The no-underage characters rule

[MILFWanker]

Personally, as someone living in the UK, where the legal age of consent is sixteen, I feel that it is simply ridiculous that in America you must be eighteen. I would personally be of the belief you have all the capable knowledge to make a decision about sex from the age of fifteen, although I do believe that to prevent child molestation you would not be allowed to have sex with someone under the age of seventeen but over the age of consent unless you were under twenty one. I feel that this taken into consideration, the rule should be more lenient, and I also feel that if it is not real, penetrative sexual intercourse, it should be allowed. I am aware that the sort of person who dreams of performing such acts on children is a twisted person who should have a check up, but I, as someone who finds feet fetishes and furry fetishes just as creepy, feel that such horrors are still allowed on this website, and it is only the underage restriction that isn't.

 

[HaremStarter]

Most US states have age of consent as 16 a handful are 17 or 18. The reason for the no under 18 is because of a federal law which makes using communication for sex with a minor. Even though it's a federal law it is enforced state by state thus the highest age limit must be used in order to avoid any legal entanglements.

Personally I think 16 and up is fine but some states are still behind on the times.

 

[Duskford]

Chyoa is absolutely right to want to comply with the law, but there are major fanfiction sites, not even with focus on erotica, that let their users post descriptive sex stories involving underage characters, like fanfiction .net and archive of our own, amongst others.

 

[merkros]

As mentioned by Kaitou in the first page, the problem is less to do with writing stories about underage characters and more the risk of opening up the site to people posting nepiophilic, pedophilic, or hebephilic images and then the site getting into trouble because of it.

One could say that with proper moderation, any images that fall into those categories could be taken down. However, there's no guarantee that they would be found or even noticed before the site got into hot water over them.

 

[hematoma]

I support a firm 18+ rule on explicit sex and I think the only situation where you should be talking about under 18 sex is if a character is remembering non-detailed encounters or something along those lines. Like, "I gave my first blowjob at 15" but not describing it or using that encounter for explicit erotic purposes. Even if you don't agree with the 18+ rule because of consent laws where you live, you sort of have to go with the oldest minimum age because of the global nature of the Internet.

 

[Nemo of Utopia]

Agreed, I myself have had characters who have said "I lost my virginity at 16..." but nothing further, because, lets face it, it happens. You can't make that sort of thing stop by saying it's forbidden, all you can do is ameliorate the BAD parts and risky side of it.

 

[majus]

A few years back I created a story whose main character is an adult in his thirties but looks like 12 years old boy (due to rare disease). But because of my fear of breaking under-age rule, I never continued the story beyond the introduction.

Sometimes I think that it would be easier to write a story with the main hero being a pygmy, than worrying, with every new chapter, that you might step out of the line...

 

[TheDespaxas]

I Have a question. About non human characters.

In my latest story there are goblins, they don't live long, die often, breed like rabbits to compensate. They have 3 months pregnancies and are adult at 10 years (living 30 to 35 top) at this age they are physically adults and as mature mentally as a goblin can become.

Considering that this is the age of adulthood for a goblin and that they are smart enough to give consent and all the rest, would it break the rules.

Same in reverse with elves, some are physically adult by human standards but not recognized as mature adults until 50 years. Would banging a 35 year old elf looking like a 20 year old human would be frowned upon? The elf is biologically adult, the deciding factor is only cultural (and not uniform in different elves factions.)

 

[RicoLouis]

I would say it is okay as long as they are full grown adults for their race.

 

[Loeman]

For reasonable people, the spirit of the rule would indicate physical and mental maturity should be the most important pieces when considering age limits of non humans or modified humans.

... That's not a guarantee of anything.

 

[merkros]

I Have a question. About non human characters.

In my latest story there are goblins, they don't live long, die often, breed like rabbits to compensate. They have 3 months pregnancies and are adult at 10 years (living 30 to 35 top) at this age they are physically adults and as mature mentally as a goblin can become.

Considering that this is the age of adulthood for a goblin and that they are smart enough to give consent and all the rest, would it break the rules.

Same in reverse with elves, some are physically adult by human standards but not recognized as mature adults until 50 years. Would banging a 35 year old elf looking like a 20 year old human would be frowned upon?

Non-Human/Fictional Creatures are always subject to The Harkness Test. In this case, I would expect that banging the goblins would be fine, but banging the elf would not be.

