 5 children in the same year to disease, the 5th survived because she hadn't been born yet.
I can bring up a slew of other relatives who died as children throughout the 19th century.(Some of whom practically no documentation exists, we only know of some because someone wrote stuff down in non-official documents that we do know of) Losing at least 1 was almost expected, 2 wasn't uncommon. And events as described were something most people were within 2 or fewer degrees of separation from. It may not have happened to them, but they probably knew somebody(or could direct you to someone) who did, "family planning" such as it was, happened accordingly.
It's why one of the arguments for demographic trends is the best way to lower the birth rate to a more reasonable level is reassure parents that their children aren't going to die on them.
Most of the 3rd world had, and often still has, horrid child mortality rates. So long as that remains true, they're going to keep having kids.
It's why one of the arguments for demographic trends is the best way to lower the birth rate to a more reasonable level is reassure parents that their children aren't going to die on them.
Most of the 3rd world had, and often still has, horrid child mortality rates. So long as that remains true, they're going to keep having kids.
True, but it has been getting better, almost everywhere. See Hans Rosling's TED talks or book.
This is actually a good summary: https://ourworldindata.org/fertility-rate.
Among interesting facts about fertility and infant mortality, it has an interesting table of mean age at first marriage. Basically, despite many exceptions of marriage at very young age, most societies delayed marriage until fairly late. Both because of economic reasons (save money until new couple can be supported) and to reduce deaths in childbirth/infant mortality.
How about each of you grow a set and state what age you find it acceptable instead of redirection
What part of it can't be reduced to one single fixed age for everyone without creating injustices do you not under stand?
That said, from what I have read, 80-90% of the human population is physiologically/biologically ready by age 14.
As for mental/psychological readiness, the only reason kids to day aren't ready mentally at the same time they are ready biologically is because parents/society have made a concerted effort to prolong childhood to the point where they deliberately avoid preparing children for adulthood (and not just on matters of sex).
What part of it can't be reduced to one single fixed age for everyone without creating injustices do you not under stand?
First, I don't recall any such clear statement from you prior to that one. Regarding 'everyone, I'll first quote myself from earlier in the thread.
have a secondary soft line. That is for those women who are underdeveloped for their age. Assuming no genetic factors, they just need more time. It is also for those on the more advanced scale at late 14.
That is supported by nature, over a third of the world's population, and historical precedent.
Let's get to that term injustice. Every law on the books has the potential to create injustices and if it's been around long enough, it already has. That is an inescapable reality. The only way around it would be to eliminate 'all' laws, which itself is an injustice to good people. As such, it's an unsolvable paradox.
Having been in areas of the world with no apparent enforced law, the premise that a few injustices would happen, is far more palatable than the alternative. If you have doubts about that, I can point you in the direction of some lawless or near lawless areas if you wish to dispute that.
At some point, you either accept laws to order society, or you turn your back on society and become lawless. The latter is not a healthy state to live in, but you can of course make that choice.
In the end, your 'injustice' argument is a non sequitur.
That said, from what I have read, 80-90% of the human population is physiologically/biologically ready by age 14.
It would seem we are not far apart after all. However, I suspect your 80-90% number is a WAG at best. Between the ages of 13-15, there is a very large gap in development of an individual. Early 14 is more in line with 13 than 15 even though it's only a year. I don't view that as a statistical anomaly. There are very significant developments for the individual at that stage physiologically. Specifically, chemical balances in the body are on the backside of balancing out where they will be as a full adult. Those chemical balances play a heavy role in mental development and physical.
I did originally, and still do recognize, there will always be outliers. That is true of any condition and any age. I speak only to those within 2.5Ο.
I am not so convinced "the tea party" is tightly linked with Trump. Most of them likely consider him disturbing as well because of his authoritarian streak being miles wide. They won't miss him. 2016 was their using Trump to extend a middle finger at the GOP, and getting surprised when they were able to give an encore performance for the DNC that November.
I just enjoy using speil in place of spell when used in "spellchecker" because I always found the transposition suitably amusing.
I just enjoy using speil in place of spell when used in "spellchecker" because I always found the transposition suitably amusing.
Did you know that both 'speil' and 'spiel' exist in English? According to the OxD:
- 'spiel' is a glib, plausible statement (or salesman's pitch in AmE)
- 'speil' is a Scottish verb meaning climb (but more commonly spielt 'speel')
Now this is something which would really be useful: a spielchecker, something which detects trite tripe.
But I can see the appeal of typing 'speilchecker'. It's the closest thing to revenge against the vicious bastards we have now we're ever likely to find.
