A discussion on CHYOA Rules

[TheLeherengin]

This does actually make me wonder a few things...

One... How does say... Something that is lovecraftian in nature work... It's clearly more intelligent than a human, but it doesn't pass The Harkness test as it would be unable to technically give consent as it is incapable of communicating in any understandable way, also for that matter what about mindless beings that are nevertheless humanoid in nature. Like say a zombie? A zombie would not pass the harkness test would it? Also does the harkness test factor in the instigator? Like in the above mentioned lovecraftian concept... Would the creature instigating sexual interaction work as the required consent?

Two... So... Why is there a rule against excessive violence? As far as I understand there's no legal bearing behind that rule, it's clear that there's nothing illegal about depicting excessive levels of violence or gore even in a sexualized context, at least not in the majority of the world, I'm sure some countries might have laws about that.

 

[insertnamehere]

Rape is also morally repulsive if you ask me, and yet I'm getting told that non-con between adults is far better than wholesome high school cuddling? (because it's not just lolicons that are banned)

But I'll grant "it's not us, but erring on the side of caution for the stupid law", is at least the only legit and consistent excuse I have ever heard.

The problem is, of course, that nobody did. When I said 'considered', I meant considered by society or by those in power - whichever you deem appropriate - and not considered by you, personally. Additionally, there's no reason you can't depict "wholesome high school cuddling" in a CHYOA story, provided it is indeed wholesome and there's no groping or half-nudity or anything.

I also wouldn't call taking basic, standard measures to avoid serious criminal charges an 'excuse'.

One... How does say... Something that is lovecraftian in nature work... It's clearly more intelligent than a human, but it doesn't pass The Harkness test as it would be unable to technically give consent as it is incapable of communicating in any understandable way,

Well, technically, if it doesn't pass the Harkness test then it's bestiality... but realistically, it takes very little effort to simply write communicative ability into the story. You could also apply the Harkness test not to the Lovecraftian entity itself but to whatever aspect or form of it is involved in the sexual situation.

also for that matter what about mindless beings that are nevertheless humanoid in nature. Like say a zombie? A zombie would not pass the harkness test would it?

Remember that rule 2 doesn't read "everything must pass the Harkness test", but this:

All non-human creatures which are depicted in sexual situations must pass the Harkness test.

One of the details specified in defining these terms:

Plants, robots, animated objects, and human zombies aren't considered creatures

Also does the harkness test factor in the instigator? Like in the above mentioned lovecraftian concept... Would the creature instigating sexual interaction work as the required consent?

Not by default, but I imagine it could depending on the context. As strange as it sounds, the Harkness test cares about the ability to consent, not whether consent has actually been given. This means it is theoretically possible for a creature to have given consent without having the ability to give consent, for instance, they gave consent as a human and were then transformed into an animal during the sexual situation. Of course, such situations in practice don't naturally occur very often. I will say that if your creature has the communicative ability (verbal or physical) to instigate a sexual situation, then that communicative ability is probably sufficient to pass the Harkness test, but it's not guaranteed.

Two... So... Why is there a rule against excessive violence? As far as I understand there's no legal bearing behind that rule, it's clear that there's nothing illegal about depicting excessive levels of violence or gore even in a sexualized context, at least not in the majority of the world, I'm sure some countries might have laws about that.

I guess there must be some precedent for prosecuting such content. When it comes to excessively violent sexual content, there are certainly at least legal grey areas. I did check just now, and it seems that popular pornographic sites ban such content, or at least prevent searches for it - words like 'abuse' and 'violent' on Pornhub don't return anything, for example.

Note that rule 3 only covers excessive sexual violence or disturbingly extreme violence, not regular everyday violence. Excessive is a relative term - excessive of what? - so the details of the rule are more important than the name.

It is not allowed to depict excessive violence.

• It is not allowed to write scenes
  • where a character dies during sexual situations (e.g. by asphyxiation during sex)
  • which feature the cutting of genitals
  • in a gory manner
  • in a way that glorifies violence
  • which feature an excessive amount of violence which wouldn't be necessary to tell the story
• Power plays, non-consent fantasies, and a reasonable amount of violence are fine

 

[TheLeherengin]

These answers are certainly thought provoking and I certainly also feel stupid for forgetting zombies are specifically mentioned. Thank you.

 

[gene.sis]

The Harkness test is to be applied to the creature, not to the situation.

(Though you obviously need descriptions of the creature to show that they pass the Harkness test.)

 

[SeriousBrainDamage]

Rape is also morally repulsive if you ask me, and yet I'm getting told that non-con between adults is far better than wholesome high school cuddling? (because it's not just lolicons that are banned)

But I'll grant "it's not us, but erring on the side of caution for the stupid law", is at least the only legit and consistent excuse I have ever heard.

Don't know when, don't know where, I remember having read Nigeria is considering banning motorcycles or something like that.
They would supposedly do it because usually outlaws there use motorcyles to move around all the time, so they kind of thought: from now on motorcyles will be harder to come by and every time you see one, you will be certain it's a criminal riding on it.

Sounds kind of silly, right?

This is just to say that laws and morals don't have to coincide perfectly, they seldom do to be fair. There's no point, aside from the sake of argumenting, to try to prove it is stupid that rape content is permitted and, say, bestiality is not, being both just fiction.
They are both despicable things, their depiction in fictional works very less so, from a moral standpoint.

Lawmakers decided sex between minors shouldn't be depicted in a sexual way? **Shrugs** That's just the way it is, there are more than a few reason behind this, questionable sure, but there are.
To want to convince anyone that is fine to write about two 16yrs older having sex here is just pointless.
And that's coming from someone living in a place where the age of consent is 16.

