More bad erotic stories

[Vedius Pollio]

http://nifty.guiltygroups.com/nifty/les ... en-needs-1

Donna Hartley was no shrinking violet. She had the kind of job many men
would have envied: she was a sports commentator for super bike racing and
loved every minute of it. She presented the image of a tall confident woman
in her late thirties, not frightened of the world and what it had to offer.
She began commentating fifteen years ago because of her love of motorbikes
coupled with her journalistic training, and now worked for the major sports
station as their "star reporter" on the track. She was involved with the
sport on a personal basis as well, to the extent of marrying one of Europe's
top riders, a Frenchman called Francoise. Sadly it was a short marriage,
both of them had nothing in common besides the physical side of the
relationship and it ended with a divorce in which she'd been allowed to keep
custody of their young daughter and a large slice of his personal fortune.

Um. Francoise is not a man's name.

[Kittyboymuffin]

Eh, that part's just clumsy Did Not Do The Research, I think ...

[Vedius Pollio]

Bizarre pedophile fiction:


http://www.nifty.org/nifty/bisexual/inc ... of-caitlyn

My name is Paul, and I am the proud father of two of the loveliest children
in our townhouse complex where we live, Caitlyn who is thirteen pushing
fourteen, and Megan, who is ten.

Then there is the equally lovely Ashley, who is also thirteen and Caitlyn's
best friend. She had quite deliberately come on to me earlier this very
afternoon, and I had succumbed to a dark side of myself, that I had never
even suspected before.

Quite by accident, I had come across her in the bathroom, the door was wide
open and there she was half naked, sitting on the toilet with her jeans and
panties on the floor. Just then she had stood up after peeing, and I had
been immediately overcome at the sight of her lovely bare pussy mound.

She had looked into my eyes and read my mind almost instantly, then turned
around to get some toilet paper. As she did so, I got a good look at her
delectable bare bottom, then she had turned back to me, her hand holding the
paper, and asked me in a soft voice if I would like to wipe her off
please...

And that was the beginning of my initiation into adult - child sex, my first
ever. It had been breathtaking and wonderful for the both of us, complete in
every way, and I had ignored the doubt and guilt in my mind, because lets
face it, I was weak, and horny as hell for this lovely young siren.

Much to my surprise she had demonstrated a rather special talent with her
hands and mouth on my happy cock, a talent which I had finally wheedled out
of her, was due to her own daddy's incestuous needs. He had never touched
her sexually though, and she very much wanted to explore this new world of
sensuality.

Fortunately she had lost her hymen to earlier sports activities, so there
was no problem that way. I will never forget our first time together, she
had blossomed as I gently led her to nirvana, first going down on her until
she climaxed noisily in what seemed to be unending orgasms that left us both
shaken in their intensity.

Then I had carefully eased my cock into her receptive vagina, both of us
very surprised at how quickly that little treasure cave had opened up to
Aladdin's insistent knocking on the door, and we had fucked like the
proverbial rabbits until she had passed out in screaming pleasure.

Aladdin's insistent knocking?! Sounds like that urban legend on Snopes (http://www.snopes.com/disney/films/aladdin.asp).

[ManaUser]

Wow, that was bad. That contained at most two sentences worth of plot, but all the extra words did absolutely nothing to make it interesting or sexy. If anything it had the opposite effect.

[Kittyboymuffin]

Nifty needs tags to show what's in a story besides the category you happen to have clicked on at the moment!

There, now I've said it.

[Unholy]

I always found it interesting that its perfectly legal to describe sex with a minor, but illegal to posess a picture. If I describe a picture and you can see it in your head, whats the difference? I dont mean to instigate a debate on the legality of pedophilic paraphenalia lol, it was just an idle thought

[ManaUser]

Well if it's a real picture, as in a photograph than a real minor was involved in sex, which is generally assumed to be a very bad thing. If it's a just a story, it's not real. The same is true for a drawing. That line of reasoning is not without its faults, but you have to admit that's a pretty big difference. Of course some people take a more thoughtcrime based view and do think a story or drawing is just as bad. But so far any attempts to turn that into law in the US have been ruled unconstitutional.

