HomeReviewsInterviewsStoreABlogsOn Writing

I really love you guys because you are my eyes and ears (Wait, wasn’t that a column run by one of the twins in F. Pascal’s Sweet Valley High?)

Anyway, I think I got to the bottom of the whole Mrs Giggles v Phaze thing. (Do these people ever learn?)

According to Alessia Brio’s blog post, Mrs G put up a post called Poetry, that read a little something like this:

“There are people who enjoy reading poetry, but I am not one of them. The only poetry for grown-ups that I can appreciate are those by WB Yeats, but that’s because he’s kinda cute in the photo on the cover of the collection of his poems that I own. Even if the poem in question is supposed to be erotic, it goes right over my head. I guess I’m just not that kind of literate/artistic people. I only like rude poems found in kiddie books, but that’s about it, I’m afraid.

But hey, don’t let me stop you from enjoying things like Phaze In Verse. It’s an EPPIE-nominated thing, after all. For the life of me, though, I can’t imagine what kind of poetry one can write about a publishing house. Sonnets of appreciation for getting published? Sordid haikus about the orgies that went on in the recent company Christmas party?

By the way, is it just me or Phaze’s publishing roster when it comes to erotic stuff comprise mostly folks from Literotica?”

Now I already read this entry a few days earlier, and you know me, I fancy I can smell an actual blog row from miles away, but I didn’t even get so much as a nose twitch.

Anyway, apparently, some of the rabid Phaze authors started getting all defensive and calling Mrs G, The Devil’s Spawn (erm.. paraphrasing obviously) for daring to suggest that they write porn for Literotica. or as Alessia Brio put it:

“A couple of Phaze authors posted clarifications”

Uh huh, I’ve seen e-authors and their clarifications before. *g*

From what I hear, it was a similar kind of total overreaction to that of some of the crazy people over at Changeling Press, after I posted what was supposed to be a public service announcement, albeit a little tongue-in-cheek.

It has been suggested that the reason that some of these authors reacted so badly is because some of them did indeed start life at Literotica, and perhaps don’t want the likes of me going and finding posts where they tell all and sundry about what they’re into. Apparently, some of the authors at Literotica are very graphic about their sex lives, and so the now respectable Phaze authors probably don’t want their sexual proclivities being unearthed. Ooh er missus.

Anyhoo, this is what Alessia Brio wrote on her blog:

“Yeah, it’s a little snarky… but, really, not too objectionable. (In truth, maybe 10% of Phaze’s roster of 120+ authors has Literotica roots, if that. I take the blame credit for that, as I enthusiastically encouraged some of my Lit colleagues to submit their work to Phaze. I also took one of the earlier Coming Together anthologies to Phaze. It will be released in print on the 7th, by the way. *grin*) I looked at the initial post as a positive, in general. Free publicity with a link directly to the buy page. A couple of Phaze authors posted clarifications and suddenly, we’re a coven of creepy authors for wanting to set the record straight.

A cult, mind you. I’d say that comes dangerously close to libel.

Seriously, what gives? Cults don’t allow their members to speak out. (Oh, wait — that was another publisher — one that blacklisted authors who didn’t behave.) Cults don’t let their members belong to other cults… erm, publishers. (Damn, close to half of Phaze’s roster has work also published elsewhere — with its blessing, even.) Cults don’t let their members go without a fight. (I can attest that no one’s a prisoner at Phaze.)

I have to say, I thought Mrs G was rather polite, I’d have been more likely to call them fucknuts, and tell them to get the fuck off my blog, so really, in the great scheme of things, a teeny tiny comment about a few of their authors being Literotica writers probably isn’t that bad methinks.

As for the authors who started life at Literotica, so far I got:

Alessia Brio
Aurora Black
Will Belegon
Selena Kitt

Apparently, there are quite a few more, but that would mean actually looking.

Ok I started looking and came across this question by a Lit author (I’m assuming he/she wasn’t from Phaze, but you never know.)

“I was wondering if It reading and writing about underage incest fantays..especially about younger girls….is as disgusting as I sometimes feel it is. I do NOT condone Kiddy porn NOR sexual abuse in any way of minors, but it is still a fantasy of mine….but not that I wan’t to be WITH the girl, but that I wan’t to BE the girl….so would writing fantays like that make me a bad person?”

He/she doesn’t condone kiddie porn, but fantasizes about having underage sex with a family member? Ok then.

This answer from one of the other members, made me want to go and take a bath:

“It is hard for me to believe that thinking is a crime, I certainly hope you WILL explore these fantasies for us in print. I would love to have a womans perspective on what it would be like to have sex at say 15 with your father….. I suspect the emotions and feelings would be far more erotic than anything I can imagine. Sex for the first time for a little girl has to be painful, but emotionally rewarding at the same time. I hope you will explore this! I know I would love to read it.”