In the case of the elves, sure they may look like an adult to a human, but are not considered an adult by the elves standard. Imagine it happened to us humans. Some shorter-lived race came out of the woodwork and banged a 14 year old. I don't think the argument of "Well, she looks like an adult by our standards" is going to cut it.

The problem with The Harkness Test has always been that it doesn't address the gray areas that have come up in this thread all too often. The "Lolivampries", or shapeshifters, or things like @majus 's example. The Harkness Test doesn't really properly address those things.

 

[Cr4ck]

While I don't support any kiddy fiddling etc irl, I do feel this entire subject is a bit odd for fanfics etc. The fact that anything would be "not allowed" is just weird, let me explain my thought process:

First I would look at why pedophilia irl is banned in the first place, cuz in essence its "just" a fetish that some people have. So why is it banned? Well because it would hurt the children involved and they might not be at a stage in their life where they are informed enough to make a reasonable decision. Most sane ppl thinks that this is a good thing and we can all agree that that should be the law of the land, so in short its there to protect the children.

However, the problem I have with banning anything is that I doubt anyone who wrote this law had in mind of protecting children that doesn't actually exist. A sexual act in a fanfic or similar doesn't actually affect a real child. You could definitely make the case to ban it in real porn because it would involve real children partaking in the act, but in things such as hentai, fanfics, etc nobody is harmed. Not only that, but the whole "consent" factor is removed, because there isn't a underage child making the decisions in the story (usually at least), as most erotica is made by people over the legal age. The legal age is another thing that I find weird in itself, in the US its 18, in UK 16, in Sweden 15 and in Japan its 13. Why would anyone of these magically take priority over the others? I understand that if the website is located in America then you would follow their laws, but morally speaking you cant make an argument defending one over the others.

This reasoning extends to most other tabu fetishes like bestiality, guro and even rape. Most of these things are illegal because they hurt people or animals in real life when performed but that's not a thing in fantasy land so why ban it at all? And if people don't like it then don't bother reading it. You might want to argue that it encourages it in real life, but that's the same fallacy as saying that video games makes people more violent. You cant ban something because you think its going to influence people negatively, and if you did then the current guidelines aren't consistent because then topics such as rape and incest should be banned as well.

Edit: Also another thing that makes the whole thing kind of irrelevant (which also kind of further proves my point about the characters being fictional and not existing irl) is that authors can simply change the age of the characters. Want to create a Naruto fanfic? No problem just state at the start that you added a couple of years to everyone but didnt change the appearance or behaviour at all. Because it's only text, the age is really "only a number" (Boy does this make me sound bad or what? lol), a number anyone can change whenever they want so it just forces authors to add stupid things to their stories to play around the rule. There exists animes where girls have breasts any porn star would dream of having and then they go "oh btw, shes 14", yea right. And reversly there are some where a girl is drawn as a 10 year old but they say shes 1000+ just to allow people to have their loli fetishes.

Anyways that's just my two cents on it, going to add a huge DISCLAIMER here because I feel its needed when talking about these topics:
I do not condone child porn, bestiality, rape, guro or any other illegal things in real life, this is ONLY for fictional characters.

 

[Kaitou1412]

However, the problem I have with banning anything is that I doubt anyone who wrote this law had in mind of protecting children that doesn't actually exist.

They actually did. The PROTECT Act explicitly bars animated images of children that are ruled obscene by The Miller Test. As you suggested, the argument was on the grounds of animated child pornography encouraging the production of photographic child pornography. Ignoring everything you've said to counter that fallacy, the main problem is "obscenity" is not considered protected free speech under The First Amendment, thereby letting the law represent anything it wants for "obscene" material. Even today, The Comic Book Legal Defense Fund is still fighting this element of The PROTECT Act on the grounds it makes most manga collections illegal child pornography collections - this is how poorly defined "obscenity" is in the law. As such, even a benign animated image of an under-18 posted on a pornographic website like ours can get CHYOA shut down.

And that leads me back to the bigger half of the problem I mentioned on page one. Just as obscenity itself is very poorly defined by US law, the amount of effort a website can exert to fix it before being subject to shut down is also poorly defined. If an overly ambitious federal agent stumbles across any picture of an under-18 person on CHYOA, we could lose the site before anyone in a position to rectify the situation even has the opportunity. And the litigation to get the site back could take so long that much of the community could leave anyway, and that's assuming Friedman even decides to pursue it. We have moderately better odds right now just on the grounds that we forbid anything under 18. Even our photos included, should they prove to be ephebophilic (fully developed physically, yet still under age), are marketed on site and at our sources with the pretense of legal; if we make a mistake, they're more likely to believe it's a mistake. However, even that is pressing our luck far beyond my comfort level.