The problem I have is you can write a moving and enjoyable coming-of-age story with children experiencing sex for the first time. Even 14 might be too old for that.
I don't doubt that as an author YOU could write the story and make it moving, however I would question how many readers would enjoy it, not because of the writing, but because of the subject matter. Pre-teens fucking is a 'squick' to far for many readers.
Pre-teens fucking is a 'squick' to far for many readers.
That is why we have story codes. If someone doesn't like to read stories containing pre-teens fucking the codes warn the reader.
The definition of pedophilia is sex with a person who is pre-pubescent. Our society's use of the word is an adult having sex with someone who is less than the legal age of consent.
Each of us seems to look at pedophilia differently. I have a difficult time with using age of consent as a determining factor. If the age of consent is 16 in one state and 18 in the neighboring state, then a person who has sex with a 17 year old is a pedophile in one state but not the other.
I was sitting on my porch one day when this little girl came to my door. She was selling magazine subscriptions to help pay for college. She looked like a 12 year old but her demeanor said she was older. I asked and found out she was 18 and had a medical condition that made her appear pre-pubescent. Would an adult having sex with her be a pedophile?
Would an adult having sex with her be a pedophile?
Actually, if he was attracted to her because she looked 12, then I think so.
What if she was 12 but looked 16?
From a legal perspective, for purposes of statutory rape, only the real age is relevant, statutory rape laws in the US are written as strict liability, there is no mens rea (guilty mind) requirement.
Not even deliberate age fraud on the part of the victim would constitute a valid defense.
She could look 25 and even have a fake id that says she's 25 and in court on a charge of statutory rape, it wouldn't matter.
From a legal perspective, for purposes of statutory rape, only the real age is relevant, statutory rape laws in the US are written as strict liability, there is no mens rea (guilty mind) requirement.
Not even deliberate age fraud on the part of the victim would constitute a valid defense.
She could look 25 and even have a fake id that says she's 25 and in court on a charge of statutory rape, it wouldn't matter.
I find it unlikely that a Jury would convict in such an extreme case, but probably only if she testified to having done so. That isn't to say they'd rule "not guilty" just that the jury wouldn't be able to convict all the same. (hung jury) It would be a prime contender for Jury Nullification, that legal grey-zone defense lawyers aren't allowed to mention.
I find it unlikely that a Jury would convict in such an extreme case, but probably only if she testified to having done so.
1. You are assuming the case would ever get to a jury. Something like 95% of all US criminal cases end in a plea deal.
2. Even though the jury has the right to nullify the law, US Defense attorneys are prohibited from arguing for jury nullification.
Since it's not relevant to the legal charge, and the defense isn't allowed to make a case for jury nullification, it's highly unlikely that the judge would allow the victim to testify if it was known she intended to admit age fraud.
3. If she just admitted it on the stand, the judge could declare a mistrial if the defense prompted the admission. If the prosecution forces a mistrial, they can't retry the case, but if a mistrial is forced by defense misconduct or by a hung jury, the prosecution is allowed to re-try the case before a new jury.
What if she was 12 but looked 16?
From a legal perspective, for purposes of statutory rape, only the real age is relevant, statutory rape laws in the US are written as strict liability, there is no mens rea (guilty mind) requirement.
That's the legal standard if they're dating, but not if you're publishing, in which case it's treated by the site's Terms and Conditions (TOS), which frequently refuse to accept anything featuring sexual content with anyone who's description sounds young. When the Canadian "no one under 16" rule was passed, and SOL instituted a less-restrictive "under 14" rule, many authors tried to get creative and they created alternate worlds where someone only 12 in Earth years might be 18 in Zoolab years. However, that won't fly, Prosecutors and readers can easily spot the difference, and you could get SOL into some serious legal difficulty by doing so.
What if she was 12 but looked 16?
Recent cases in the UK set precedents that it's okay if she's 13 but looks and says she's 16, or if she's 13 and white and the perp is a Moslem who has been brought up to despise white girls.
AJ
Sorry, my question was "What would I be considered if she was 12 but looked 16?", not the legal implications.
I have no attractions to kids. But once they've reached puberty, it is an attraction if they've developed a very mature figure at such a young age.
Sorry, my question was "What would I be considered if she was 12 but looked 16?", not the legal implications.
http://www.scarleteen.com/article/advice/does_being_attracted_to_teenagers_make_me_a_pedophile
The term pedophile is about people who are sexually attracted to children: to juveniles, to pre-pubescent people. Teenagers are not children. The term for an adult who is sexually attracted to teenagers -- to someone entering or in puberty, but who is not yet a full-grown adult is, instead hebephile or ephebephile.
