One other similar site requires 18 or older. Is 14 allowed from a posting in the US? I'm playing with a story idea involving a long relationship that starts young and moves forward. Age 14 would be a marker for when it all began, not the focus of the story.
Your title says it all.
https://storiesonline.net/h/58/what-kind-of-stories-can-i-post
Yes, but described on screen can include secondhand. It is not cool to have the twelve year old girl on the phone giving her BFF a blow by blow account of her first successful deepthroating her twentyone year old pimp...er... 'Love of her life". Yeah, that's the 'accurate' description.
Yes, but described on screen can include secondhand. It is not cool to have the twelve year old girl on the phone giving her BFF a blow by blow account of her first successful deepthroating her twentyone year old pimp...er... 'Love of her life".
Correct, what matters is how graphic the "secondhand" account is. As long as the secondhand account isn't graphic, it's fine.
if it's described in detail it's on screen - no detail is off screen. Johnsays, "I fucked Jenny." and nothing else about then it's off screen. If he gives details of what they did, it's on screen.
if it's described in detail it's on screen - no detail is off screen. Johnsays, "I fucked Jenny." and nothing else about then it's off screen. If he gives details of what they did, it's on screen.
How much detail is needed to be graphic? How does ransomly changing ages fit in?
There's a new series of posts by an author who used to be on ASSTR where she mentions several times that she masturbated her father when she was eight - but says it wasn't sexual. She is also present while he masturbates himself.
Also, changes in ages. In the same series, on one day a character is 12. A month later in the series he's 13 (3 years younger than his 16 yo brother) and she gives him a sex show. Another month later in the series he's 14 and has sex with the main character.
I realize that the author is trying to comply with the rules, but sometimes it gets ridiculous.
How much detail is needed to be graphic?
The best answer to that is to send a copy of the text to Lazeez and to ask him. However, from my perspective, I comply to restricting things to have no description of actions at all; just name the activity and leave it at that. It's the same limitations I use for the older characters on Fine Stories.
Sounds fuzzy, 'what matters is how graphic', it's not cool', 'detail' on or off screen etc. I meant to ask about legality. For example most states set the female age of consent to sex at 18, but some have 16 and years ago a lot of states set it at 12, I think Massachusetts was perhaps the last one with 12. But I wasn't asking about being cool or in good taste, I was asking about LEGAL. Thx guys
As to legal, for the US:
Just about anything goes in stories as long as you can find a site willing to host it.
Laws prohibiting child pornography do not cover text stories, drawings, or photographs/video done with adult performers who look underage.
Back when it first became a legal issue, the US Supreme Court allowed an exemption to the first amendment for child pornography on the basis of the harm done to the children used to produce it.
In the late 1990s, the US Congress attempted to join a growing global trend with a law prohibiting "virtual" child pornography. The first case on that new law to come before the US Supreme Court, in 2002 or 2003, the court explicitly refused to extend the first amendment exception for child pornography to allow a ban on "virtual" child pornography.
To be covered by laws against child pornography in the US, it must be real images of real children.
That said, there have been attempts by federal, state, and local prosecutors to prosecute "virtual" child pornography under much vaguer obscenity laws.
However, the few successful obscenity prosecutions for virtual child porn I am aware of involved stories with not just under age sex, but very specifically the graphic violent rape and torture of prepubescent children.
All that said, The SOL servers and our host are in Canada and it is Canadian law SOL has to answer to.
Thanks you for such an informed post, exactly what I was looking for. As I mention in the OP, I'm not looking to do anything remarkable, but I have an idea about a couple who started being a couple when the female was youngish, based partly on fact.
Sounds fuzzy, 'what matters is how graphic', it's not cool', 'detail' on or off screen etc. I meant to ask about legality. For example most states set the female age of consent to sex at 18, but some have 16 and years ago a lot of states set it at 12, I think Massachusetts was perhaps the last one with 12. But I wasn't asking about being cool or in good taste, I was asking about LEGAL.
The 14 age is set by Lazeez due to Canadian law - any desciption below that is too much description while a simple statement is OK.
The 14 age is set by Lazeez due to Canadian law - any desciption below that is too much description while a simple statement is OK.
Actually, at the time, Canadian law stated "younger than 16", but Lazeez made an informed assumption—that prosecutors wouldn't likely press to launch a full investigation for something unlikely to generate much positive publicity. Thus, we're lucky to have a 14-year-old limit, as that covers high-school students in general (at least in the U.S.).
For example most states set the female age of consent to sex at 18,
Not so. Most states have it set at 16 or 17, with 16 having the plurality.
See: Age of Consent in the US
Not so. Most states have it set at 16 or 17, with 16 having the plurality.
