[None]

Pug:

One more time.. In case you missed it. Ashcroft vs. Free Speech[/i] no longer applicable as the measures in the CPPA have been changed due to the 2003 Protect Act. Simulated depictions are no longer safe.

Read it carefully beginning with 1466A.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_the_United_States

[alex]

I read a bunch of the stories in Brawna, and never once saw anything that would constitute pedophilia.

Correct me if I’m wrong, but pedophilia is the sexual objectification of a prepubescent child or a child under the age of 12.

Once the girl develops womanly features and starts menstruating, it’s no longer pedophilia. It may be immoral or illegal depending on the age or the culture, but it’s within the realm of “natural”. In some places the age of consent is 15, others 16 or 18.

For the vast majority of humanity’s history, girls would marry once they became “women” (started menstruating and developed curves). Was mankind made solely of sexual perverts during all this time? My first sexual encounter was with a 14 year old (I was 15). Was I a pedo?

Sure, society has evolved, and morality along with it. It’s in entirely bad taste and illegal in most countries for an adult man to have sex with a minor (be it 16 or 18), or for minors to be explored for sex. But I sincerely fail to see why you can’t have stories featuring a sexually active teenagers. If being sexually active under the age of 18 is the basis for Captr’s definition of pedophilia, then pretty much the majority of my favorite authors on Brawna, TheValkirye, such as Marknew, Helplesscase, Crazyfck, Lingster, Hunter S Creek , Puppetman , Littleman, and all the others who shown sexual things happening to highschoolers are pedophiles.

[platinumbird62]

For whatever it’s worth….

I have written a few stories and posted them on Brawna, and was working on another story. I stopped, and never posted any of them (in fact, I deleted them off my computer) when I realized the story could easily be interpreted as child pornography. It involved two youngsters and a journey of sexual discovery, and even though the characters were the same (young) age, it became clear that the content was questionable and possibly illegal. So, no more. That particular story will remain in my imagination.

[None]

Alex…

A twelve year old, I don’t care how physically developed they are, is still a child. As for the other authors you’re mentioning, I don’t personally recall them ever fetishizing a character that young and it seems by inserting the word “pedophile” into the conversation it would seem to me, as if you’re attempting to insert words I never said or implant a “red herring”. So far, everyone who has commented on this, has stated that they’ve felt extremely uncomfortable or “sick” reading of a story fetishizing a character so young so why can’t we employ some common sense and apply that to the literature of this community and in the process do a CYA? My advocacy of the age of 18 as common sense benchmark for legal reasoning is based on federal statute as it applies to the adult film and pornographic industry which the courts have recognized as protect speech as long as it employs stars above that age and because Brawna is basically a fetish site with erotic and explicit sexual material, it might be wise to employ a similar standard and thus avoid any potential future pitfalls.

But I guess, according to many here, that makes me crazy for thinking so.

Regardless of how, Pug, or anyone else wants to argue, in the end, I still don’t understand the fascination of writers with YOUNG teenagers. While the authors you mentioned may have had 16 year old characters, none of their stories went to that extreme, and if we used Pug’s age of consent standard, then they were fine. Personally, I think that if any of us were to see a 40 year old man attempting to sexually seduce a 16 year old, most of us (not those arguing a somewhat absurd relativist viewpoint) would probably find that abhorrent as does the law. So why do people feel the need fetishize it explicity in fiction?

It can be troubling at times and people, and this community, will be judged by the company it keeps and things it users post. Hence, I’m not posting.

But hey, I guess that’s just me.

Now, I REALLY don’t know how much more I can say. I really don’t so if you all want to respond please feel free but I think my reasoning is exhausted.

With all of that said, I’d REALLY like to find a time and place to post again as I have a burning idea of where events and my characters were going. Maybe I’ll change my mind (as I said Part IV is done) but after all of this, I’m hesitant.

[Pug]

Pug:

One more time.. In case you missed it. [i][i]Ashcroft vs. Free Speech[/i][/i] no longer applicable as the measures in the CPPA have been changed due to the 2003 Protect Act. Simulated depictions are no longer safe.

Read it carefully beginning with 1466A.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Child_pornography_laws_in_the_United_States

Well, I confess I was taken aback by that . . . until I actually read it all the way through.

I was taken aback on the first read, where I went “What, GWB simply signed another law that said the same thing and the Supreme court refused to see it to overturn it again? That makes me sick I can’t believe . . . oh, wait a sec . . .”

Facepalm – read what it actually says Mal. It declares simulated child pornography, which already meets the standard of obscenity, illegal.

But – simulated *obscenity* was already illegal if there was an obscenity clause, so we’re talking about stating that material that was already illegal because it meets the standard of obscenity, that also happens to simulates sex with a minor . . . is still definitely illegal. It literally changes nothing, except that it makes people think they ‘overturned’ the Ashcroft decision.

Actually, let me step that back slighty — it might not change ‘nothing’ — It raises any such obscenity to a federal crime and if there’s someplace that actually has no obscenity law it criminalizes it across all jurisdictions.

But seriously, it doesn’t actually say what it looks like it says at first glance, though I can understand why you read it that way.