There's no firm definitions of obscenity, effort to remove illegal obscenity, and the protections of those unjustly in the cross hairs. I am in favor of fighting this absurdity, but not on CHYOA. The risk we run by involving the site isn't worth it.

 

[Cr4ck]

There's no firm definitions of obscenity, effort to remove illegal obscenity, and the protections of those unjustly in the cross hairs. I am in favor of fighting this absurdity, but not on CHYOA. The risk we run by involving the site isn't worth it.

^ Dont get me wrong, my argument was never to start a revolution on this site and have it die as a result of it for "the greater good", I'm just making a moral argument. Like you said there is no deffinition of obscenity and its completely subjective, and like I said if you should classify everything illegal as obscene then you HAVE to ban other fetishes like rape as well. Basicly I'm not dissagreeing with you, If CHYOA is located in the US the obviously follow their laws. Its more that I'm criticising the US law more then anything.

 

[Nemo of Utopia]

There's no firm definitions of obscenity, effort to remove illegal obscenity, and the protections of those unjustly in the cross hairs. I am in favor of fighting this absurdity, but not on CHYOA. The risk we run by involving the site isn't worth it.

As I may have mentioned previously, I personally am in favor of playing it safe and removing both of the more questionable cattagories, Incest and Nonconsent, entirely, but I am aware that this is highly unlikely...

 

[Cr4ck]

As I may have mentioned previously, I personally am in favor of playing it safe and removing both of the more questionable cattagories, Incest and Nonconsent, entirely, but I am aware that this is highly unlikely...

But why tho? Only because they are against the law irl? In that case not long ago were u/wouldve you ben against things such as gay erotica just because it was against the law to be homosexual? And if its not becaue its illegal why would any of your personal fetishes have more priority over someone elses? Just because you deem theirs to be offensive?

I think its way more healthy to live and let live, let others do their own thing (as long as nobody else is hurt because of it) and if you personaly dislike it then simply dont partake in it.

 

[Nemo of Utopia]

Your logic makes a fundamental leap which is inaccurate: to whit, that the root of my opposition is either legal OR preferential grounds.

It's not.

The root of my opposition is the same as the root of my opposition to child pornography, even in literary form: to whit; it's WRONG.

No modern culture IN THE WORLD openly condones rape OR incest.

This is not merely on the grounds of Judaic/Islamic/Christian religion, else why would COMMUNIST CHINA have executed every male person over the age of six in an entire village because ONE man in the village was serial rapist? No this is because these acts are fundamentally and inherently dangerous to the body politic. Not only that but they are destructive both to the victim and perpetrator.

My objection is one of morality, not legality, taste, or faith: some things are simply WRONG, and I will fight them by any means at my disposal.

 

[Kaitou1412]

^ Dont get me wrong, my argument was never to start a revolution on this site and have it die as a result of it for "the greater good", I'm just making a moral argument. Like you said there is no deffinition of obscenity and its completely subjective, and like I said if you should classify everything illegal as obscene then you HAVE to ban other fetishes like rape as well. Basicly I'm not dissagreeing with you, If CHYOA is located in the US the obviously follow their laws. Its more that I'm criticising the US law more then anything.

Yeah, I failed to separate it myself. I only intended to point out that we actually went to the trouble of protecting fictional people with The PROTECT Act, even if the spirit is meant to be for real children. After that, I was just reiterating the main problem with CHYOA involving under-18 characters now that we're image friendly since that seems to have been swept aside by everyone else.

As I may have mentioned previously, I personally am in favor of playing it safe and removing both of the more questionable cattagories, Incest and Nonconsent, entirely, but I am aware that this is highly unlikely...

Predominantly because there's no federal mandates. The PROTECT Act is federal opposition of all non-verbal child pornography. Rape and incest fall to Roth v. United States, which states that obscenity is not protected speech, as well as Miller v. California, which set the absurd definition. Since there's no federal acts specifically outlawing and threatening such fantasies, legally they fall to local legislation under Miller v. California until someone finally follows through with United States v. Kilbride and sets a national standard for obscenity. That said, I'd much rather overturn Roth v. United States or better distinguish pornography from obscenity.