See: Age of Consent in the US
And for a little historical perspective, from the link above:
In 1880, the ages of consent were set at 10 or 12 in most states, with the exception of Delaware where it was 7.[105] The ages of consent were raised across the U.S. during the late 19th century and the early 20th century.[106][107] By 1920, 26 states had an age of consent at 16, 21 states had an age of consent at 18, and one state (Georgia) had an age of consent at 14.[105] Small adjustments to these laws occurred after 1920. The last 2 states to raise its age of general consent from under 16 to 16 or higher were Georgia, which raised the age of consent from 14 to 16 in 1995,[108] and Hawaii, which changed it from 14 to 16 in 2001.[109]
Not so. Most states have it set at 16 or 17, with 16 having the plurality.
See: Age of Consent in the US
There's currently a fight building concerning multiple state laws allowing underaged marriages with the authorization of the parents—which is generally helping promote child marriages for children becoming pregnant due to incest (i.e. eliminating possible victims so they can't testify). In most U.S. states (I can't remember the exact percentage) the legal ages can range all the way down to 7.
In most U.S. states (I can't remember the exact percentage) the legal ages can range all the way down to 7.
I don't know where you got that information.
According to this:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_age_in_the_United_States
Every state except Delaware, Pennsylvania, Minnesota, West Virginia and New Jersey allows a person under 18 years old to marry:.
If one or more of the following apply:
consent of the parents or legal guardians of the minor
consent of a court clerk or judge
if the minor is emancipated.
Or in exceptional circumstances if one or more of the following circumstances apply:
consent of a superior court judge, rather than a local judge, is required
if one of the parties is pregnant
if the minor has given birth to a child
In 9 states, a person over 21 years old can not marry a person under 18 years old. Missouri, Arizona, Colorado, Idaho, Indiana, Louisiana, Nevada, Ohio, and Tennessee.
Minimum age in 50 states:[17]
1 state has no legislated minimum age. California
1 state has a minimum age of 12 years old for females and 14 years old for males:[18][19]Massachusetts
1 state has a minimum age of 15 for females and 17 for males:[18][19]Mississippi
4 states have a minimum age of 15. Hawaii, Kansas, Maryland, and Utah.
27 states have a minimum age of 16.
11 states have a minimum age of 17.
5 states have a minimum age of 18, which is the same as the general age: Delaware, Minnesota, New Jersey, Pennsylvania, and West Virginia.
From 2017[20][21] to 2019[22][23][24][25][26][27][28][29] several states changed their law to set a minimum age, or to raise their minimum age
One of the things I've been dealing with is the consent law in Pennsylvania and using it as an excuse to keep sex out of my series until my characters grow up, lol.
The other thing is that the age of consent is not mitigated for emancipated minors according to everything I've seen. The only thing emancipation brings is a shift of responsibility to the minor instead of their parents. Technically, the sex act itself is still illegal.
The other thing is that the age of consent is not mitigated for emancipated minors according to everything I've seen.
I would bet that even that is not consistent across all 50 states, but I have no direct knowledge.
which is generally helping promote child marriages for children becoming pregnant due to incest (i.e. eliminating possible victims so they can't testify). In most U.S. states (I can't remember the exact percentage) the legal ages can range all the way down to 7.
These marriages are not a cover for incest - at least not in the dozens I have known. They are usually the result of boyfriend and girlfriend from religious families getting pregnant. Most of these are in immigrant groups where the stigma of out-of-wedlock pregnancy is greater and it is likely that the mother of the daughter was in a similar situation and gave birth at 14 or 15.
My understanding on the stuff I've read on the matter previously was it had more to do with human trafficking and parents "selling" their daughters off, or fringe religious groups "arranging" marriages to much older men where the family tends to benefit from the arrangement one way or another.
Polygamist groups are highly prone towards arranged marriages, and some immigrant populations are also prone to doing the same. Increasing the minimum age to where it either matches the legal age of consent, or their ability to apply for emancipation was largely an effort to halt such practices.
Except they should know that much as the polygamous groups have demonstrated, even criminalizing the practice doesn't stop such things.
To expand further, some men with connections to such groups are also known to "marry" women in their early teens and divorce them once they come of age so they can "marry" another girl in their early teens and rinse and repeat.
They're probably an extreme minority of the cases of under 18 marriages, but they do happen.
I would guess that some cases involve arranged marriages but not many. Almost all the marriages are between parties who are within a year or two in age.
When they claim that most of the men in these marriages are adults and the women are children they fail to mention that the vast majority of the adult men are 18, 19 or 20. The fail to mention that vast majority of the girl children are 16 or 17.
In every state where under 18 marriages have been banned the age of consent is 16.
