# Question for those who edit in the Library.



## mossystate (Sep 6, 2009)

*I have found myself in the Library, on very few occasions. 

When I saw, on the front page of Dims, a story about a school, I went to check it out.



I would like to ask those who edit the stories, and Observer in particular, how is it that you allow stories about UNDERAGE children? Even if you had not read every word, how is it that the title alone did not have you see any flashing warning lights? I saw that a mod HAS made comments, so I have to believe that he has seen the content.



It really disgusts me that talking about 14 year old girls in sexual terms is ok here. This is repulsive, and has me very angry. It is NOT OK to talk about children, in this manner. I am amazed that that even needs to be said....but I guess it did. 

Underage kids are not allowed to post...but I guess it ok for older people to talk about the kids' breasts and bellies and rear ends...in the most salacious manner possible.


This was seen by a mod. The story is child pornography. *


----------



## Isa (Sep 6, 2009)

Mossy,

Maybe you should have sent this to the mod or Conrad for more direct action.


----------



## mossystate (Sep 6, 2009)

Isa said:


> Mossy,
> 
> Maybe you should have sent this to the mod or Conrad for more direct action.



I am going to send it to Conrad. I just thought about it, and decided that since a mod had commented, the community at large should understand what happened, since it has to do with children.


----------



## Isa (Sep 6, 2009)

mossystate said:


> I am going to send it to Conrad. I just thought about it, and decided that since a mod had commented, the community at large should understand what happened, since it has to do with children.



Good, I was just concerned that the thread would drive traffic to the story.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 6, 2009)

IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHILDREN.

i'm really tired of the people who don't jerk off to the stories trying to ruin shit for the people who do. it's really none of your business so get a fucking life. some education: child pornography is not bad because pedophiles jerk off to it. it's bad because children were exploited to create it. no children are exploited in these stories and therefore it doesn't fucking apply. plenty of responsible adults have ageplay fantasies.


----------



## Sugar (Sep 6, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHILDREN.
> 
> i'm really tired of the people who don't jerk off to the stories trying to ruin shit for the people who do. it's really none of your business so get a fucking life. some education: child pornography is not bad because pedophiles jerk off to it. it's bad because children were exploited to create it. no children are exploited in these stories and therefore it doesn't fucking apply. plenty of responsible adults have ageplay fantasies.



:doh: Just wow.


----------



## mossystate (Sep 6, 2009)

Dan...just stop. Really.

I knew you would come flapping in with your " you are against erections " bullshit. 

Stop. You are embarrassing yourself.


Try and stop the screeching long enough to understand that this sort of thing is not welcome just anywhere, and that I am not talking about deprogramming anybody who has fantasies. Think, before you post about some things. The whiff of something is just that.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 6, 2009)

the only inappropriate thing transpiring here is another bullshit crusade less about the greater good than making mossy feel good about herself. stories are _text_. you're policing _text_. you're not saving any children, you're not lowering the rate of sexual assault of minors, you're just pissing off kinky adults in a kinky adult forum. 

conrad has every right not to host them if he doesn't feel like but i'll be posting any deleted stories elsewhere if that's the case, because people have uses for them other than patronizing.


----------



## Fascinita (Sep 6, 2009)

Mossy, the story is against Library Forum rules. Conrad's rules for the forum already prohibit it.

http://www.dimensionsmagazine.com/forums/showthread.php?t=447

.....

Excluded Contributions: Those that are off topic and/or primarily dedicated to other fantasy genres, alternative life styles and art forms (including specifically explicit stand alone pictures and drawings, vore, cannibalism etc.); *those with any references of a sexually enticing nature either to underage protagonists or with underage protagonists present;* those that associate or involve pre-pubescent protagonists with any kind of weight references or participatory character role; those that involve teenage minors in practices such as feeding, weight gain drugs, explicit sex and similar themes; those that feature or include excessive violence or protagonist abuse; those not in compliance with pertaining laws, including specifically those laws related to incest and illegal drugs.

.......

It would seem that some people still live with some reference to the real world and that pesky thing known as reality.


----------



## Isa (Sep 6, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> IT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH CHILDREN.
> 
> i'm really tired of the people who don't jerk off to the stories trying to ruin shit for the people who do. it's really none of your business so get a fucking life. some education: child pornography is not bad because pedophiles jerk off to it. it's bad because children were exploited to create it. no children are exploited in these stories and therefore it doesn't fucking apply. plenty of responsible adults have ageplay fantasies.



That seems more like mis-education to me. IMO, anyone that needs a child's image or text about it to get off is pretty fucking sick. 

I have not read the story in question and have no desire to do so. If it is about underage girls/children then I would hope Conrad would remove it on GP. This may be an adult forum but that is one topic that should be 100% off limits.