Pug

[Pug]

Something that gets to me in this is –

Can we stop for a moment, and step back and mutually admit something.

I’ve read part of Lolita – I found it disturbing and quit, not because it wasn’t indecent, but because it was, to me, rather sick . . . and very well written, with literary value and insight into the human condition.

What we are arguing about is not the concept of a story like that that’s Obscene, by the legal definition of the term. I personally don’t think JimP’s stories have all that much literary value, but they certainly don’t meet the Supreme Court’s obscenity requirement of ‘*No* literary value’ either.

What you are concerned about is being in the same archive with a well written story that would be legally obscene, save for it’s valid or even strong literary value.

Am I wrong about this?

Pug

[None]

As for you comment on the link above, remember that defining “obscene” means work that is meant to appeal to the prurient interest. Lolita wasn’t published on an erotic fetish website and has been deemed, even though its nature may be uneasy, as having literary value (more on that below). When you combine the elements of the stories on Brawna, it’s intended audience, and then combine such severely underage characters in EXPLICIT sexual acts and explicit descriptions, that posted work, taken as a whole, is more than likely firmly “obscene.” If we were to take JIMP’s story, for example, and translate that into visual media, it would be considered “obscene” due to how explicit his story was.

I’ve never read “Lolita” but I have a feeling it probably wasn’t nearly as sexually descriptive and explicit as some of the stories (including mine of course) we have on Brawna.

Once again, the idea of “simulated” porn, was meant to stop a work, presenting valid artistic merit and not appealing to the prurient interest (not created to be pornographic and via i.e. the obscenity test) from being prosecuted if the work showed two adult actors (18+), playing as 16 year olds, having a moment in which sex is implied or in a BRIEF (not an explicit scene ie per 18 U.S.C. 1466 “depicts an image that is, or appears to be, of a minor engaging in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse, including genital-genital, oral-genital, anal-genital, or oral-anal, whether between persons of the same or opposite sex; ) possessing serious artistic intent and merit.

A pornographer, can’t do the same thing, involve explicit or obscene imagery (see above) with actors that look extremely young, cast them as 14 year olds in the film, and then claim “Oh, it has artistic merit!” and be completely free from questions. Sure, he’s covered his/her ass because they used actors that were 18+ but the graphic nature of the depiction in his/her film puts them in the legal crosshairs as his/her work was intended to appeal the prurient interest from the start gate and sexually explicit.

If you’ll pay attention to the article, “In Richmond, Virginia, on December 2005, Dwight Whorley was convicted under 18 U.S.C. 1466A for using a Virginia Employment Commission computer to receive “…obscene Japanese anime cartoons that graphically depicted prepubescent female children being forced to engage in genital-genital and oral-genital intercourse with adult males.”[5][6][7]”

Is it simulated? Yes. Does it involve people? No. Was it prosecutable? Yes.

Is it obscene vs a movie like say American Beauty (the one legal sources always site) or even “Lolita”? Yes. The actions in the above descriptions are tremendously explicit and are pretty much the same actions/writing that I’ve seen in the stories I’ve had issue with. Once again, if we were to take those same stories, put them to animation (involving no actors and completely “simulated”, they’d be just as problematic as the anime in the example above.

As for my work, I don’t want to post my stuff there 1. Because I don’t want my work, explicit as it is involving adults, to be associated with works involving children. It’s disturbing, disgusting, and I don’t want to converse with people who have a predilection for it.
[/b]

2. Because I know that there may be works that are legally questionable due to the obscene employment of underage characters (per these discussions), I, and I’m guessing many of you, don’t want to be associated with a site that (until proper safeguards are enacted) may have a possibility of being on the radar because such content was posted by a handful of users who screwed it for the rest of us. We don’t need to have our lives complicated because we knowingly posted or visited a website knowing that such material existed there.

Furthermore, if some nut job out there is looking to knock his socks off with stories of that content, does a google search, and Brawna comes up as a result, and he’s later arrested, well, Brawna is now on the radar.

That’s why I advocate the 18+ rule. If that type of content isn’t posted, deleted through good community effort, and as such Brawna doesn’t come up with that type of content in a search, then we don’t attract the wrong type of people here and we don’t have to worry about any of this. Hell, even SAYING 18+ takes away a lot of hassle in case a story is missed.

I don’t know how much more pragmatic and practical I can put it.

[alex]

Sorry, but this 18+ age thing for muscle stories is ridiculous. There are literally hundreds of stories in DtV, some really good, featuring high-schoolers. Lingster himself wrote one of my favorites, called “Will’s Power”.

If you feel so strongly about stories like this, you’re free to exercise your right not to read them, write them or even participate in sites that store and promote them. But don’t go raining on other people’s parade fella. Seriously! Have you ever seen the erotic story sites out there?! There are thousands of the weirdest, most horrifying things out there. There are sites with entire sections dedicated to sex between adults with minors, not to mention all the rape stories, snuff stories, scat stories and whatnot.

You, becoming a crusader for the immorality of teenage sex, in a site that promotes a fetish that empowers women, seems like an extreme over-reaction.

[Author]

Posts