The move to raise marriage age isn't to stop polygamous unions which aren't legal or to stop arranged marriages. It's simply another "progressive" movement step to impose their own beliefs on those they believe are ignorant and incapable of making their own decjsions.
It's simply another "progressive" movement step to impose their own beliefs on those they believe are ignorant and incapable of making their own decjsions.
And yet they seem to believe that an 8 or 9 year old is capable enough to make decisions about their gender to the point of taking drugs to affect it. Interesting.
And yet they seem to believe that an 8 or 9 year old is capable enough to make decisions about their gender to the point of taking drugs to affect it. Interesting.
Secondary agendas come into play at that point, as many of those drugs will result in sterilization. Which then gets us into the overpopulation hysteria still very common on the left. Never mind demographic trends are indicating that many people under the age of 40 will likely live to see population decline on a global scale without need for a war, natural disaster, or other government enforced population controls to make it happen.
Of course, that also assumes we don't find a way to significantly extend life expectancies as well. In which case the population may grow further still, but it'll still be likely to top out "soon enough" all the same.
In any case, someone who has opted to pursue a course of treatment that renders them sterile as a pre-teen is someone who won't be adding further to the population going forward.
overpopulation hysteria
You cannot legally enter into a contract until you are 18. I believe that is true in every state. For this reason alone, I believe marriage under 18 should be banned without parent/guardian consent unless the child is emancipated.
This is not actually true (or, rather, it's a common misphrasing of what is true; disclaimer: I am not a lawyer). A minor can legally enter into most contract; that's not a problem. However, adults are generally advised to decline contracts with minors, because - outside of certain areas - contracts with minors are voidable at the sole discretion of the minor. Note that it's not necessarily easy to void the contract - legal intervention is required. It's not just walking up to the other party and saying, 'Sorry, I'm a minor, this is void.'
Contracts for certain things, including food, lodging, and medicine are not voidable.
https://www.upcounsel.com/contracts-signed-by-minors
There are contracts minors cannot enter into, such as a contract for medical treatment, as minors do not have capacity to consent to treatment. But most other contracts are fine - if the other party(s) are willing to take the risk.
Also, of course these restrictions are very different when dealing with emancipated minors.
I am not a lawyer). A minor can legally enter into most contract; that's not a problem.
Sorry, GW, but that varies with legal jurisdictions due to the law makers having different mind sets. In Australia a minor may only enter into a contract for immediately needed basic items like food, water, and a place to stay. Minors can not make a legal contract for any thing beyond those basics, thus they can't even make a commitment to play on a sports team or buy clothes on credit. The situations is the same in many other countries as well, but some don't even allow.
Of course you're right, that it varies by legal jurisdictions. There are differences state to state in the US, but generally US law allows contracting (just voidable at the minor's discretion, and therefore not much use to the other party in many cases).
There are contracts minors cannot enter into, such as a contract for medical treatment, as minors do not have capacity to consent to treatment. But most other contracts are fine - if the other party(s) are willing to take the risk.
Not entirely true. In my US state, a minor can obtain an abortion without parental consent.
For anyone under eighteen, a parent or guardian must be notified (but consent is not required). Judicial bypass is available for notification if the minor has a reason for the parent or guardian not to be notified.
True, and there are probably other examples. But most sorts of medical treatment aren't things minors can give effective consent to.
You cannot legally enter into a contract until you are 18. I believe that is true in every state.
That is actually incorrect. You can legally enter into a contract UNDER that age, it's just that it is possible for the contract to be considered voidable IF a Court of Law agrees.
Keep in mind there are four parts to a legal contract:
Parties competent and willing to enter into the contract.
An offer.
An acceptance of the offer.
Some type of mutual obligation. (I'll give you this in return for that.)
Depending upon the state, someone as young as 15 can enter into a legal contract for life necessities, such as food and shelter. Even though the contract may be voidable, it is still considered valid and the person providing those life necessities is liable for them.
What does THAT mean, you ask? Simple. You rent a house to someone without asking for ID, and they're 16. It's a voidable contract, but NOT an invalid contract. So long as the 16 year old continues to pay rent, that's a life necessity and you MUST honor the contract, and a court will actually ORDER you to do so.
There is a difference between a contract that is invalid and one that is voidable. An invalid contract is one that is completely invalid from the signature, and is considered to have not been signed in the first place. A voidable contract is one that is considered valid, but COULD be voided is one of the conditions necessary for it to be valid MAY have been met and CONTINUES to be met.