EDA: It appears that writing about the underage is against the rules. Good. Thanks Fascinita.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 6, 2009)

i'm fine with those rules too - it's a private site, sets its own regulations.


----------



## mossystate (Sep 6, 2009)

Exile...I think you have a lot of finger wagging to fling Conrad's way. You will be up all night...may I make you a delicious sandwich? It really is ok to not be ok with everything...everywhere. Nobody is truly being silenced. Hard to take you serious.

Fasc...I knew I had seen something like that. Thanks. If I had not seen a moderator being OK with the story, I would have simply called it to their attention...in a PM/report. If a moderator is to uphold rules, and can be part of enforcing which can have people being banned...etc...then it makes sense that there be consequences when they are in blatant violation. This is not the subject matter to wonder about. Otherwise...what's the point. This is too big a subject to just delete a story and move on, imo.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 6, 2009)

Isa said:


> IMO, anyone that needs a child's image or text about it to get off is pretty fucking sick.



hey, IMO that's really boring and outdated and useless.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 6, 2009)

mossystate said:


> Underage kids are not allowed to post...but I guess it ok for older people to talk about the kids' breasts and bellies and rear ends...in the most salacious manner possible.
> 
> 
> This was seen by a mod. The story is child pornography. [/COLOR][/B]



you lack the complexity and maturity to understand the differences between ephebophilia and pedophilia, to name one of your many wrongheaded anti-sex perceptions that border on nazism. oh but don't i mean anti-erection you say? you're kidding yourself if you think girls don't like this stuff too. in fact, you're kidding yourself altogether.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 6, 2009)

for instance, it was legal to fuck a consenting 14y/o in canada until just over a year ago. (it's 16 now)

sick right?


----------



## Isa (Sep 6, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> hey, IMO that's really boring and outdated and useless.






exile in thighville said:


> for instance, it was legal to fuck a consenting 14y/o in canada until just over a year ago. (it's 16 now)
> 
> sick right?



.................................


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 6, 2009)

can't wait to give my baby her sweet sixteen present when i leave for toronto on saturday


----------



## TraciJo67 (Sep 6, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> you lack the complexity and maturity to understand the differences between ephebophilia and pedophilia, to name one of your many wrongheaded anti-sex perceptions that border on nazism. oh but don't i mean anti-erection you say? you're kidding yourself if you think girls don't like this stuff too. in fact, you're kidding yourself altogether.



Are you really going to argue semantics here? Like there's a world of moral (or even legal) difference between pedophilia and ephebophilia and paraphilia? Like it's OK to write erotic fiction involving a 14-year-old because she's on the cusp of sexual maturity? Really? You're going to argue that??? 

And it's a huuuuuuuuuuge stretch to even consider that a man who is attracted to girls as young as 14 is an ephobophile. Both legally and morally.


----------



## mossystate (Sep 6, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> you lack the complexity and maturity to understand the differences between ephebophilia and pedophilia, to name one of your many wrongheaded anti-sex perceptions that border on nazism. oh but don't i mean anti-erection you say? you're kidding yourself if you think girls don't like this stuff too. in fact, you're kidding yourself altogether.



when you understand what I was saying...get back to me

nazism...the thread is so young for that

---

anyway...this thread was addressing something not allowed on Dims being posted, and approved by a Library mod


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 6, 2009)

there is an enormous difference, calling it semantics is further proof of butt-fuck know-shit ignorance. not to belabor the obvious, but pedophilia is a pathology involving children who are not sexually mature. ephebophilia is a predilection for sexually mature adolescents who are physically "ready" i.e. able to get pregnant, ejaculate, whether or not the state or human society deems it appropriate. as a 14-year-old i fantasized about girls my age; if you find something inherently wrong with adults fantasizing about high schoolers, you find something inherently wrong with that too.


----------



## Fascinita (Sep 6, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> sexually mature adolescents who are physically "ready" i.e. able to *get pregnant*, whether or not the state or human society deems it appropriate.



The boys, too?


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 6, 2009)

edited to include "ejaculate"


----------



## Wagimawr (Sep 6, 2009)

Dan, shut up.

Right or wrong, different or not, it's prohibited here. Take the subtext out of it and understand the part of Mossystate's post that has to do with prohibited material being not only left alone, but commented on by a moderator of that section.

Any other discussons are just fun with psychology.

p.s. they gonna lock you up, boy, they gonna take you awayyyyyy. hang out on anontalk some and learn just how dumb pedos/ephebos and the like really are.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Sep 6, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> there is an enormous difference, calling it semantics is further proof of butt-fuck know-shit ignorance. not to belabor the obvious, but pedophilia is a pathology involving children who are not sexually mature. ephebophilia is a predilection for sexually mature adolescents who are physically "ready" i.e. able to get pregnant, whether or not the state or human society deems it appropriate. as a 14-year-old i fantasized about girls my age; if you find something inherently wrong with adults fantasizing about high schoolers, you find something inherently wrong with that too.