Emotionally rewarding? Yeah, whatever. That dude is a pedo waiting to happen, if it hasn’t already.

Anyway, Selena Kitten, a current Phaze author thinks there’s no harm in it, because after all, it’s just a fantasy. She writes:

“But the FANTASY of such a thing – NOT the reality, the FANTASY… is a turn on for some. Of both genders. As DCL mentioned (god this is an OLD thread, isn’t it??) thinking is not a crime.

Unless I slipped into Big Brother territory when I wasn’t looking…
__________________
*~*~Selena~*~* “

I’m assuming that some of the authors might have engaged in similarly open conversations about their likes and dislikes, and just want it to stay hidden. Who can blame them? Blech.

The more I read, the more I decide I am way to prudish to continue, so I’ll let you guys read for yourselves. (Oh look out for some dude called Amicus, his views are…interesting, shall we say.)

It always amazes me that authors, especially those that are e-pubbed, seem to have so little self-control, when it comes to perceived slights. Dudes, if you’ve written for Literotica, why get mad over somebody publicising it? And if you haven’t written for Literotica, why assume that everybody will assume that you have written for them just because you write for the same publisher that former Literotica authors write for?

Did that last paragraph even make sense?

I’ve never been a Phaze fan, and having read three books that were kindly sent to me by one of the bods there, as well as the freebie stories that they offer up on their website, I don’t think that that status quo will change anytime soon (seeing as I hate badly edited books) and things like this just seals it for me.

And by the way, I can’t imagine that readers will care about whether or not their fave authors started life at Literotica, but the overreaction, now that’s always blogworthy. :)

Update:
Speaking of blogworthy, if any Phaze (or ex-Phaze) authors out there want to get in touch about some of the ‘interesting’ things that your fellow authors get up to, feel free to e-mail me at hairylemony @ gmail .com (without the spaces). You know me, confidentiality guaranteed. *g*

129 Comments »


  • rgraham666
    January 7
    3:53 pm

    Sigh.

    The hyperbole, on both sides, is getting quite out of hand.

    As far as writing goes, and the effect it has, I think Rod Serling said it best. “I am responsible to the public, not for the public.”

    Pedophilia is illegal and abhorrent. If a person does such a thing I have no problem with locking them in a dungeon so deep we have to lower their food to them in pressurized containers.

    That is an entirely different thing than writing or thinking about it though. There are many triggers for people who would do such a thing, say, catalogs with children in underwear, both online and on paper. There’s playgrounds and schoolyards. Are we going to ban and close those?

    Some people regard homosexuality and lesbianism as sick and evil. Indeed they often confuse pedophilia with them. Shall we stop people from writing about those things in a positive light?

    Some people think BDSM is sick and evil. Will that be banned as well?

    A person has to be very careful when dealing with freedom of speech and thought. If not, we can lose them. If we lose those we lose everything.

    ReplyReply


  • Cookie
    January 7
    4:23 pm

    “Pedophilia is illegal and abhorrent. If a person does such a thing I have no problem with locking them in a dungeon so deep we have to lower their food to them in pressurized containers.
    That is an entirely different thing than writing or thinking about it though.”

    YES THERE ARE MANY TRIGGERS FOR PEDOPHILES, BUT ONE CANNOT EXCUSE THE FACT THAT ONE OF THE MAIN TRIGGERS IS PLACES THAT ALLOW CHATTING, AND WRITING OF FANTASIES ABOUT CHILDREN THAT TRIGGER THE ACTIONS OF THESE PEOPLE AND THAT IF THESE PLACES “LIMITED” THERE WRITTEN FANTASIES TO THE ADULT KIND-THEN YES, I WILL GO AS FAR AS TO SAY WE CAN HELP PROTECT OUR KIDS.

    ReplyReply


  • Cookie
    January 7
    4:24 pm

    OH AND HOMOSEXUALITY, AND LESBIANISM, AND BDSM-AND WHAT YOU DO IN YOUR BEDROOM IS ALL FINE IF IT’S ALL CONSENTING ADULTS.

    ReplyReply


  • azteclady
    January 7
    4:33 pm

    Full disclosure:
    — I was sexually abused at around age 7.
    — I find abuse of children–physical, sexual, emotional, mental–to be the lowest of the low.

    However.

    Statements like this, I’m all for a lack of censorship, but in this case (by anon at 3:38PM) scare me. I can see more and more “in this case” instances brought up–until everything is regulated according to someone else’s idea of morality, right, godly, (un)natural (homosexuality, for instance), whatever.

    My thinking is much closer to rgraham666’s above (particularly regarding the hyperbole–I’d rather focus on the substance).

    We can hold people accountable for their actions, not their thoughts. If and when said actions include pandering (as described further up thread), or encouraging of harmful*** behaviour, then by golly they are guilty.