Okay, went way off again. The point is incest and rape, while ugly subjects, do not by themselves meet obscenity, and a staggering number of 70s and 80s slasher flicks are the best examples of this (not all, though, some are extremely good). Countless killers who were rapists, and the occasional incestuous relationship amounted to dirty, but not obscene, despite several "obscene" materials having far more artistic value in both effort and product. Some were barred from certain theaters and regions, but most went nationally uninhibited and can still be purchased anywhere in the country to this day. Between the lack of a national standard and the standards already set for exploitation and pornography (which are completely distinct from obscene apparently), there's actually very little risk in running those two categories. That's why they'll likely stand unless the national standard is ever set and runs in your favor.

EDIT:

My objection is one of morality, not legality, taste, or faith: some things are simply WRONG, and I will fight them by any means at my disposal.

Morality is entirely subjective, a fancy term for "personally prefered ideology." Just look at the death penalty, gun control, imprisonment, and more. The first two are among the most polarizing issues in the United States, and each side is talking about morality. The third, meanwhile, is a contradiction we've all become blind to; it's illegal when a private citizen does it, yet it's perfectly legal when called "prison." Good and evil are inherently the same thing, simply viewed under different perspectives, and each one called "moral" by one person and "immoral" by another. As such, morality is fluid, not the firm thing you describe it to be, just as Cr4ck suggests.

 

[Loeman]

This whole thing is going in circles... Except for the legality of the matter, which us both interesting and informative.

Actions can be heinous. Degrees of moral relativism floating around here or not I hope we can all agree on that.

Fantasies, those not spread as guidelines for action or belief, are much harder to prove as heinous or harmful or notably immoral. Even when they are shared.

Nemo, you're going to have a hard time convincing people in this sort of setting that the fantasies you're talking about are immoral or wrong.

It's very easy to argue that your objections lie closer to the realm of good taste than morality. Those arguments have already been, to some extent, made.

Nemo, I think that you simply find it repugnant that people can actually find enjoyment in and get turned on by and get themselves to completion by viewing stuff that is gross or horrifying or disturbing, to you and to most sensible people.

Many people have strange or sick minds when it comes to sex.

There's nothing wrong with you not liking that.

But what you should understand, if not like, is that the sharing of those sick thoughts and fantasies for gratification purposes is still not necessarily immoral/wrong.

The underage stuff is a legal matter, which Kaitou has been kind enough to elaborate on.

Its also a practical matter. Having site guidelines for acceptable content can help attract readers and authors, even while it restricts or keeps others away.

By the sheer amount of fetish stories posted that violate your standards of decency, and the likes/popularity they have received, it is highly unlikely this particular site would benefit (in terms of attracting/retaining readers/authors) more than it would be harmed, from banning the content you wish.

Anyway, closer to on-topic, as far as I've been able to keep track of we've still been stuck with a very shady gray area under the currently established rules of 'underage' potential characters that includes lolipires, lolidemons, age regression (physical and/or mental, each a potential separate issue), age suppression (likewise physical and/or mental), etc.

*I edited this post a bunch of times.

 

[Cr4ck]

The root of my opposition is the same as the root of my opposition to child pornography, even in literary form: to whit; it's WRONG.

Similar to what Kaitou1412 alrdy pointed out, the "It's wrong" statement isnt something you can defend. You personaly can chose to see it as wrong/offensive however others might not, and you dont have any firm reasons to why you think its wrong other then just thinking its wrong because you have created that world view for yourself. Essentialy, for you to be able to claim that anything is "wrong", you need to present a consistant argument to why it would be, wether it being hurting other people, removing or breaking other peoples human rights, etc (This goes for all arguments, not just porn related things) so that there can be no subjectivity around the matter. Saying that multiple places in the world are against it when it happens in real life also doesnt defend it from happening in fantasy and things like incest is a topic all for itself, cuz if you look at why incest is banned the official reason is that it would potentialy hurt the children of those families because of how the genetics works. So then should two gay brothers be allowed to be togheter? They cant get kids so the reason isnt applicable anymore.

In short (and I realise that this sounds a bit mean, but take it for what it is), you think that you are making a moral argument and not a legal one, but you arent as you base your moral viewpoints on the laws around the world. If I ask you why you think its "wrong" and your response is "because no modern culture in the world condones it" then thats a legal argument, you think its wrong because its illegal everywere. You need to ask yourself why you think its wrong and ignore the laws to get to your moral basis and then after that you need to apply that basis to fantasy and see if it still applies.