Dan, I think you're confused about who the ignorant one is here.

With time, you'll learn.

In the meantime, I don't care to "edumicate" myself about the difference between the terms because frankly, I think that any adult male who would have sex with a very young teenage girl is a sick bastard who needs to be locked away for the good of society in general and the girl in particular. That you can't differentiate between a 14-year-old boy fantasizing about a peer and a 35-year-old man lusting over that same girl is ... troubling ... to say the least. 

Fantasizing about sex with anything/anyone at any age at all isn't illegal ... but damn if it isn't butt fuck know-shit ignorance to SHARE that fantasy with others.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 6, 2009)

Wagimawr said:


> Right or wrong, different or not, it's prohibited here.



it's not _really _prohibited here because i can think of half a dozen stories offhand that remain on the site with underage protagonists.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 6, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> Fantasizing about sex with anything/anyone at any age at all isn't illegal ... but damn if it isn't butt fuck know-shit ignorance to SHARE that fantasy with others.



yeah, you'd love those sick fucks to be quiet so you can remain holier than thou. i'm not threatened by my sorry-but-legal fantasies and i'm pretty proud of them.


----------



## mossystate (Sep 6, 2009)

You don't get to say anything you want, anywhere you want to say it. I mean, you CAN do it, but you then deal with what happens.

Any MATURE adult knows this. We know that it is childish to throw a tantrum, because there are rules. If I was all that into talking about my fantasies, I would get really aware of where I want to deposit said fantasy.

Jesus H Macy

This is about a story like that ....on....D...I...M...E...N...S...I...O...N...S.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 6, 2009)

your first post didn't just go away because you're willing a new argument from it.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Sep 6, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> yeah, you'd love those sick fucks to be quiet so you can remain holier than thou. i'm not threatened by my sorry-but-legal fantasies and i'm pretty proud of them.



No, actually I'd prefer that they stay silent because discussing those fantasies lends legitimacy to them, at least in the minds of the sick bastards who go beyond the harmless fantasizing and into the realm of verbalizing them. Some of my fantasies aren't pretty and neat and squeaky clean, either - but I'm not flatly ignorant enough to SHARE THEM with others. Some things aren't meant to be verbalized, not in polite company and in fact, not anywhere. That is something that you'd do well to learn, Dan.


----------



## Fascinita (Sep 6, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> edited to include "ejaculate"



I thought that as long you were schooling people, you wouldn't mind being schooled, too. Granted, it was easy to fix...

Ditto, what Wagimawr said. It's prohibited (for good reason, in my opinion) on Dimensions. Why did it get by the mods? Is Dimensions as a community OK with the underage being eroticized? I would guess that most people on Dims are not "OK" with that--including the owner, evidently.


----------



## mossystate (Sep 6, 2009)

To now see that it is being said that there was nothing sexual about the story...is freakishly outrageous.

Talking about the bodies of FOURTEEN YEAR OLD GIRLS, in a lascivious way...IS sexual.


This is Twilight Zone stuff.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 6, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> No, actually I'd prefer that they stay silent because discussing those fantasies lends legitimacy to them, at least in the minds of the sick bastards who go beyond the harmless fantasizing and into the realm of verbalizing them. Some of my fantasies aren't pretty and neat and squeaky clean, either - but I'm not flatly ignorant enough to SHARE THEM with others. Some things aren't meant to be verbalized, not in polite company and in fact, not anywhere. That is something that you'd do well to learn, Dan.



verbalizing fantasies is sick? your terrible argument is that you're not a pedophile _as long as you keep it to yourself_ but talk about it and you're legitimately sick?

judging by the way you and mossy talk down to the sickos here, your fantasies are either beyond the pale or extraordinarily banal.


----------



## Weeze (Sep 6, 2009)

omg love this thread.



I think dan's gonna lose this round.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Sep 6, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> verbalizing fantasies is sick? your terrible argument is that you're not a pedophile _as long as you keep it to yourself_ but talk about it and you're legitimately sick?
> 
> judging by the way you and mossy talk down to the sickos here, your fantasies are either beyond the pale or extraordinarily banal.



Miss.

Fail.

I'm not going to elaborate further with you, Dan. You've dug yourself into quite the hole, and what amuses me is that you clearly don't even realize it.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 6, 2009)

i have only shame for others in this thread.