[RavenxDrake]

I always found it interesting that its perfectly legal to describe sex with a minor, but illegal to posess a picture. If I describe a picture and you can see it in your head, whats the difference? I dont mean to instigate a debate on the legality of pedophilic paraphenalia lol, it was just an idle thought

I can't really understand that line of reasoning... it's like saying playing a Light Gun Game is the same as actually shooting someone. I mean, you're going through all the motions, and you can clearly see yourself pointing a gun and pulling the trigger, so it shouldn't be any better or worse, right? As long as it's still imagination, there's no "harm" to a person... the age of consent laws, and their periphery, aren't created to keep people from looking at porn with little kids in it. They're created to keep children from being coerced, forced, mislead, or simply introduced too early in their mental development cycle to sexual activities of an explicit nature. Their intent is(or at least SHOULD BE) to protect the largest number of innocent people possible while inconveniencing the smallest number of citizens possible... as long as there are no actual children involved in the production of the story or illustration, it should be a case of "no harm, no foul".

[ManaUser]

Their intent is(or at least SHOULD BE) to protect the largest number of innocent people possible while inconveniencing the smallest number of citizens possible... as long as there are no actual children involved in the production of the story or illustration, it should be a case of "no harm, no foul".

You know, come to think of it, it's perfectly legal to tell a true story of underage sex. So as far as that goes, Unholy is right. But I guess it comes down to the first part what you just said. People forcing children into sex so they can tell the story has never been much of a concern. Plus a law against that would be seriously "inconvenient" (i.e. unconstitutional).

[Unholy]

Well if it's a real picture, as in a photograph than a real minor was involved in sex, which is generally assumed to be a very bad thing. If it's a just a story, it's not real.

You are kinda missing the point,

What if the story was real? (thats for RavenxDrake too)



CGI has come a long way, if one could generate a pedophilic image which was *virtually* (i.e. with the naked eye) indistinguishable from an actual photograph, would that be acceptable? (or legal/illegal rather). It's production wouldnt have involved the molestation of a minor, so by what you said, it would be perfectly fine, right? "No harm, no foul", right?

[Leeloo]

It would be illegal around here, but I'd say it would be fine. No, more than that, it would be great.

Why? Because... Childporn without molesting children. Without molesting children.

Molesting children is bad, right? So, "without molesting children" is good, right? Pedophiles exist, no doubt about it. From my point of view, it's some kind of brain damage. They were probably born with it - a mistake of nature, just like everything else that doesn't result in healthy offspring. And we can't cure it. In short: We can't do anything about their attractions. What we can do is make it as easy as possible for them to not molest kids. Making it as easy as possible to make it stay just a fantasy. In other words: Make it as easy as possible for them to stick to fap'ing.

And that's the purpose of porn: Fap'ing.

Of course there's always someone who is going to claim "but then they will make the real thing look like it's fake, and thus avoid being prosecuted". That someone failed his economics class. Why is childporn produced? Money, that's why. Sure the molester is a pedophile himself, but if not for the money, those pictures would stay locked away. They are evidence against him. So, why sell the pics if they can be used against him? Money. A LOT of money. The fake ones do not carry the same risk, and thus they will be cheaper. So, to make the real thing look like it is fake is making something worth a lot of money look like it's worth a lot less. The risk is still there. The kids will speak, or someone will start digging in the garden. Same risk, but less pay... Sound like a good idea? No? That's why the real thing will stay expensive, and the fakes will be trying to look real, to bring in just as much money as the real ones. Better pay with less risk. Now that makes economic sense. From an economic point of view, the fake ones would get better and better until noone is able to tell the difference, and then they would finally out-compete the real ones. It would not end molesting completely - there's still some who won't be satisfied with fap'ing (just like there's still rape, even though adult porn IS legal). But it would take the money out of it, reducing it to those who really aren't satisfied with fap'ing.