    [*** where harmful means: without consent, or where consent can’t be given–i.e., a minor or mentally handicapped individual]

    But guilt only by association seems to me to fly against the very idea of a free society.

    ReplyReply


  • Anonymous
    January 7
    4:42 pm

    “I went through that thread, too, over at Literotica. It seems to me they’re talking not about children, but teenagers, adolescents, and their sexuality.”

    NO. Some people were talking about the given fact that teens experiment together with each other regarding sexuality. OTHERS advocated that since they are already experimenting, why would it be so wrong for an adult to jump into the mix. Hey, they are hot and seem to be so darn worldly! Dang vixens.

    “In some countries, the age of consent is sixteen. When sex between a sixteen year old and twenty eight year old is considered pedophilia, there’s something wrong with your value system. No one here has advocated for abuse or said the actual touching of a young child was okay.”

    Again, dang vixens. And no, 16 and 28 wouldn’t be considered pedophilia exactly, but definitely inappropriate contact with a MINOR.

    And 16 wasn’t always the age discussed. Teen years range from 13-19. Reminds me of that old twisted saying, “If it’s old enough to bleed, it’s old enough to breed.”

    Past that post, what two consenting adults decide to do together bothers me not a lick. Hell, if you get off on branding each other, do so. But when your kink is Minors, then yes, I have a big problem. Or if your kink in any way involves innocents without consent. Say mutilating and/or torturing others or animals. Those who either have or cannot say NO when it comes to another’s sexual “fantasy”.

    Honestly, at 16 I considered myself really worldly based on a very troubled upbringing. But you know what? I didn’t know squat. I felt smart and tough at the time because more than one yahoo took a stolen moment to partially live out his “fantasy” of petting a teen. Not including stuff when I was a “child”. Hence I thought myself galvanized against predators.

    Wrong. I still pay to this day for those little moments when a harmless “thinker” stepped a hair over the bounds.

    Anon76

    ReplyReply


  • Anonymous
    January 7
    4:55 pm

    And here is something to think about.

    When I was in school (granted, a long time ago) it was never considered “cool” to even date a person 3 or more years younger than yourself (sometimes 2).

    It’s almost like, as teens, we understood better the mental developement of our peers.

    Now, my hubby is 8 years older than I, but we were both considered adults in the US at the time. Big difference to me.

    Anon76

    ReplyReply


  • Cookie
    January 7
    4:57 pm

    “And no, 16 and 28 wouldn’t be considered pedophilia exactly, but definitely inappropriate contact with a MINOR.”

    16 IS A MINOR AND A PERSON -AS OLD AS 28 AND EVEN LOWER THAN THAT-HAVING SEX WITH A 16 YEAR OLD SHOULD BE PROSCUTED AND SHOULD REGISTER AS A SEX OFFENDER. HOW CAN YOU SAY IF YOU’RE 28- IT CAN BE LOWERED TO INNAPPROPRIATE CONTACT? NO IT CAN’T. IT’S STILL A CHILD-AND THE 28 YEAR OLD IS STILL A PERVERTED FUCK.

    ReplyReply


  • Anonymous
    January 7
    5:09 pm

    Ah, Cookie,

    I wasn’t in agreement about the 16 thing being okay. Read my next post.

    What I was saying is, that at least in my neck of the woods, they wouldn’t label that contact pedophilia in the courts.

    Anon76

    ReplyReply


  • Cookie
    January 7
    5:16 pm

    I read that part, Anon76.

    Realistically, I realize that it does happen, but I don’t agree with it, because no matter where you live “16” is still a child.

    ReplyReply


  • Shiloh Walker
    January 7
    5:18 pm


    Some people regard homosexuality and lesbianism as sick and evil. Indeed they often confuse pedophilia with them. Shall we stop people from writing about those things in a positive light?

    Some people think BDSM is sick and evil. Will that be banned as well?

    This isn’t a good comparision, IMO. These things, whether they push an individual’s squick button or not, won’t possibly lead to the harm of a child.

    However, sexually fantasizing about a child can.

    ReplyReply


  • Shiloh Walker
    January 7
    5:24 pm

    But this mob would like to stand at the gallows and cheer to watch someone hung for championing the freedom of THOUGHT!?

    If there’s been any kind of cheering going on, I haven’t seen it.

    I stand by what I said… somebody has sexual thoughts about my kids (ages 8, 5 & 1) yes, I would kill.

    If that means I have a mob mentality in the minds of some, hey, that’s fine. I’ve got a mind of my own~ I know this, and whether others think so or not doesn’t faze me in the least.

    What’s thrown me, and probably a lot of others, were Selena’s comments that there’s no harm in just thinking in a deviant way. I can’t find the exact ones… they must have gotten deleted.