----------



## Smushygirl (Sep 6, 2009)

My advice to everyone here is to *stay out of the Library*. I had to scrub myself clean from the one or two visits I made there. It is all bad, except for Caroline's stories. 

And we all know who toils there. Bad place!

Thank you from listening!:bow:


----------



## tonynyc (Sep 6, 2009)

Smushygirl said:


> My advice to everyone here is to *stay out of the Library*. I had to scrub myself clean from the one or two visits I made there. It is all bad, except for Caroline's stories.
> 
> And we all know who toils there. Bad place!
> 
> Thank you from listening!:bow:



*
Hi Dr. Smushy:
Coming back for a 2nd Helping may not have been the best thing for you. 
Less stress that is what you need :happy: 
*


----------



## Observer (Sep 6, 2009)

First of all, regarding the story in question:

1) There are no underage characters or underage sex issues - this is a British finishing school for girls - so no boys. And Finishing Schools are generally transitions between high school and a co-ed college - i.e, Junior College level. 

2) The age for consent in Great Britain is 16 so there are no age issues.​
Now, regarding underage protagonists, during my administration we've weeded out over sixty stories that I felt cross the line of our posted rules (which have been in effect since 2006) and if there are any that have been missed I'd be happy to can those as well. However, the rules do not explicity preclude anyone under 18 from being in a story. 

What is excluded are the following types of stories:

1) those with any references of a sexually enticing nature either to underage protagonists or with underage protagonists present; 

2) those that associate or involve pre-pubescent (<13) protagonists with any kind of weight references or participatory character role; 

3) those that involve teenage minors in practices such as feeding, weight gain drugs, explicit sex and similar themes;​
So, can we have stories about Cheerleaders (Bringing Down the Queen Bee)? Or one about high school politics, my own Fish out of Water Learns to Swim. 

Certainly. The fact is that a large number of our younger writers began doing WR fiction in High School and we have a large audience of older teenagers who appreciste fiction directed at that age level. What they get here at Dimensions is tame compared to what is available for teens elsewhere. Even the Disney channel is more radical. 

Our editors are very quick to pick up on allusions to drugs or anything else that is illegal - and if anyone has a prolem with a story they can PM me. The series in question has been running for a month and is now in its seventh chapter. I have not recieved one PM about it nor a report until today.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Sep 6, 2009)

Observer said:


> 2) The age for consent in Great Britain is 16 so there are no age issues.



Again, that's splitting hairs. It's still sexualization of minors and is against the forums own rules and needs to be removed.


----------



## Fascinita (Sep 6, 2009)

I've already posted some of these comments in the Library, but I'd like to respond here, too.



Observer said:


> 1) There are no underage characters or underage sex issues - this is a British finishing school for girls - so no boys. And Finishing Schools are generally transitions between high school and a co-ed college - i.e, Junior College level.​



Yes, there are. There are references to fourteen-year-old girls.



> 2) The age for consent in Great Britain is 16 so there are no age issues. [/INDENT]



The age of consent in Burkina Faso is thirteen. Should all those interested in writing this kind of material set their stories there so as to claim immunity from the rule?

Surely, Observer, you don't mean to imply that that kind of content would be OK at Dimensions?

I doubt highly that when the owner of this website wrote those rules, he meant "underage" to mean "according to the law of the country represented in the story."



> Now, regarding underage protagonists, during my administration we've weeded out over sixty stories that I felt cross the line of our posted rules (which have been in effect since 2006) and if there are any that have been missed I'd be happy to can those as well. However, the rules do not explicity preclude anyone under 18 from being in a story.



Not true. The rules do preclude characters portrayed as under eighteen from being in certain stories.

Read here:

Excluded Contributions: Those that are off topic and/or primarily dedicated to other fantasy genres, alternative life styles and art forms (including specifically explicit stand alone pictures and drawings, vore, cannibalism etc.); those with any references of a sexually enticing nature either to underage protagonists or with underage protagonists present; *those that associate or involve pre-pubescent protagonists with any kind of weight references or participatory character role;* those that involve teenage minors in practices such as feeding, weight gain drugs, explicit sex and similar themes; those that feature or include excessive violence or protagonist abuse; those not in compliance with pertaining laws, including specifically those laws related to incest and illegal drugs.

Any story that portrays a pre-pubescent "participatory character" is prohibited. Period.



> What is excluded are the following types of stories:
> 
> 1) those with any references of a sexually enticing nature either to underage protagonists or with underage protagonists present;
> 
> ...



The story in question clearly contains references of a sexually enticing nature to underage protagonists. Most of it is given over to describing fourteen-plus-year-old girls eating, fondling their bodies, being measured... The descriptions pay a lot of attention to the "ample bosoms" and "huge behinds" of the girls. Why isn't it clear to you that this breaks the rules? Those references to the bodies of underage girls aren't there to provoke a sexual response in readers? Or are we to believe that this is a jolly story for grandparents eager to ensure that their grandkids are well fed?