Now, where your main thesis comes into play is simple.
marriage under 18
Guess what? It's up to each state. This is not something that the Federal government (here, anyway) has any say in whatsoever. Now, in GENERAL, 18 is the age where people can give their own consent across the board. HOWEVER, keep in mind you're being TOO restrictive. In various assorted states around this country, the age can be 16 (or lower!) with the consent of parents OR a judge, or sometimes even a combination thereof. (Vermont, for example, with parental AND judicial consent, is 14. Massachusetts the statutory limit is 12!)
No, I'm not a lawyer. I'm worse - I'm a salesman. I sold cars for 10 years, and now I sell real estate. The other minor detail that I'm also a Criminologist means that I've studied the law, AND I've also help write and sign a LOT of legal contracts over the years, and have had WAY too much education on contract law as it pertains to sales.
Depends. Just to add to the pile, in my country (Latvia) the age of consent is 18 but 15 year old can legally work for wage. There's additional set of restrictions, some more insane than others (like, there's hard-coded by law maximum weight they're allowed to lift), but it's possible.
Not so. Most states have it set at 16 or 17, with 16 having the plurality.
Actually, 16 has a straight majority at 31 out of 50 states, 6 states at 17 and 13 states at 18. The mean age of consent in the US 1s 16.64
Dominions Son
Thanks, I was wrong, I have looked it up before and must have misremembered it.
Thanks, I was wrong, I have looked it up before and must have misremembered it.
It's also possible that it's changed since you looked it up last. I also remember a plurality for 16, with a more even split between 17 and 18.
@Michael Loucks
Not so. Most states have it set at 16 or 17, with 16 having the plurality.
Actually, 16 has a straight majority at 31 out of 50 states, 6 states at 17 and 13 states at 18.
The mean age of consent in the US 1s 16.64
Again that is the mean by state,
It's the United States of America.
Mean by state is the right way to do it.
Age of Consent is the age at which a person may consent, not a state, so a per capita breakdown is more relevant.@BalRog
Again that is the mean by state,It's the United States of America.
Mean by state is the right way to do it.
Age of Consent is the age at which a person may consent
Which is set by state law. It varies by state, not by person. Averaging it across people makes zero sense.
I have sex with a person, not a state; YMMV.
How much thought do you put into the local "official" age of consent in selecting a sex partner?
How much thought do you put into the local "official" age of consent in selecting a sex partner?
I have sex with a person, not a state; YMMV.
And it will be the state that locks you up or not.
The person has no say in the matter.
The person above the age of consent always "has say in the matter". That's the very essence of the meaning of "consent".The person has no say in the matter.
The person above the age of consent always "has say in the matter". That's the very essence of the meaning of "consent".
In the case of an age of consent violation, the victim has no say in whether or not the adult gets prosecuted.
I have sex with a person, not a state;
I've been fucked by my government, both the federal and state.
I've been fucked by my government, both the federal and state.
Welcome to this special group of citizens, it's called "the world population" :D
Unless you want your calculated "average" to have some sort of predictive value.Averaging it across people makes zero sense.
If you meet an American under the age of 17 then it is slightly better than even odds that they are under the age of consent when they are at home.
But that's not how it works. If you meet a 16 year old in a state where the age of consent is 16, what the age of consent is in the 16 year old's home state has no legal relevance.
Hawaii has an age of consent of 16. California has an age of consent of 18.
You meet a 17year old girl from California while you are both on vacation in Hawaii and have sex with her.
No, you can not be prosecuted for statutory rape under California state law because the act occurred in Hawaii.
There is sort of an exception to this. If you meet the girl in California and then take her to Hawaii, you are in big trouble. While you still can't be prosecuted under California law, you have now committed a federal offense by transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of sex.
you have now committed a federal offense by transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of sex.
Are you sure? I think I remember Congress amending the Mann Act sometime in the mid 80s to change the language - and there was a dispute at the time as to whether they had tightened the law or loosened it.
Are you sure? I think I remember Congress amending the Mann Act sometime in the mid 80s to change the language - and there was a dispute at the time as to whether they had tightened the law or loosened it.
Basically, it was changed to only apply to someone who could otherwise be charged with a criminal act. It used to be the case that simply crossing state lines with your girlfriend and having sex (no matter what age) was a violation, but that is no longer true, so long as you aren't violating some other sex-related law.
Clear as mud, right?
Basically, it was changed to only apply to someone who could otherwise be charged with a criminal act.
Any criminal act? Or it has to be sex-related?
The Mann Act was changed to require that the transportation be for commercial (prostitution) purposes.
It should be remembered that the major original purpose of the age of consent laws was to deter child prostitution. It was a way to prosecute the johns without having to establish payment. In the same way, the original Mann Act was designed to deter prostitution, especially by young girls.