    But from what I remember, most of her comments were along the lines that it’s okay to think whatever. Nothing wrong with it, no matter how deviant the thoughts may be. That’s the impression she left me with.

    And if that is her view point… it’s. As opinionated as I am, I rarely tell people what they should or shouldn’t think.

    But when it comes to protecting kids from predators, I’ll do it every time.

    Thought can lead to action.

    A lot of people think about writing a book. Some do, some even make a living from it.

    A lot of people think about having an affair. Some do.

    A lot of people have probably thought about stealing money from a bank, their work, etc. Some do it.

    And while I refuse to believe that normal people have sexualized thoughts about children…. yes, there are people who have those sexualized thoughts, and never act on them. But some… too many… do.

    ReplyReply


  • Shiloh Walker
    January 7
    5:38 pm

    That is an entirely different thing than writing or thinking about it though. There are many triggers for people who would do such a thing, say, catalogs with children in underwear, both online and on paper. There’s playgrounds and schoolyards. Are we going to ban and close those?

    I do like your dungeon/pressurized food containers idea.

    But my problem with the above line of thinking is this…

    Thinking it~no, there’s no way we can stop them from thinking it.

    However places where people with these sort of thoughts are allowed to write them down in fantasy form… no, I don’t think it should tolerated or allowed.

    My reasoning is this… sexual predators don’t need the outside feeding into their fantasies. They don’t need the extra triggers. Yes, schoolyards, catalogs, etc can be and are triggers, but why give them something that’s probably even more tempting to them?

    ReplyReply


  • Shiloh Walker
    January 7
    5:42 pm

    Yes… I am wordy today, aren’t I?

    Last little bit from me, then I’m getting to work. Sorry to keep posting right after the other, but I’ve got too much to say and this just let me organize my thoughts better.

    Regarding Phaze/Literotica/the authors who may happen to write for both, and the two sites themselves…

    I do have to say I don’t really see how it’s Phaze’s fault that the Literotica forums get like this. Unless Phaze owns Literotica, and I don’t think they do. Some of their authors write or have written for Literotica. Guilt by association? Not something I care for.

    But when certain authors leap in and toss out sentiments that thinking anything or whatever is just fine and dandy, it doesn’t reflect very well on Phaze. Is that fair? No.

    But it’s also not fair that we live in a world where people prey on children.

    And a disclaimer… I haven’t gone to the Literotica site, their forums, nothing. I formed my opinion just going by what Karen quoted on her blog

    Judge a book by it’s cover? In this case, hell yeah.

    The comment some sick bastard made about a ‘little girl’s first time…’ (posted on a forum of Lit, I believe) was enough to convince me that I don’t ever want to look at their site. The fact that they don’t ban any such discussion assured me I don’t need to be there.

    ReplyReply


  • Anonymous
    January 7
    5:49 pm

    Sixteen is the age of consent in the UK. It is America’s 18. It wouldn’t be an illegal or prosecutable offense for a 28 year old (or a 48 year old for that matter) to have sex with a 16 year old in the UK. Nor would that person have to register as any sort of sex offender. Thank you for proving my point. The line moves, especially when we are talking about adolescents (13+) as they were on the thread Selena posted on to which Karen referred. Speaking of which, I’m not here to defend Selena – I have no idea who she even is – but I would defend her right to speak out against censorship, as I would defend the rest of the posters here who have spoken out against censorship (many, I see, who were, like I am, not as courageous as Selena in posting their identities.) It seems to me the only crime being committed here is censorship.

    You talk about some authors on another blog getting their knickers in a twist and blowing things out of proportion? That’s exactly what we have here. A mob of rabid, foaming at the mouth, self-righteous sheeple who have twisted their oppositions’ words from “I oppose censorship of thought and fantasy” into “I support pedophila.”

    Selena said she’d rather have her name associated with an incest story than this “piggybacked gossipfest.” I note she didn’t say an underaged incest story. Incest, like a rape fantasy, or a homosexual fantasy, or a fantasy about having sex with an octopus, takes place between consenting adults (or consenting fictional octipids.)

    But I can see her point. This mob mentality has tried and hung her and every other oppositional force who has come in to logically and rationally support her defence of freedom of speech and thought – even the woman who was an actual victim of abuse herself, who spoke out against censorship! A very open, courageous view, I’d say.

    Again, as I see it, no one here has advocated hurting children. But many have advocated what amounts to nothing short of castration for people who want to defend others’ rights to free speech and thought.

    Shiloh, as for what you are spouting, I can understand your feelings about your own children – I have them, too. But the reality is that the “research” you quote is fictional and is clearly just an emotional response. The actual research proves the opposite – that thought does NOT lead to action.