I have no attractions to kids. But once they've reached puberty, it is an attraction if they've developed a very mature figure at such a young age.
Chloe Grace Moretz is now 21. In 2010, when she was 13 (!), and played Mindy Macready, she was just a cute little girl. Then donning the wig and costume as Hit-Girl? That was one role where the make-up really made the difference.
(I'm talking about the movie Kick-Ass for those of you who don't know. Kick-Ass 2 was a little better, from the Hit-Girl perspective, since then she was at least 16.)
Chloe Grace Moretz is now 21. In 2010, when she was 13 (!), and played Mindy Macready, she was just a cute little girl. Then donning the wig and costume as Hit-Girl? That was one role where the make-up really made the difference.
This kind of illustrates the point that it isn't as clear cut as some would like to make it. From the psychology standpoint, it isn't the actual age that matters, it is the presented age which does. So "She looked like she was 18" would fly with your psychologist, but not necessarily with a jury of your peers in a court of law.
Which is where from the legal side(and society at large), the actual age is more decisive on the label that will be applied on you.
So "She looked like she was 18" would fly with your psychologist, but not necessarily with a jury of your peers in a court of law.
As I've said before, apparent age based on appearance is legally irrelevant for a statutory rape charge in all 50 US states. And since the defense in a criminal case is barred from arguing for jury nullification, it's highly unlikely that a statutory rape defendant in the US would even be allowed to present a "but she looked 18" defense to the jury.
Chloe Grace Moretz is now 21. In 2010, when she was 13 (!), and played Mindy Macready, she was just a cute little girl. Then donning the wig and costume as Hit-Girl? That was one role where the make-up really made the difference.
Amanda Righetti was on "The Mentalist" as few years ago when she was in her mid to late 20's. Nice face, big tits. Attractive, but not at the top of my list.
Now if you would've told me she was 14 that would've been a different story. Unpossible, you say? Well, let's call her Bella Thorne Luscious 14 year old tits. Pass the hand lotion.
Then you mention girls who aren't developed yet but posed the right way can look older. Brings to mind Emma Watson in the first "Harry Potter" movie. You could tell she had "it" and would be something some day. It took her until 14 to blossom.
There was a brief lived show a few years ago with a female lead named Johnny Sequoyah. At 11, she was a cute kid. In some shots that focused on her face she'd look older, then you'd see her next to an adult and be reminded she's still a skinny 4 foot tall kid. But only two short years later she's 13 and looks like this or at 15 and she's certainly not skinny anymore.
So there's certainly some young ladies in the 13 to 15 range, and occasionally a 12 or even 11 who've rushed past puberty and have the physical properties of a woman.
I reckon that because they've accomplished it at a young age makes them a more precious resource and thus are more attractive to me that the exact same look at an older age.
The definition of pedophilia is sex with a person who is pre-pubescent. Our society's use of the word is an adult having sex with someone who is less than the legal age of consent.
No. The relevant definition is that given by the SOL Code Definitions, which is; "An adult initiating sexual contact with a pre-pubescent child (boy or girl, 12 or under)"
The OP's post was directed to stories posted on SOL, so what is or isn't acceptable elsewhere is irrelevant.
I was referring to the medical definition. SOL's code definition is similar in that the medical definition is 'attracted to' and SOL's requires sexual contact.
The OP addressed SOL and ASSTR, so what is or isn't acceptable elsewhere is valid. There is also something call thread drift which takes us into a wider range of areas than what the OP addressed.
Pre-teens fucking is a 'squick' to far for many readers.
Who said fucking? I can't see pre-teens doing that. But looking, touchingβ¦
In the movie "Jersey Girl," the 8-yo girl says to her boy friend, "I'll show you mine if you show me yours" (or something like that). Her father catches her lifting the front of her dress. Very funny scene. But it gets even funnier. He sits them down and tells them that only married people show each other their privates and asks the boy what his intentions are. Later, the girl catches her father in the shower with a girl and sits them down and asks the girl what her intentions are. Very funny. That wouldn't be allowed on SOL.
I experimented with a girl before 14. Of course we didn't go too far. But what we did wouldn't be allowed on SOL.
The problem is there's literature and porn.
Who said fucking? I can't see pre-teens doing that. But looking, touchingβ¦
My apologies. When you used the phrase "experiencing sex" in your post I presumed you meant fucking as one of your past President's is on record as saying a blow job does not count.
Give the man a cigar...!!!
Unless you're giving the woman a cigar ...
Or to paraphrase the old saying, a woman is a woman, but a good cigar is a smoke ... unless it's used as a dildo.