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 6, 2009)

Jack Skellington said:


> Again, that's splitting hairs. It's still sexualization of minors and is against the forums own rules and needs to be removed.



oh what a surprise.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Sep 6, 2009)

Smushygirl said:


> My advice to everyone here is to *stay out of the Library*. I had to scrub myself clean from the one or two visits I made there. It is all bad, except for Caroline's stories.
> 
> And we all know who toils there. Bad place!
> 
> Thank you from listening!:bow:


----------



## mossystate (Sep 6, 2009)

14 year old girls are mentioned. That is 2 years away from being 16.

We are really going to be told, with a straight face, that a story FULL of heaving breasts and panties cutting into flesh....IS NOT SEXUAL?

----
_" ...gave her rump a hefty push with both hands, her fingers sinking into the soft adipose of each vast orb. Rebecca staggered clumsily up another few steps, with Lex continuing to shove hard against her backside. 

Ok, ok! Leggo my butt! cried Rebecca, wanting to stop but fearful that if she did so shed fall forwards under the pressure of Lexs pushing. 

No way  Im gonna keep hold of these beach balls you call a butt until we get to the top! No more stopping! said Lex, forcefully, continuing to push firmly against the undulating flesh of her friends comically large posterior. _

Because, when any of us give a buddy a boost, we gaze at that undulating flesh.


So...I see that Observer has changed ages in that story. Where once it said 14...it now says 16. And, yet, that does not really change the story....does it. Does it still have the references of how the seniors have been there for...years? That sure seems to imply that the fattening school is there for girls younger than 16, now doesn't it.

Why change the age of the 14 year old, if there is nothing sexual about the story? Isn't this just a cute slumber party story, with little girls gorging on tasty snacks?

No? Yes? Bueller?


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 6, 2009)

16 is also two years away from 18. it doesn't actually fucking matter. THESE GIRLS DO NOT EXIST BUT LET'S PROTECT THEM FROM EVIL PEDOPHILES


----------



## TraciJo67 (Sep 6, 2009)

Mossy, you prudish prude ... some guys 'n gals like to wank to this stuff, and you're killing the mood. 



mossystate said:


> 14 year old girls are mentioned. That is 2 years away from being 16.
> 
> We are really going to be told, with a straight face, that a story FULL of heaving breasts and panties cutting into flesh....IS NOT SEXUAL?
> 
> ...


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 6, 2009)

that's basically it, and if you're not jerking to it why are you reading it? do you want me to link you to some ageplay forums so you can go on more "missions"? need some busy work?

if text on a page offends you, you don't make good use of your time.


----------



## mossystate (Sep 6, 2009)

Exile, you are screeching and sputtering.

I saw the story on the front page...I clicked on it, as I knew that underage stuff was generallllllllly frowned upon out here. Still with me? I never went hunting for...anything.

Walk it off, guy.


----------



## Smushygirl (Sep 6, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


>



Why roll your eyes? I don't mind sexy stories/porn. I found none there that were remotely interesting to me. Most are poorly written. I stay out to avoid being appalled by that place. Was the advice I gave to everyone else. Case closed.


----------



## Observer (Sep 6, 2009)

The author made his first reference and only reference any age in the fourth chapter and we missed it. Its now been made sixteen. 

And by the way, although Conrad approved them I was the one who wrote the present rules basck in 2006. Why? Because the previous version was far too general and unenforced. What we have now is enforced - the language is tamer, scenes get tuned down and we don't have material that could be pedophilic. As I noted we bounced over sixty stories.

What gets me is that we now have a wider range of writers, including women, a number of very serrius authors, and a much wider audience. There has been a considerable change from the emphasis of the librsry foiur yesars ago - and I think most feel for the better. But I get the impression that the criticism is coming from people who haven't actually read many of our current stories. If they had they'd be praising the good and protesting ones they don't like.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 7, 2009)

mossystate said:


> Walk it off, guy.



thanks but i'll probably wind down with some "young adult fiction" instead.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Sep 7, 2009)

Smushygirl said:


> Why roll your eyes? I don't mind sexy stories/porn. I found none there that were remotely interesting to me. Most are poorly written. I stay out to avoid being appalled by that place. Was the advice I gave to everyone else. Case closed.



Ditto.

Aside from GEF's fabulous stories, most are too poorly written to even approach the notion of being offensive (you have to read more than the first few lines, and be able to understand them, to ever get to the point of offended sensibilities).