    If Selena made a comment that deviant thoughts aren’t a crime – she was correct. Although I don’t see that comment here. And if it was deleted – well we have another form of censorship at work, don’t we? And it proves that censorship simply muddies the waters.

    If you have actual data that supports your position, I’d like to see it. Because from what I’ve seen, the data does not support the idea that fiction leads to action. The idea that writing or having sexual fantasy leads to doing is patently false, at least in terms of scientific evidence, and not mob rule. Just as it’s false to say that reading or viewing pornography leads to rape. Which could put a damper on your profession as an erotic writer, now couldn’t it?

    By the way, anon, whoever you are, posting your view in ALL CAPS does not make your argument any more compelling.

    And Nora, as for this: “I guess that makes me part of the mob cheering at the gallows. Or a Nazi, or a fascist. Take your choice.”

    You make your choice. I’ll make my own.

    ReplyReply


  • Kayleigh Jamison
    January 7
    6:07 pm

    Some people think BDSM is sick and evil. Will that be banned as well?

    This isn’t a good comparison, IMO. These things, whether they push an individual’s squick button or not, won’t possibly lead to the harm of a child.

    However, sexually fantasizing about a child can.

    Amen to that, Shiloh. I remember a few weeks back (maybe longer, my sense of time is never good) on this blog there was a discussion about so-called “extreme” BDSM practices like blood play. People came down pretty hard on it, thinking it aberrant, and then the comparisons to incest and pedophilia began.

    I got up in arms over that one. I have had BDSM relationships before, and one that involved blood play. I’m not sure I’d do it again, but I made the decision to do it as a 26 year old consenting adult involved in a relationship with a 28 year old consenting adult.

    Some people – perhaps most people – think that’s sick, abnormal, etc. That’s fine, I have no problem with other people feeling that way. I do have a problem with somehow being equated to a child molester or rapist.

    The difference here is consent. And consent is everything, not just from a legal standpoint (though I do often view it that way given my own legal training; once you start thinking like a lawyer it’s nearly impossible to stop).

    There are very few crimes, at least in the United States, where intent does not play a factor – and to a lesser degree, consent. Statutory rape, however, is one of them. It doesn’t matter if the underage participant was consenting (they almost always are). It doesn’t even matter if the of-age participant knew that s/he was engaging in sex with a child. There are countless cases where the adult had perfectly good reason to think s/he was dealing with someone of age (they were in an over 21 bar, they had a fake ID, and so forth) but for statutory rape, lack of intent is not a defense. Consent is not a defense.

    Why? Because the law believes that until a person reaches the age of 18, they cannot consent to sex no matter how worldly they believe themselves to be. Just like you can’t drive a car until you’re 16, or buy a beer until you’re 21.

    I sure as hell thought I knew everything when I was 16, and I sure as hell was wrong. Hell, I thought I knew everything at 22, and I was wrong then, too. I’m only now at 27 starting to realize that the most important thing I know is that I know pretty much nothing.

    For those who’ve said that it’s a slipper slope: yes, it certainly is. For those who’ve said that it can be abused: yes, it absolutely has been.

    Child molestation, pedophilia, and sexual abuse are things our legal system, and our society as a whole, take very seriously. Just look at the rules of evidence our country has set forth. When a person is on trial for a crime, past crimes, or past like behavior is not allowed into the courtroom to prove a propensity to commit murder, robbery, what have you…except in the case of sexual assault and child molestation. (Check out Federal Rule of Evidence 413, the so-called “rape shield” law). Why? Because our society believes those crimes to be so serious, so abhorrent that they warrant drastic measures to prevent their re occurrence. Again, has the Rule been abused? Of course. You can find slews of articles on the subject and the general consensus is that the Rule has opened a Pandora’s Box. In some ways it has. But for the most part, I can live with that.

    I have a good friend, another law student, who prior to starting law school worked for the North Carolina Public Defender’s Office in the Sex Crimes/Child Abuse division, representing pedophiles. It’s actually what she wants to do once she finishes law school and becomes an attorney. We frequently get into heated debates on the subject, because while I agree that every person has the right to a competent defense, I personally could never stomach defending a child molester or rapist. I think part of it is my own experience as a rape victim. Part of it is my own “moral compass.” I could never, EVER, strive to set free a person I knew had abused a child. Never.

    But even she supports banning so-called “virtual kiddie porn.” The context she usually refers to is images and videos – pornography using of-age consenting adults, computer manipulated to make one of them look like a child. There’s no real victim, because there’s no real child involved. As of now, it’s legal. She’s also against fiction that glorifies child molestation, incest, etc. It opens the door, she says. I called her last night, read her this entire thread, and her response was, “You have no idea how many of the people I defended used fiction or virtual porn to kick-start their imaginations, and to provide the basis for fantasies they later lived out with real children. I’m against it, absolutely.”