There is sort of an exception to this. If you meet the girl in California and then take her to Hawaii, you are in big trouble. While you still can't be prosecuted under California law, you have now committed a federal offense by transporting a minor across state lines for the purpose of sex.
transporting a minor
even worse if they were a coal miner, you wouldn't want to transport a minor miner.
If you meet an American under the age of 17 then it is slightly better than even odds that they are under the age of consent when they are at home.
If you meet an American under the age of 17 then it is slightly better than even odds that they are over the age of consent where they are, if you are equally likely to be in any particular state.
Given Romeo & Juliet laws it's more complicated than that. In many states 13 or 14 year olds can legally sex with people 3 or 4 years older. In others the penalties for such sex are very minimal.
Given Romeo & Juliet laws it's more complicated than that. In many states 13 or 14 year olds can legally sex with people 3 or 4 years older. In others the penalties for such sex are very minimal.
And, going the other direction, with 'authority' figures it can be eighteen (or even older, if, for example, a nineteen-year-old happens to be a High School student).
And, going the other direction, with 'authority' figures it can be eighteen
With "authority" figures, age can be irrelevant.
A number of states have passed law prohibiting teacher/student sex regardless of age and you have the prohibitions on doctor/patient sex.
In others the penalties for such sex are very minimal.
In the state that basically the entire United States considers to be the most liberal of all - California, because it's the granola state (full of fruits, nuts, and flakes) - the age of consent is 18. And California does NOT have a Romeo and Juliet law.
Sex between two minors, regardless of their ages, is not legal in California and can be charged as a misdemeanor
Sex with a minor (under age 18) if the perpetrator is not more than three years older or younger than the victim is a misdemeanor
Sex with a minor if the perpetrator is more than three years older than the victim may be a misdemeanor or felony punishable by up to one year in prison
If the perpetrator is over 21 and the victim is under 16 it may be a misdemeanor or felony punishable by up to four years in prison
California does NOT have a Romeo and Juliet law.
Not based on both parties actual ages. However, based on their agents and relative power in Hollywood there's exceptions.
Given Romeo & Juliet laws it's more complicated than that. In many states 13 or 14 year olds can legally sex with people 3 or 4 years older. In others the penalties for such sex are very minimal.
Meanwhile in New York, peeing on the street (or a public park) because there aren't any available restrooms) will get you registered as a "sex-offender" for the rest of your life, permanently restricting your movements and even where you can legally live anyway in the U.S.
The 14 year old rule is CANADIAN and that is where the servers are. That is Lazeez's hard limit. Note that this is about what can be posted.
Actual age on consent in the U S is either 16, 17, or 18. the 12 year old comments actually refer to the underage sexual experimentation rules which are very different from state to state. For example, in Alabama (just the first state on the list)age of consent is 16, but a 14 year old can have consensual sex with a 12 year old.
Is 14 allowed from a posting in the US?
Yes. Written fiction is protected under the First Amendment in the U.S. However, you can be prosecuted for obscenity by a local District Attorney. The Supreme Court determined obscenity by the Miller Test in Miller v California.
The age of content in a state is different. That's actual sex between people, not writing about it. And porn movies are governed by Federal law which requires all actors to be 18 or older.
But SOL is a Canadian company and Lazeez has to live under Canadian law which is the reason for the 14-year old restriction (except for grandfathered stories).
U.S. However, you can be prosecuted for obscenity by a local District Attorney.
Whether or not you can be convicted is a different matter.
Whether or not you can be convicted is a different matter.
Convicted or not, it will cost you (legal fees, stress, loss of anonymity).
Thanks you for another informed post, exactly what I was looking for. As I mention in the OP, I'm not looking to do anything remarkable, but I have an idea about a couple who started being a couple when the female was youngish, based partly on fact. Thinking maybe a later reference to them meeting in the past might be wiser
However, you can be prosecuted for obscenity by a local District Attorney.
That would could be the case no matter if the characters are 15, 25, 35, ... 75...
That would could be the case no matter if the characters are 15, 25, 35, ... 75...
True, but it's done to get around the First Amendment when the local community is against underage sex.
True, but it's done to get around the First Amendment when the local community is against underage sex.
The only such cases I've seen reported weren't just about underage sex, they involved specifically prepubescent kids, and included other objectionable content beyond mere sex.
The only such cases I've seen reported weren't just about underage sex, they involved specifically prepubescent kids, and included other objectionable content beyond mere sex.
The point is, it can happen. I was answering the OPer's question.
To reiterate what the Miller Test is:
The Miller test was developed in the 1973 case Miller v. California.[3] It has three parts:
Whether "the average person, applying contemporary community standards", would find that the work, taken as a whole, appeals to the prurient interest,
Whether the work depicts or describes, in a patently offensive way, sexual conduct or excretory functions[4] specifically defined by applicable state law,
Whether the work, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.[5]
The work is considered obscene only if all three conditions are satisfied.
simply said it could happen when I answered the question.
