Forum Replies Created

Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 104 total)
  • Author
  • in reply to: Nomdreserv Stories Archived #109836

    Probably the best for those of us that like long drawn out stories is “Balance of Nature“.
    In Tennis, Love means nothing” is another great one.


    in reply to: Lookin for stories #109569

    Hey everyone been a lover of FMG for years first time poster though. Been looking for stories where the women are or become the dominant sex in the world. Through any means really weather magic science or what not. Any suggestions would be great

    Mark New has a lot of stories that follow women growing more and more powerful. Particulars are ‘The Spell’, ‘Pendant Changes’, Namow and the New Woman Series, but that’s just an ‘off the top of my head’ list.

    in reply to: Looking for stories! #109568

    I tend to have suspension of disbelief issues after the cube/square law starts whimpering so It’s not a genre I follow that much, but ‘Vore’ Giantess stories seem to be fairly common at Giantess City. I would be at least somewhat surprised if it didn’t have some that fir your parameters.


    in reply to: Didn’t AU Goose already write this story? #106697

    Okay – I was thinking of Imposer, but obviously I need to read more AU Goose stories..

    Also, kidnap him and add him to the authors I have imprisoned on my tropical island fortress.


    in reply to: Looking for old DTV Story #104463

    Unfortunately the story is not one that jumps out at me, but I tend more towards the “We screwed up and the Gods are punishing us with loads of gorgeous powerful women taking over” genre of Marknew/Valerafon.


    in reply to: Lookin for stories #104269

    Yeah, the author is kind of a jerk. What type of discussions have been going at the process forum?

    Half-decent writer though – {G}.

    in reply to: looking for story :( #103778

    The author has withdrawn that story from Brawna because of Policy disagreements. To the best of my knowledge he has not posted anywhere else.


    in reply to: Captreyn’s Star Stones Story #103629

    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?


    in reply to: Captreyn’s Star Stones Story #103628


    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.


    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.


    in reply to: Captreyn’s Star Stones Story #103609

    He’s a good writer – but
    Pug, first, I’m not sure what the Crazfck reference is about. That is from left field man.

    i . . . am amazed that you don’t. It was everywhere – Crzyfck is from Brazil, and has written stories having (From U.S. perspective) younger characters.

    Since Google has never (To the best of my knowledge) answered any inquiry, a this point the reasonable assumption is that people complained to Google.

    Pug: “A- in months of hearing this tirade (Over and Over) I’ve yet to hear him actually state which stories on Brawna he’s talking about.”

    I cited the stories above on this very thread.

    Fair enough – I did try and get that out of you before and could not. I let that buried frustration blind me to the fact that this time you did cite one of the stories. I searched and did find that the story makes the character age as 12.

    And frankly that hit my ‘ick’ factor sufficiently that I don’t want more information, but I’ve never really been a JP fan anyway. But ‘ick’ is not a justification for censorship.

    Pug: “B- amongst his tirades he’s made it quite clear that his objection is actually against any story which doesn’t recognizes the *exact* same age of consent he does, whether it’s from a different state or a different country.”

    Laws of the United States where the site is hosted and operated. I also think that most of the Western World generally recognizes the same standards.

    As per our prior discussion – you’re wrong. I just can’t say it clearer than that. In the United States itself the age of consent varies by 16 to 18 . . . if you assume the other party is an adult. In ‘civilized Europe, Spain has the lowest at 13, while in South America it goes as low as 12 – which is really the bellwether worldwide today.

    Georgia raised it’s age of consent to 16 . . . in 1995. Until the 1920’s the age of consent across the United States ranged from 10 to 12.

    Pug “- The Supreme Court has already ruled on this since Red Rose stories, that actually making (CGI) images is perfectly legal, overturning a federal law covering exactly that – so his assertion is based in fictional *imagery* being legal, but fictional text being illegal.

    This is incorrect. The Red Rose case occurred in 2008, this is AFTER the Ashcroft vs. Free Speech Coalition. As to Ashcroft, you and I discussed this in detail and I went through the potential legal reasoning, a legal reasoning, I might add, that was almost employed in the case above AFTER the Ashcroft ruling.

    A- Brawna’s TOS disclaims specifically against ‘obscenity’; a specific, and very hard to prove charge. Lolita doesn’t warrant it, nor do a lot of other things.
    B- The Red Rose case never went to trial.
    B(1)- The red rose case had a much larger chance of being declared flat obscenity. Enough for the lawyers defending her to recommend accepting a plea deal.
    B(2)- Evidently not *that* good – they were *offered* a plea deal.
    So . . . is there a legal risk to Brawna about carrying such material? Yes. JimP’s story could be declared Obscene.
    Is there a *likely* risk? No – the definition of ‘Obscenity’ is one the courts are loathe to invoke, and what JimP has isn’t even close to that standard. If the case law changes so drastically that JimP’s stories meet the legal definition of Obscene . . . then it’s not going to be subtle and stick there – Star Stones will be Obscene too My Bavarian Assignment well be Obscene, most of MarkNew will be obscene, and all of Crazyfcks writing will be Obscene.
    C- http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashcroft_v._Free_Speech_Coalition
    Their is nothing in this to make me think Red Rose would have lost their case. Ican see why they didn’t risk it, but read the decision.

    Now, Pug, on this thread, I haven’t attacked you, I merely answered the poster’s question. Could you please stop resorting to ad hominem?

    In the end, you may call it storming away, but I’m tired. I’m tired of having to fight every time I explain in my “rants” why I’m not posting and my assertion for some modicum of an easily met, common sense standard. I think it’s sad that I need to even have this conversation about explicit stories featuring young children here, in this posting community. I just don’t understand.

    But this is my final post here I believe.

    My frustration with you does not (IMO) qualify as an ad hominem. You have every right to not post your story anywhere, for any reason. And just as I would if I say a man storming out of an art gallery because his painting was in one wing of a museum that also exhibited that stupid ‘piss christ’ in another — it’s simultaneously
    A- within your rights,
    B- childishly pigheaded,
    C- advocating censorship.
    D- Hypocritical as hell

    Just because you’re within your rights to say “If you’re going to display porn I find offensive, I’m taking my porn and going home” doesn’t mean you get some points for taking a moral stance for the purity of fictional characters everywhere.

    At the end of the day, you want to label a highly-specific interpretation of a moral code, based on rules that have varied tremendously over the world and even here within the last century, and impose it as ‘common sense standard’ with which to censor peoples writing.

    I have a common sense standard too. “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.”


Viewing 10 posts - 1 through 10 (of 104 total)