    So to those of you who say that F-I-C-T-I-O-N has no real victims, you’re right. It doesn’t…until it does.

    ReplyReply


  • Lynne Connolly
    January 7
    6:12 pm

    “If you have actual data that supports your position, I’d like to see it. Because from what I’ve seen, the data does not support the idea that fiction leads to action. The idea that writing or having sexual fantasy leads to doing is patently false, at least in terms of scientific evidence, and not mob rule.”

    I don’t know about the US, but in the UK it is illegal to own material featuring children (ie under 13) in sexual situations. That means if you write it, if you fantasise it and communicate that fantasy to others, you are breaking the law if that results in an act of paedophilia. So if your story about sex with a minor is found on the hard drive or the bookshelf of a paedophile, or if your site is bookmarked on their computer, you could receive up to 14 years in jail.
    The legal definition for sex with prepubescent children is paedophilia. There is a different definition for children aged 13-16 and different laws, but it is just as illegal. You can go to jail for owning paedophilic material, and people have done so.
    If you want confirmation, it’s in Hansard, the list of White Papers and UK Law. Your principal reference would be the Sexual Offences Act, 2003.
    http://www.crimeinfo.org.uk/servlet/factsheetservlet?command=viewfactsheet&factsheetid=100&category=factsheets
    Maybe someone can put up the similar situation in the US, just to make it clear that we are discussing potentially illegal acts.

    ReplyReply


  • Kayleigh Jamison
    January 7
    6:17 pm

    Ok, you’ll have to excuse the typos. I did proofread, but as per usual, didn’t catch everything.

    When I get on a roll…lol.

    Oh, and to those saying that society evolves and in the past it was acceptable for a 12 year old to get married, so on and so forth: you’re right there. But I echo another poster’s sentiments in that if we ever reach a place, as a society, where pedophilia is acceptable, it’s not a society I want to live in.

    ReplyReply


  • Cookie
    January 7
    6:19 pm

    “Sixteen is the age of consent in the UK. It is America’s 18. It wouldn’t be an illegal or prosecutable offense for a 28 year old (or a 48 year old for that matter) to have sex with a 16 year old in the UK. Nor would that person have to register as any sort of sex offender. Thank you for proving my point. The line moves, especially when we are talking about adolescents (13+) as they were on the thread Selena posted on to which Karen referred.”

    THE LINE HAS NOT MOVED. WE’RE TALKING ABOUT CHILDREN HERE, AND IN AMERICA YES 16 IS A CHILD. I LIVE IN THE US, AND I’VE NEVER CLAIMED TO KNOW ABOUT OTHER COUNTRIES.

    It seems to me the only crime being committed here is censorship.
    THERE IS NO CENSORSHIP ON KAREN’S BLOG-YEAH, YEAH SELENA HAS BEEN KICKED OFF-BUT IT SEEMS TO ME THAT WHEN YOU’RE ON KAREN’S BLOG-SHE CAN DO WHATEVER THE HELL SHE WANTS TO DO.

    “You talk about some authors on another blog getting their knickers in a twist and blowing things out of proportion? That’s exactly what we have here. A mob of rabid, foaming at the mouth, self-righteous sheeple who have twisted their oppositions’ words from “I oppose censorship of thought and fantasy” into “I support pedophila.”
    IF WE’RE SO RABID, THEN DON’T POST HERE, DON’T READ IT, DON’T VISIT. GET THE HELL OFF THE SITE.

    “Selena said she’d rather have her name associated with an incest story than this “piggybacked gossipfest.” INCEST IS DISGUSTING-DON’T SUGAR COAT IT. IT’S GROSS, AND VILE.

    “But I can see her point. This mob mentality has tried and hung her and every other oppositional force who has come in to logically and rationally support her defence of freedom of speech and thought – even the woman who was an actual victim of abuse herself, who spoke out against censorship!” IF YOU SEE HER POINT SO WELL, GO HAND OUT WITH HER. EVERY ONE WHO POSTED IS ENTITLED TO THEIR OPINION-YES BUT WHEN IT BECOMES DISGUSTING-INCEST, PEDOPHILES THEN DON’T BE SURPRISED WHEN OTHERS WHO ARE AGAINST IT VOICE THERES.

    “Shiloh, as for what you are spouting, I can understand your feelings about your own children – I have them, too. But the reality is that the “research” you quote is fictional and is clearly just an emotional response. The actual research proves the opposite – that thought does NOT lead to action.” YES-PEDOPHILE FANTASIES DO LEAD TO ACTION. WHAT SHILOH IS SAYING-IS NOT SPOUTING. SHE’S CORRECT. I WOULD KILL FOR BOTH MY KIDS TOO.