----------



## mossystate (Sep 7, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> thanks but i'll probably wind down with some "young adult fiction" instead.



* musses your hair *


----------



## Weeze (Sep 7, 2009)

this is another thread that makes me squirm. 

I'm not saying we should allow pedophilia on dimensions, not by a long shot.

but... the library has a LOT of kinky stuff for fantasizing. I've written some stuff that's... pretty extreme, but i'm no way in hell going to post it here. I love all of you, and you know that, but it's really been proven that a lot of dimensions isn't tolerant of extremes. And that's OK, this isn't the place for it. 

I don't know what i'm getting at... I guess what I mean is that I get off on weight gain, but i don't want to weigh 500 lbs in reality. I have fantasies about having sex with my mom (not MY mom, but like... a woman... role playing as my mother)... but I wouldn't actually want to have sex with MY MOM. (she's a bitch)... Does that make me a bad person?


----------



## thatgirl08 (Sep 7, 2009)

I hate to use the whole 'if you don't like it, don't read it' thing yet again but.. yeah, don't. This story may be disgusting, tasteless and downright creepy but the thing is is that it's legal, no kids are being hurt & according to a mod it's within the rules.


----------



## kayrae (Sep 7, 2009)

Yes. I meant no.


----------



## Jack Skellington (Sep 7, 2009)

Observer said:


> But I get the impression that the criticism is coming from people who haven't actually read many of our current stories. If they had they'd be praising the good and protesting ones they don't like.



My "criticism" comes from the sexualization of minors in the story which cleary violates the forum's own rules. If there are other stories that sexualize minors they should be removed as well.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Sep 7, 2009)

Smushygirl said:


> Why roll your eyes? I don't mind sexy stories/porn. I found none there that were remotely interesting to me. Most are poorly written. I stay out to avoid being appalled by that place. Was the advice I gave to everyone else. Case closed.



Rolling my eyes because saying it's a 'bad place' and that you had to scrub yourself clean is a little offensive. Just because it doesn't interest you doesn't mean it doesn't interest anyone, clearly. Your advice sucks. Case closed.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Sep 7, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> I hate to use the whole 'if you don't like it, don't read it' thing yet again but.. yeah, don't. This story may be disgusting, tasteless and downright creepy but the thing is is that it's legal, no kids are being hurt & according to a mod it's within the rules.



I think the question that has been raised is, does it truly fall within the rules? Observer assuring us that it does, does NOT make it so. Personally, I think that falling back on the age of consent for the country of origin is a steaming load, and I am assuming that the story wasn't taken down because a) nobody complained about it before and b) Conrad didn't know of its existence.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Sep 7, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> I think the question that has been raised is, does it truly fall within the rules? Observer assuring us that it does, does NOT make it so. Personally, I think that falling back on the age of consent for the country of origin is a steaming load, and I am assuming that the story wasn't taken down because a) nobody complained about it before and b) Conrad didn't know of its existence.



I get what you're saying but I'm just sorta under the impression that a mod has final say?

I'll also say that I'm not completely against the story being posted but I'd rather not get into that discussion.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 7, 2009)

mossystate said:


> * musses your hair *



i'm here for humor but your witless intolerance disgusts me. always. sorry.


----------



## Fascinita (Sep 7, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> that's basically it, and if you're not jerking to it why are you reading it?



Dan,

I champion the right of anyone to *publish* anything: text is text; Nabokov, Miller and Faulkner were all censored, as were many others, and I don't want to live in a world in which it's not OK to read _Lolita_. But clearly, we're not talking about state censorship here. (Nor is any old gibberish that's published going to be welcomed by the reading public.) 

We're talking about a community. The Library exists in a community that's free to decide how to organize itself. "The state" here is essentially Conrad, plus whatever input he decides to take from the users of the website. Assuming that neither Conrad nor the majority of the people who subscribe here is willing to be associated with portrayals of underage people in a sexually enticing way, what ground is there left to cover? In fact, there are already rules prohibiting that particular story, so the question that opened this thread is germane: Why did the story get published?

Many needs are met here other than those met by the library, and people at large are free to speak when someone in the community breaks one of its own rules. I'm sorry to put it this way, but whatever problems you're voicing, they seem of a personal nature at this point.


----------



## mossystate (Sep 7, 2009)

_ " Shed always excelled throughout her education, but it was only when she was 13 that her parents had mentioned that she might apply for entrance to the prestigious Fullerton Academy for Girls. With her excellent academic credentials and superlative record of achievement on the sportsfield, Katherine was confident that shed not only gain entrance, but would likely be placed on a scholarship scheme. Sure enough, she was duly offered a place. "_

Now, I suppose the spin on this could be that she only thought about it when she was 13, and did not actually get in until she was 16...or 64. Yeah. 