It's not impossible, but the chances that such a prosecution would happen over nothing more than underage sex are vanishingly small.
I think you are at least implying a significant exaggeration of the risk.
The only such cases I've seen reported weren't just about underage sex, they involved specifically prepubescent kids, and included other objectionable content beyond mere sex.
Such as using the Lord's name in vain (aka: "damn!")?
Such as using the Lord's name in vain (aka: "damn!")?
Such as violent rape and torture.
Interestingly, the age of Marriage is much higher.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_age_in_the_United_States
Interestingly, the age of Marriage is much higher.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marriage_age_in_the_United_States
Just keep all sexual interaction whether "off-screen" or on-screen to 14 or older. I didn't notice the rule with an early story and so it was properly removed. I want this site to stay legal and not cause any extra effort for site admins to patrol what is posted.
"off-screen" or on-screen to 14 or older.
Off-screen isn't a problem.
Amazon has a strict rule of no underage sex, that is, under the age of 18. In my novel "Sexual Awakening," the cop is hunting down and murdering the men who raped his sister when she was a schoolgirl. I never give her age, but she was way under 18 when it happened. But it happened off-screen years before the time of the story.
In a flashback, I mention how she was found, the condition of her clothes and state of mind, but not the rape or sex itself. Now if, in the flashback, I had described the sex, that would be on-screen and in violation of Amazon's Terms & Conditions.
So as long as it happened off-screen, it's okay. That should apply to SOL as well.
I see your point Switch and I could go along with that as it provides the setting for a story.
(In your example, it's more an act of violence and rape is often that way too) but your assessment about underage sex is on point
So as long as it happened off-screen, it's okay. That should apply to SOL as well.
I published one book concerning two preteens who'd fled abusive homes and were living on the street in NYC, so you can get away with quite a bit, as long as you avoid the accurate descriptions of underage sex. But discussions of its affects, or what they suffered (in an abstract form) are legit, even if not particularly popular with the majority of readers.
As Switch noted, many authors now routinely drop ANY references to age, simply to skirt any potential stories. It's not exactly a legal safeguard, but as long as your readers don't file a complaint with your distribution outlet (aka: Amazon or Smashwords) your work is unlikely to be deleted (and the distributors keeping all your proceeds for themselves).
Just to bring it back on topic:
Age of Consent has nothing to do with characters in a story.
But Age of Consent may matter a great deal to characters in a story, if they're trying to follow the law.
But Age of Consent may matter a great deal to characters in a story, if they're trying to follow the law.
But the Age of Consent in a story is not necessarily the same as the age of consent in the real (and/or present day) world.
for example, if you are doing a historical western, and you are being accurate about it, the age of consent in the US was, depending on the state, between 10 and 12 until the late 19th early 20th century.
But the Age of Consent in a story is not necessarily the same as the age of consent in the real (and/or present day) world.
for example, if you are doing a historical western, and you are being accurate about it, the age of consent in the US was, depending on the state, between 10 and 12 until the late 19th early 20th century.
I agree with what you said and wish to give an example look at Game of Thrones TV vs. Books (written as a period piece)
Character Name Book Age TV Show Age
Daenerys Targaryen 13 16
Jon Snow 14 17
Brandon Stark 7 10
Sansa Stark 11 13
Arya Stark 9 11
Joffrey Baratheon 11 16
Yes the books are fiction but for the time period they depict the ages are correct but even HBO had to make adjustments if they wanted to be able to have an audience that would be able to watch the show,
Oh, definitely. I've had multiple age-of-consent questions come up in my story, which is set in Texas in 1980 (to 1982, so far, writing-wise), and the age of consent then is not what it is now. Similar, but not the same. They had something resembling a 'Romeo & Juliet' provision, but more strict than the current one.
Fortunately, the ages of consent match SOL's rules in terms of a minimum of 14. There's only a two-year window, though, so 14-year-olds will be out in a while, at least for my primary characters.
Maybe I'm wrong, but I recall a plethora of threads on the subject. These necrothreads are a bit much.
Never mind demographic trends are indicating that many people under the age of 40 will likely live to see population decline on a global scale without need for a war, natural disaster, or other government enforced population controls to make it happen.
Why would that be true? I've read that Russia is having population declines. Are there other places? West Virginia?
Why would that be true? I've read that Russia is having population declines. Are there other places? West Virginia?
Japan, Ukraine, Greece, Poland, Italy, Lebanon, etc.