    AND ANON, MY NAME IS COOKIE- AND I POST IT IN ALL CAPS TO REPLY TO YOUR Nazi, or a fascist TAKE YOUR PIC, VIEWS.

    ReplyReply


  • Anonymous
    January 7
    7:11 pm

    “Again, as I see it, no one here has advocated hurting children. But many have advocated what amounts to nothing short of castration for people who want to defend others’ rights to free speech and thought.”

    What part of “adult sex with minors” don’t you get? What part of “it’s hot for the adult, but can have lasting physical and mental consequences for the “minor”” don’t you get?

    What is your line for the age of a “child”? 5? 8? 12? 15?

    Define child, and when they are okay to fantasize about and have sex with.

    ReplyReply


  • kirsten saell
    January 7
    9:47 pm

    But even she supports banning so-called “virtual kiddie porn.” The context she usually refers to is images and videos – pornography using of-age consenting adults, computer manipulated to make one of them look like a child. There’s no real victim, because there’s no real child involved. As of now, it’s legal. She’s also against fiction that glorifies child molestation, incest, etc.

    In Canada, unless they’ve changed the rules in the last year, any pornographic material where an adult is altered to look like they are under 18 is illegal. Despite the fact that the LEGAL AGE OF CONSENT in Canada is 14. The only adult who would get in any kind of trouble having sexual contact with a 16-year-old is someone in authority: cop, doctor, teacher, parent, etc.

    Incestuous thoughts may not be considered normal, but they are more common than people like to think. Incest doesn’t necessarily equate with pedophilia. Incestuous fantasies do not always originate in the minds of parents or uncles. They wouldn’t have a name for it – Oedipus (or Electra) complex – if it never happened. Not every person leaves this stage of their psychosexual development behind in childhood.

    Pandering to pedophiles is WRONG. There is nothing healthy about fantasizing about prepubescent children. But I don’t recall reading anyone here actually advocating such behavior.

    And Cookie, you really need to stop shouting. It’s hurting my virtual ears.

    ReplyReply


  • Shiloh Walker
    January 7
    9:53 pm

    But the reality is that the “research” you quote is fictional and is clearly just an emotional response. The actual research proves the opposite – that thought does NOT lead to action.

    I did NOT say that thinking something will always lead to action. I never indicated research behind my comment.

    What I clearly said,

    Thought can lead to action.

    and

    I refuse to believe that normal people have sexualized thoughts about children…. yes, there are people who have those sexualized thoughts, and never act on them. But some… too many… do.

    Thoughts CAN lead to action.

    A sentence can lead to action. Proof of that…

    http://tinyurl.com/2owqye

    Tells about how a guy 40 years old who’d never hurt a child turned into a molester, all because his wife mentioned to him that his daughter’s body was changing.

    If an innocent comment like that can do it… then a written down detailed explanation will do the same. Anything…books, movies, a catalog, a fight, losing a job, child porn, can be a trigger.

    So having a site that allows sexual fantasies regarding children IS putting a trigger out there.

    Will it ever trip anybody? At some point, most likely, yes.

    Some facts…

    Pedophilia, sexually fantasizing about a child is a mental disorder according the American Psychiatric Association.

    http://tinyurl.com/32lq4

    From a glossary found on the Center for Sex Offender Management.

    http://www.csom.org/

    Triggers: An external event that begins the abuse or acting out cycle (i.e., seeing a young child, watching people argue, etc.).

    Anything can trigger a pedophile and turn him from a pedophile into a molester. By legal terms, not all pedophiles are child molesters. Until they actually touch a child, they aren’t molesters. There’s a line that separates a pedophile from a molester, but it’s too damn thin.

    I mentioned that the brain is wired differently in a pedophile and there’s scientific data that indicates the brain of pedophile is different.

    http://tinyurl.com/ywxq7y

    Research also indicates that child porn (and what else would you call a story about a man fantasizing having about sex with a little girl?) is a valid indicator for pedophilia.

    Another medical research link~
    http://tinyurl.com/2ght8r

    So can we perhaps maybe agree that pedophiles don’t think the same way normal people do? They don’t have the same behavior make up?

    Many pedophiles lack impulse control.Would you maybe think that those who don’t have viable self control mechanisms, who have problems with impulsive behavior are more likely to take fantasy a step farther and try to live it out?

    Regarding a lack of empathy and self control, here are some links.

    http://tinyurl.com/2tfyjy ~ it’s on page 11.

    http://tinyurl.com/2aqmjk

    All that separates the pedophile who thinks and the molester who molests is the act. By reading something detail how ‘powerful and erotic’ a ‘little girl’s’ first time is.. the pedophile could very well become the molester.

    What prevents the act is self control, but self control can be worn down.

    If you put a temptation before them, they can walk away.

    But will they?

    The answer is … some will. But some won’t.