[RavenxDrake]

Well if it's a real picture, as in a photograph than a real minor was involved in sex, which is generally assumed to be a very bad thing. If it's a just a story, it's not real.

You are kinda missing the point,

What if the story was real? (thats for RavenxDrake too)



CGI has come a long way, if one could generate a pedophilic image which was *virtually* (i.e. with the naked eye) indistinguishable from an actual photograph, would that be acceptable? (or legal/illegal rather). It's production wouldnt have involved the molestation of a minor, so by what you said, it would be perfectly fine, right? "No harm, no foul", right?

Just as an author can be held liable for admissions of criminal acts in their books(if they can be proven), a person who openly admits to having sex with an underage person in a story is as legally liable. Although, whether or not that story falls under the proscription of child pornography laws I'm not entirely sure.

As for CGI, I don't see a problem with it. As long as the person being depicted isn't based on a real child(because that could result in social and emotional damage and pain for the person involved). Several countries already have laws in place that include all manufactured images of children including drawings and CGI, though, so it depends on the country in question.

[Xero]

photorealistic CP is illegal
its one of those 'if the bbgun can kill you easily its not a toy anymore its a weapon' things

[ManaUser]

Just as an author can be held liable for admissions of criminal acts in their books(if they can be proven), a person who openly admits to having sex with an underage person in a story is as legally liable. Although, whether or not that story falls under the proscription of child pornography laws I'm not entirely sure.

It doesn't. All the US child porn laws only deal with visual depictions. Of course you could be prosecuted for any criminal acts you admitted to, but that's not the same thing at all.

As for CGI, I don't see a problem with it. As long as the person being depicted isn't based on a real child(because that could result in social and emotional damage and pain for the person involved).

My thoughts as well. And that mostly matches US law, though Ashcroft et al. snuck in as many exceptions as they could get aware with.

[Unholy]

Although, whether or not that story falls under the proscription of child pornography laws I'm not entirely sure.

It doesnt.

My question wasnt whether the author was liable, but whether the posessor of the text was.

As ManaUser stated, the posessor of the text is not currently liable. The laws dont deal with text. Which was my original quandry, why not?

I think it's illogical and inconsistent. You should ban both if you are going to ban one.

[RavenxDrake]

I don't think it's that inconsistant. For example, it's not illegal to posses, say, a tell-all book from some Hollywood burnout that talks about how he was snorting cocaine off a $1,000 dollar a night prostitute's ass... certainly both of those things(in most states) are illegal, but there's no attaching jeopardy for the reader.

It's certainly distasteful to think of, though.

[ManaUser]

I don't think it's that inconsistant. For example, it's not illegal to posses, say, a tell-all book from some Hollywood burnout that talks about how he was snorting cocaine off a $1,000 dollar a night prostitute's ass... certainly both of those things(in most states) are illegal, but there's no attaching jeopardy for the reader.

But it isn't illegal to possess a phonograph of that either, so that's consistent. But with underage sex, only one of the two is illegal. I believe that is what Unholy referred to as illogical and inconsistent. And it is inconsistent. But I'm not so sure about illogical.

Again, the difference is that nobody commercially puts real children in sexual situations for the purpose of making explicit stories, but they do for creating CP. So if you have CP, a child may have been abused to create it, whereas with a story, even a true one, any abuse was most likely incidental, i.e. not motivated by creating the story. Does that make sense?

Though I admit the logic gets a bit iffy when it equates merely possessing something with supporting its creation.

It's certainly distasteful to think of, though.

Speak for yourself. I doubt she could charge that much unless it was a nice ass.

[Aeridus]

I just like how it's illegal to possess underage nude photos of yourself and share them with people of your own free will.

[MistressMaggie]

I don't want to debate, I just want to comment that Francoise was probably just a misspelling of François.

[Vedius Pollio]

I don't want to debate, I just want to comment that Francoise was probably just a misspelling of François.

It occurs too many times in the story to be a misspelling.