Thank you, Bill Clinton ... I did so appreciate having to explain to my young kids what 'getting a Lewinsky' meant before I was ready to have THAT talk with them.
My problem with the Canadian law is that it covers more than intercourse.
It covers observing sex, which several of my stories have. It also covers nudism; if intercourse under 14 is basically unnatural in our society, nakedness in the young is natural.
I did a lot of research at one time about the classical culture of SW India. Then I learned that females began sex in that culture just *before or after* puberty. That's too young for my stories.
It covers observing sex, which several of my stories have. It also covers nudism; if intercourse under 14 is basically unnatural in our society, nakedness in the young is natural.
Technically, it doesn't prohibit nudism stories, what it prohibits is the 'description of nudity in ways that promote sexual excitement in readers. If you simply state that 'the kids were naked, as usual' you're fine. But if you start describing how young girls have no hair, their sexual organs specifically look 'underaged', or describe someone getting an erection over it, you're crossing the line into the illegal territory.
OTOH, authors unwilling to accept a 14+ restriction are determined to write implausible filth.
Vladimir Nabokov wrote implausible filth ;)
AJ
Hasn't implausible filth gone on throughout history?
Filth,smilth. Give a character driven good story and I forget about ages! Oyster50 or Lubrican come to mind.
I'd prefer the site not to have an age limit but I really don't want to read stories about toddlers being penetrated by twelve-inch penises. In other circumstances perhaps some sort of 'artistic merit' exception might work.
But the law's the law: there's nothing we can do about it and on the whole it's not a terribly onerous restriction.
AJ
First cockroach milk and now that. If you don't add caution tags in the future, I think I'll have to refrain from reading your posts.
I plead the Filth Amendment ;)
The Bill of Writes allows you to post whatever you want.
The Bill of Writes allows you to post whatever you want.
And remember, two writes don't make a wrong.
Except for when the streets define the block as a pentagon and then it is more of a U-turn. :)
I discovered that when I was in Frankfurt, missed my turn, and tried to just go around the block.
But three rights make a left ...
But do three Trump supporters generate a Bernie Sanders?
But do three Trump supporters generate a Bernie Sanders?
Don't think so. I think the only thing generator Bernie Sanders has been around, based upon his hair, is one from Van de Graaf.
And remember, two writes don't make a wrong.
Mr. Wong told his wife who was giving birth to a child, Remember, two Wongs don't make a white.
two Wongs don't make a white.
That joke is a VERY OLD to Australians.
It became infamous there just after WW II when it was made in Parliament by then Minister of Immigration, Arthur Caldwell. He'd been asked about an administrative mix-up between two Mr Wongs which resulted in the wrong one being deported. He addressed the joke to a member of Parliament named Mr White. In the original version White must be written with an initial capital letter.
Caldwell never lived that joke down. He was viewed as a racist for the rest of his career.
So EB's comment to me, "And remember, two writes don't make a wrong," was a very clever in-joke from one Australian to another, intended to remind me of your joke and the huge significance it had in the history of our country.
I am not going to disagree with you on that point. Some extremes are just too onerous, and sex with toddlers would fall into that IMO.
However, there is no universal standard of what "filth" is. It is up to the individual to make those distinctions. I have no problem with the rules on this site, or with the laws that engendered them. I just find that they don't recognize the reality that is human history..
I had, at one time when I used to teach, a 15 year old student pregnant with her FOURTH child because she wanted the benefit subsidy. She first became pregnant at 9 years old...precocious to say the least. Her mother was 26. Her grandmother, 38. Her great-grandmother (the one actually raising her children) was 53.
Biology and history are wonderful and fearful things.
I am not going to disagree with you on that point. Some extremes are just too onerous, and sex with toddlers would fall into that IMO.
As per another topic in a different thread, I suspect many feel the same about "tentacle sex' stories, but for very different reasons.
Hasn't implausible filth gone on throughout history?
Filth,smilth. Give a character driven good story and I forget about ages! Oyster50 or Lubrican come to mind.
Slime and filth are fine. You can write about characters wallowing in a pig pen all day, as long as they're 14 or over, or about Nickelodeon slime with kids, as long as they are fully clothed. "Smilth", well that's an entirely separate category. 'D
I agree SOL gets the balancing act about right.
My early rant in this thread was focused on that detail, I wasn't worried about fantasy stories, but about a sudden onset of writers who might tip the delicate balance of the site towards something which might scare away the readers who support the site financially. But, of course, I emphasized the actions (downvoting them as punishment), rather than my reasoning. My bad!