Never mind demographic trends are indicating that many people under the age of 40 will likely live to see population decline on a global scale without need for a war, natural disaster, or other government enforced population controls to make it happen.
Why would that be true? I've read that Russia is having population declines. Are there other places? West Virginia?
NEW YORK: The fertility rate, or the average number of births per woman, is typically of little concern for government and business leaders until it brings about population decline, shrinking the labor force and substantially increasing the proportion of elderly. Decline begins when fertility falls and remains below the replacement level of about two births per woman
A half-century ago six countries – Czechia, Estonia, Hungary, Japan, Latvia and Ukraine, 5 percent of the world's population – reported fertility rates slightly below replacement level. Today a record high of 83 countries, representing about half of the world's population, report below-replacement level rates. By 2050 more than 130 countries, or about two-thirds of the world's population, are projected to have fertility rates below replacement level.
Why would that be true? I've read that Russia is having population declines. Are there other places? West Virginia?
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/07/14/world/americas/global-population-trends.html
Note, the US would be seeing population declines if not for immigration.
Note, the US would be seeing population declines if not for immigration.
Yup, except for Catholics, Mormons and some much smaller groupings, the "natural born American" population is below replacement level across basically every other demographic except recent immigrants, who being immigrants weren't born in the United States.
It isn't just 1st world nations with this problem even. Even Brazil has "a population diamond" at this point and is on track for a population decline. Mexico's demographic trend actually looks a lot like the United States, just lagging it by about 30 years. Except their recent data is suggesting they're about to turn into a "diamond" as well over the coming decades as fertility rates are starting to drop.
Why would that be true? I've read that Russia is having population declines. Are there other places? West Virginia?
Looking at my ancestors on line, I see one set of great-grandparents had 15 kids, another 12.
Grandparents - 3 and 5
Parents - 2
Me - 0
There's a trend here.
Looking at my ancestors on line, I see one set of great-grandparents had 15 kids, another 12.
There should be 4 sets of great-grand parents.
You have two parents.
Each of your two parents have two parents making 4 (two pairs) of grandparents.
Each of your four grandparents have two parents, which makes 8 great grandparents (4 pairs).
There should be 4 sets of great-grand parents.
You have two parents.
Each of your two parents have two parents making 4 (two pairs) of grandparents.
Each of your four grandparents have two parents, which makes 8 great grandparents (4 pairs).
Maybe they are from one of those families that have a family tree with roots but no branches ;)
There should be 4 sets of great-grand parents.
Maybe he's from Kentucky. The grandparents were brother and sister. Problem solved.
There should be 4 sets of great-grand parents.
You have two parents.
Each of your two parents have two parents making 4 (two pairs) of grandparents.
Each of your four grandparents have two parents, which makes 8 great grandparents (4 pairs).
Gee thanks, I would have never known.
What I wrote stands. The other great-grandparents are not found on Ancestry dot com, and no one alive recalls exactly how many kids they had. Therefore, irrelevant to the discussion.
There's a trend here.
Increasing dissatisfaction with the quality of the offspring? ;-)
(Sorry, couldn't resist)
AJ
I've no resources to study or verify it, but imo the decline is due to genetic memory, in part at least. People from harsher environments tend to die earlier, while people from calm environments live longer on average. Those in the latter group are also from the areas experiencing population declines.
If I had more time, I'd try to pin that down, but time is something I lack these days.
I've no resources to study or verify it, but imo the decline is due to genetic memory, in part at least.
From what I've read, from people who study population dynamics, fertility rates have been dropping in industrialized nations almost since the start of the industrial revolution.
According to the population experts, there are several factors that drive this.
decreasing infant/childhood mortaility
Increasing general prosperity.
Social Security type programs, in other words government funded retirement.
Education.
The theory is that very poor people in pre-industrial societies have such large families, first to compensate for a significant fraction of the kids not surviving to adulthood, and beyond that so there are enough surviving kids to take care of the parents in their old age.
The first three factors, removing the pressures for large families push the fertility rate down to near replacement levels.
Higher average levels of education among a population seem to push the fertility rate even lower.
I make it simpler:
In an agricultural society, children are a necessity.
In an industrialized society, children are a luxury.
I make it simpler:
In an agricultural society, children are a necessity.
In an industrialized society, children are a luxury.
The problem with that is that in an industrialized society, fertility rates drop a lot even among the top 1% of the wealthiest.
If it wast just cost/benefit, kids would become a status symbol. So why aren't the top 1% still having large families?
If it wast just cost/benefit, kids would become a status symbol. So why aren't the top 1% still having large families?
Inheritance issues - especially when a (major) part of the wealth is in shares or stocks of companies.
If it wast just cost/benefit, kids would become a status symbol. So why aren't the top 1% still having large families?