----

kris...I know what you and a few others are saying...but...this is about sexualized stories of underage people....this is not about adults.....it is not a slippery slope of censorship, to have this one thing not be tolerated......I don't think that those stories will have pedophiles think they have a home here....it's not that, at all


----------



## comaseason (Sep 7, 2009)

Too bad the author doesn't have the writing skills of Vladimir Nabokov or Marguerite Duras.


----------



## Fascinita (Sep 7, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> according to a mod it's within the rules.



The mod has said it's within the rules, yes. But mods don't get carte blanche on applying the rules as they see fit, nor do they get to break the rules--not because they're mods and not because they had a hand in writing the rules.

The rules say that stories "with any references of a *sexually enticing* nature either to *underage protagonists* or with underage protagonists present" are excluded.

Clearly that story contains references of a sexually enticing nature to underage protagonists.

Therefore what the mod says in this case is wrong.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 7, 2009)

Fascinita said:


> Why did the story get published?



the same reason the hundreds of other stories sexualizing children that remain on this site do. the adolescent aspect was either deemed TEXT ON A PAGE or overlooked. my guess is that only the dullsticks care about the story rules on an adult forum that's tragically attached to their size acceptance forum. that sounds like a snub to the mods but it ain't; their best interests are likely not to protect people from themselves. it's really a shame that those story rules were put in place to begin with _just to appease people who do not actually care about the stories here_.


----------



## TraciJo67 (Sep 7, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> I get what you're saying but I'm just sorta under the impression that a mod has final say?
> 
> I'll also say that I'm not completely against the story being posted but I'd rather not get into that discussion.



I just read the story in question, actually (or rather, skimmed it). Meh. In terms of provocativeness, it's pretty tame. I'm not against the existence of the story, nor do I care about those who get off on its subject matter, though all the same, I'd really rather not know who that is ... unless that person wished to act on the fantasies, and had access to children. Whether or not it offends my sensibilities, yours, or anyone else's though ... I think the issue is that it does involve minors, and some sexuality is involved, and this is against the stated rules of the library.


----------



## Wagimawr (Sep 7, 2009)

TraciJo67 said:


> it does involve minors, and some sexuality is involved, and this is against the stated rules of the library



Besides, if the story's discussing "seniors", shouldn't the girls be 18 years old? In the UK or the USA?


----------



## thatgirl08 (Sep 7, 2009)

Yeah, it's clear that the story breaks the rules and for that reason alone, it should be removed or there needs to be a change made to the rules. I mean what's the point of having the rules if stories like this get by? Once again, I take no issue with the story but this is pretty black & white purely because of the stated rules in the forum.


----------



## thatgirl08 (Sep 7, 2009)

Wagimawr said:


> Besides, if the story's discussing "seniors", shouldn't the girls be 18 years old? In the UK or the USA?



I'm pretty sure kids graduate HS at age 16 in the UK actually.


----------



## Wagimawr (Sep 7, 2009)

We could always strip away cross-cultural trappings, and make it an American private high school with 18 year old seniors.

Hell, I'll edit it.


----------



## Weeze (Sep 7, 2009)

Wagimawr said:


> We could always strip away cross-cultural trappings, and make it an American private high school with 18 year old seniors.
> 
> Hell, I'll edit it.



gah. answer your phone.


----------



## Mini (Sep 7, 2009)

While I can hardly be called an arbiter of good taste, I don't really see the problem with the stories involving the "underage" protagonists. They're not my thing and I choose to spend my time doing other things, but more power to those who use 'em as wank fodder.

I mean, I'm the last person to give much credit to the species and even *I* can't make the leap from fantasizing about a youth in a poorly-written WG story to actively engaging in sexual activities with minors. And at that, I think societal norms are changing to the point where we need to reevaluate our perception of "minors."

Maybe I'm missing the point. Probably. Perhaps I just don't have the right perspective on this. Perhaps there *is* no right perspective. This is one of the few times I'll cop to being somewhat ignorant on the subject and having not much in the way of an informed opinion.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 7, 2009)

if this helps shed some light on why i appear overly sympathetic to pedophilic concerns...

like most feeders, i've had big phases of guilt and denial, not being able to "control" this thing that i want - yet do not want - so badly. i obsess over the idea of waking up as a pedophile just as i did as a feeder, just waking up one day and there you are: illegal, guilt-stricken, uncontrollable. i would be despondent, especially if my hypothetical pedo libido was as strong as my feederistic desires. even if someone kept the pedo pathology "in check" - a kiddie porn collection rather than being a stranger with candy, how could you live with a secret like that? talk about secret fetish concerns, one false move as a pedophile and you're in jail or alienated from your friends, family, the neighborhood. to clarify, for those who have and would never harm anyone (and just think about it, if all those molestors you've heard of or been victimized by are the heartless ones with no self-control, just imagine how many must exist that can manage the willpower or confine themselves to jerking off?) and just woke up with a desire for children, especially the huge amount who have been abused themselves, i am sympathetic. i don't know how i would manage. i would blow my brains out.