    If you’d like to discuss research and facts, then I want to know where you found your research that reading, writing or thinking about sexually assaulting a child has never led to an actual assault.

    ReplyReply


  • Karen Scott
    January 7
    10:12 pm

    Shi, funnily enough, I’ve just watched two programmes talking about predators on the internet, and men grooming children with the specific purpose of trying to organise meetings with them, to have sex. Very timely indeed.

    A group trying to capture pedos on the internet set up various stings on the net, pretending to be young children. The ‘child’ agreed to meet one of the pedos, and he was obviously met with a camera man and TV presenter. The guy had KY jelly in his back pocket. He thought the little girl was 14.

    Another guy in Germany was caught trying to groom a young girl, and his excuse was that he’d not done anything wrong, it was just a fantasy of his. The things he was chatting to the little girl about was obscene. When they raided his house, they found evidence of his fantasies. The guy had over 25k photos of kids being sexually molested on his hard drive. As far as anybody knew, he’d never actually physically committed an indecent act against a child, but I think we can all read between the lines here can’t we.

    By the way, he was an ordained priest.

    ReplyReply


  • Alyssa
    January 7
    11:55 pm

    But the reality is that the “research” you quote is fictional and is clearly just an emotional response. The actual research proves the opposite – that thought does NOT lead to action.

    Are you saying that predators don’t think about abusing children and committing acts of rape and murder before they commit the act? Is that what you mean? Or what am I missing here?

    Not everyone who has a random thought of killing their neighbor is going to put thought to action. However, “thought does not lead to action” is a pretty broad statement, one that strikes me as inaccurate.

    It can lead to action.

    ReplyReply


  • Emily Veinglory
    January 8
    1:20 am

    The Nazis have been name checked. We can all go home now.

    ReplyReply


  • Anonymous
    January 8
    2:20 am

    But the reality is that the “research” you quote is fictional and is clearly just an emotional response. The actual research proves the opposite – that thought does NOT lead to action.

    Funny how someone else’s research is “fictional”. I think it’s your research that is fictional.

    Thoughts, when repeated and justified in the person’s mind, will lead to actions.

    People who write about a little girl who has a “rewarding” first sexual experience with her father (or any other adults) is writing KIDDIE PORN.

    Instead of sugar-coating it, just admit that you like writing, reading and supporting kiddie porn. Because that’s what you are: kiddie porn lover.

    ReplyReply


  • Shiloh Walker
    January 8
    2:37 am

    Instead of sugar-coating it, just admit that you like writing, reading and supporting kiddie porn. Because that’s what you are: kiddie porn lover.

    I wouldn’t say that. The anon that called my ‘research’ fictional is probably either misreading my comments or deliberately misunderstanding them.

    I said thoughts can lead to action… maybe she read thoughts do lead to action. I don’t know.

    But I wouldn’t say she’s supporting kiddie porn.

    I would she says she’s taking her advocacy of freedom of thought & expression a little extreme.

    I’m all for freedom of thought and expression… providing it doesn’t include minors in sexual situations.

    I draw my line there because the abnormal traits that pedophiles and child molesters are predisposed to often go hand in hand with poor impulse control and their self control is what keeps them from assaulting a child.

    ReplyReply


  • Shiloh Walker
    January 8
    2:41 am

    guh…

    this SHOULD have read

    I would say she’s taking her advocacy of freedom of thought & expression a little extreme.

    ReplyReply


  • sallahdog
    January 8
    3:14 pm

    Shi, funnily enough, I’ve just watched two programmes talking about predators on the internet, and men grooming children with the specific purpose of trying to organise meetings with them, to have sex. Very timely indeed.

    Karen, I just want to point out, since this started over literotica(that is an over 18 website and doesnt support the writing of stories of MINORS, in any flavor) that these preditors aren’t grooming kids from Lits site… They go to where the KIDS are. Which seems largely forgotten in the crazy directions this kid took.

    I doubt that :getting rid: of place like Lit (where kiddie porn is discouraged) would get rid of the preditors..

    I have nanny bot software that allows me to see what kinds of conversations my kids have on the net. Its led to some interesting conversations with one of my kids, getting her to see that just because someone says they are 12, doesnt mean that they are.

    I would caution any parent who thinks, that it can’t happen to their kid, to think again.

    ReplyReply


  • Jeddy
    October 14
    10:46 am

    Censorship does not work. If it did then things which happen would never ever happen . In this Information Age, everything is known within seconds. Way back before computers, TV and radio – the same things happened without access to any kind of information commit such crimes. Those who are criminals do not need prompting or encouragement from anywhere, they just go ahead and do it. Its assumed that these things are the product of uncensored items books, magazines or the Internet. Criminals may possess such items but they do not need as a means to an end.

    ReplyReply

RSS feed for comments on this post. TrackBack URL

Leave a comment