The very bests you could obtain is to have also non-con content banned for equality, just saying...

 

[toni7]

Additionally, there's no reason you can't depict "wholesome high school cuddling" in a CHYOA story, provided it is indeed wholesome and there's no groping or half-nudity or anything.

I also wouldn't call taking basic, standard measures to avoid serious criminal charges an 'excuse'.

It is kinda, to the extent that you are acknowledging something subpar in name of some special other circumstance.
I'm not taking an issue with the website then.

I guess there must be some precedent for prosecuting such content. When it comes to excessively violent sexual content, there are certainly at least legal grey areas. I did check just now, and it seems that popular pornographic sites ban such content, or at least prevent searches for it - words like 'abuse' and 'violent' on Pornhub don't return anything, for example.

PH was burnt when the NYT exodus cry accomplice, searched for "violent sex" and "young teen" and sold to the world the idea that if something was written in the title then that's what was actually happening.

It's amusing anyway, that despite guro being as much an obscenity as I can think, I have never seen the law caring about it at all (though individual webmasters may of course decide otherwise)

Lawmakers decided sex between minors shouldn't be depicted in a sexual way? **Shrugs** That's just the way it is, there are more than a few reason behind this, questionable sure, but there are.
To want to convince anyone that is fine to write about two 16yrs older having sex here is just pointless.
And that's coming from someone living in a place where the age of consent is 16.

We are talking about the same country where teens can be persecuted for sexting each other, so..
It's pretty clear morals have nothing to do with this, it's just about having to brag about child protection, without actually doing anything concrete for it (gender equality, civics, mental health, machismo) because that would risk to diminish one's privilege.

The very bests you could obtain is to have also non-con content banned for equality, just saying...

I would not actually mind it, but too bad that would never happen, given (literally) half of society has/had forced sex fantasies.

 

[SeriousBrainDamage]

It is kinda, to the extent that you are acknowledging something subpar in name of some special other circumstance.
I'm not taking an issue with the website then.

PH was burnt when the NYT exodus cry accomplice, searched for "violent sex" and "young teen" and sold to the world the idea that if something was written in the title then that's what was actually happening.

It's amusing anyway, that despite guro being as much an obscenity as I can think, I have never seen the law caring about it at all (though individual webmasters may of course decide otherwise)

We are talking about the same country where teens can be persecuted for sexting each other, so..
It's pretty clear morals have nothing to do with this, it's just about having to brag about child protection, without actually doing anything concrete for it (gender equality, civics, mental health, machismo) because that would risk to diminish one's privilege.

Not sure what we are debating here anymore.
And you, you're just leaning to the wall, arms crossed, playing your wordly and cynical bystander part: the rules a stupid, the laws too, everyone (with a penis?) is bad, were all gonna die.

I (apparently !?) started this thread. Along the way it sort of became a place where to discuss the rules, in the sense of asking for clarifications, not to contest them on the basis of each one's personal moral code.
Don't get me wrong, I'm one for pointless and endless discussion most of the times, but I really can't see your point.

I would not actually mind it, but too bad that would never happen, given (literally) half of society has/had forced sex fantasies.

You don't go out much, right? That is bound to happen, soner or later. It's a race between the whole internet crashing down once and for all, and freedom of expression like we knew it dying of a horrible death.
Which one of the two will come first, I wonder.

Seven billions people constantly, 24/7, interacting between them with a delay of barely milliseconds. That's not a community, that's a whole new living being. We didn't evolve for this. Our brains can't handle all those interactions, that's why everyone is so easily offended nowdays.

We're becoming the sinapses of an enormous single brain, a brain that has just one single thought.

 

[merkros]

I would not actually mind it, but too bad that would never happen, given (literally) half of society has/had forced sex fantasies.

I'm very much a proponent of not censoring literature. Even stuff with a pornographic spin. Banning what people can read and write has a long and sordid history and pretty much none of it is positive. There are suggestions in this very discussion as to why that's a problem.

You cannot write a teen romance story about two 16-year-olds and their journey of sexual discovery. It could be one of the best stories ever written, put CHYOA on the map, and beat out 50-shades of gray as a bestseller. It could bridge the divide in America and cure cancer...all because some degenerate will use that opening to write a story where he sexually dominates a classroom of kids in some obvious pedo bait stuff.

We're becoming the sinapses of an enormous single brain, a brain that has just one single thought.

And that thought is...

 

[gene.sis]

I (apparently !?) started this thread.

Actually, you didn't.
I think it was I who requested the thread to be cut off another thread.

 

[SeriousBrainDamage]

Actually, you didn't.
I think it was I who requested the thread to be cut off another thread.

Yeah, well, I vaguely remembered something like that, that's why I wrote it that way. Yesterday I noticed my avatar was on the thread and went looking at the first post and recognized it was mine, but had no idea why I even posted something like that out of the blue back then.
Also the title doesn't feel like something I came up with.

I didn't mean to take any kind of credit.

 

[merkros]

Not by default, but I imagine it could depending on the context. As strange as it sounds, the Harkness test cares about the ability to consent, not whether consent has actually been given. This means it is theoretically possible for a creature to have given consent without having the ability to give consent, for instance, they gave consent as a human and were then transformed into an animal during the sexual situation. Of course, such situations in practice don't naturally occur very often. I will say that if your creature has the communicative ability (verbal or physical) to instigate a sexual situation, then that communicative ability is probably sufficient to pass the Harkness test, but it's not guaranteed.

So what you're saying is that a Cat Really Is Fine Too...

Spoiler