When women achieve control over their fertility, they choose to lessen their burden. Even women of high status would not want to be 'tied down too long' having babies.
Modern society paints children as this huge burden and women go along very easily.
The problem with that is that in an industrialized society, fertility rates drop a lot even among the top 1% of the wealthiest.
The theory is that very poor people in pre-industrial societies have such large families, first to compensate for a significant fraction of the kids not surviving to adulthood, and beyond that so there are enough surviving kids to take care of the parents in their old age.
I've no resources to study or verify it, but imo the decline is due to genetic memory, in part at least. People from harsher environments tend to die earlier, while people from calm environments live longer on average. Those in the latter group are also from the areas experiencing population declines.
Looking at my ancestors on line, I see one set of great-grandparents had 15 kids, another 12.
Did you not locate information about the other two great-grandparents?
Why would that be true? I've read that Russia is having population declines. Are there other places? West Virginia?
@Dominions Son @Not_a_ID
As I prevaricated, I lack the time to dig into it properly. Both of you, or a combination of the two, may well be right.
Genetic memory is not well understood, and only in recent times, has the premise been considered viable to science, albeit poorly understood.
My postulate is that the pressure to procreate is greater on populations in harsher environments than it is in more secure environments. That in turn lessens the imperative to procreate resulting in population declines among other things.
It's definitely outside my wheelhouse of specializations either way, so I may well be extremely off base. My opinion is based on observations from multiple countries of poor to rich societies, but it wasn't something I was actively taking note of.
Genetic memory is not well understood, and only in recent times, has the premise been considered viable to science, albeit poorly understood.
There was literally ONE experiment that lent this idea any kind of validity and the researchers couldn't find any reason why it apparently worker.
On this topic - there is a story by Kelly85 posted today about an 8 year old giving her father a handjob.
"Contact" link at the top right of the main page of the site (At least for the classic skin) use it to let Laz and/or his mods know about it so they can make a determination.
On this topic - there is a story by Kelly85 posted today about an 8 year old giving her father a handjob.
And why don't you report it to me so that I can deal with it?
We don't have the time to read all the submissions to make sure none of them are in violation of rule #7. We have to rely on readers like you to let us know.
Thanks, I got it. reading the story to see.
Update: read it, very over the limit. Story deleted. Author warned. I may have to delete all of Kelly85's stories at this rate.
One of my stories has a 14 year old young lady in it, and I haven't had any negative feedback or issues with posting here. Pretty graphic at times as well, so i'm pretty sure youll be fine
So, what you all are saying is that when I was a teen I broke the law ...
Technically yes, and it was a felony.
The way most state's statutory rape laws are written, if two 14 year olds have consensual sex with each other, without a Romeo & Juliet exception, which are a relatively recent development, both could be charged with statutory rape, which is a felony and would put you on a sex offender registry for life.
I imagine the law only applies to humans and humanoids.
If Gargoids are sexually mature at 6, you should be able to describe in gory detail the reproductive rituals of Gargoids of that age. (The male woos then impregnates the female via penis and vagina analogues, then the female woos and impregnates the mother's womb with the fertilised ovum via an ovipositor.)
AJ
If Gargoids are sexually mature at 6, you should be able to describe in gory detail the reproductive rituals of Gargoids of that age.
Yes.
One of my stories has a character that is an anthropomorphic female tiger. However, she was born on 4 legs and underwent the anthropomorphic transformation after reaching sexual maturity (around 4 years for a tiger). In calendar terms in the story she's only 8, but judged from appearance by human terms she would appear to be 19-20.
I cleared this with Lazeez. The only restriction he gave me is that she can't act like a human child.
At the point she's introduced to the story she only has around a 5th grade education, but personality wise, if I've written it right, she should come across more as feral cat than human child.
With non-human characters you can play around with age more, as long as you aren't making them look and/or act like a human child.
The only restriction he gave me is that she can't act like a human child.
Sounds sensible.
At the point she's introduced to the story she only has around a 5th grade education
So, not much better than the average politician then ;-)
AJ
humanoids
What about fully-conscious nearly-human-indistinguishable android sex doll?
They could range in useful lifetime from one week or less for highly experimental models to comparable to a house pet (5 to 10 years) out of technological or marketing considerations, or up to borderline immortal (assuming constant and timely service or self-regenitive-super-magi-tech).
I would expect such to be valid as long they're explicitly mature-like at creation or point of sale, or at least first described use case.
Then, incomplete, unadjusted or simply weird AI could be messed up in variety of ways including absent or orthogonal ethics and/or morality. Slippery slope there's for sure, but as long the presentation remains quite different from a human child there's an argument it should be allowed.
So, is it?