i'm extremely sensitive to lynch mob mentality and i find the current culture of _To Catch a Predator_ highly offensive; you would not interview a schizophrenic as prime time entertainment yet people find something funny or resolute about "catching" the mentally ill.

all of that aside, there are so many fetishes that people are quick to judge: incest, ageplay, and many that people are quick and reactive to yell SICK or PEDO. nothing written by or for consenting adults, or anything that can be done between two consenting adults can be pedo. ever. it's even a stretch to say something done between a 20 year old and a 15 year old can be considered pedo, especially at the ages kids such as i matured sexually nowadays. there is something wrong with a culture so desperate to unite against a common enemy and now stripped of homophobia, racism and sexism's political correctness, attacking people who fall into two categories: mentally ill or extremely kinky.

i have roleplayed things with partners that would make these judgmental mobs quick to think i'd be like, i don't know, steps away from harming a child. believe me, i'd love to harm kids but they're too fucking disgusting to imagine anything sexual taking place. i doubt they could suck cock like a 21-year-old girl either. nevertheless, in stories they can be what you want them to be, because they are written by adults, adults with fantasies, the same kind they would playact in a daddy/daughter or student/teacher sex session with another adult.

as a sexual culture we are extremely "pedo." saying things like mommy, daddy, mami, papi, adult breastfeeding, infantilism, enemas, dressing up like a schoolgirl in pigtails, deflowering a virgin. these are our fantasies. and all of them in most cases, revolve around a singular trope that is not difficult to see the appeal of: corrupting the innocent. anyone who denies teenage sex is hot has never been a teenager; high school is where bodies and thoughts develop innocently and uncontrollably. to attack these stories is to miss the point, that yes, they are fantasies, but more importantly, they have been written because - like extreme aspects of feederism - they can't be done. they have to be imagined, for the sake of real life. 

all of this is moot when the site is run privately and what conrad says goes. but encouraging people on an adult forum to shut their traps about what they like - especially women, who not only validate these views but feel ten times more pressure from society to keep their "sick" desires to themselves lest we brand them sluts or worse, "abnormal" - is odious bullying. you don't have to look at what turns your neighbor's crank. why do we have to look at your intolerance of it?


----------



## Fonzy (Sep 7, 2009)

thatgirl08 said:


> I'm pretty sure kids graduate HS at age 16 in the UK actually.



You can legally leave school at that age but I don't think you actually graduate and your second level education (the equivalent of American high school) isn't formally over until you complete the "A Levels" as far as I understand. I may be wrong since things are slightly different here in Ireland. But if they are seniors then they probably should be aged between 17-19, but thats a rather contentious issue anyway since the age you finish school is obviously dependent on the age you enter at.


----------



## Donna (Sep 7, 2009)

Observer said:


> *snip*
> 2) _The age for consent in Great Britain is 16 so there are no age issues._
> 
> Now, regarding underage protagonists, during my administration we've weeded out over sixty stories that I felt cross the line of our posted rules (which have been in effect since 2006) and if there are any that have been missed I'd be happy to can those as well. _However, the rules do not explicity preclude anyone under 18 from being in a story._
> ...



I apologize if someone has already asked this, but if this is the reasoning being used in this situation, what then is the reasoning that one must be over 18 to be a member of this forum? If one is considered sexually mature in GB at 16, then should residents of GB who are 16 & 17 be allowed to be members? 

And for the record, I am not asking this totally of you, Observer. It is my hope Conrad is reading this thread and will comment as well. Your use of the phrase "my administration" makes it clear that you have some kind of authority that I do not believe you to hold.


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Sep 7, 2009)

Smushygirl said:


> My advice to everyone here is to *stay out of the Library*. I had to scrub myself clean from the one or two visits I made there. It is all bad, except for Caroline's stories.
> 
> And we all know who toils there. Bad place!
> 
> Thank you from listening!:bow:





TraciJo67 said:


> Ditto.
> 
> Aside from GEF's fabulous stories, most are too poorly written to even approach the notion of being offensive (you have to read more than the first few lines, and be able to understand them, to ever get to the point of offended sensibilities).




Lol, I guess this isn't really the topic to blow kisses in but thank you Ladies. Didn't realize you had even read them 




Wagimawr said:


> Besides, if the story's discussing "seniors", shouldn't the girls be 18 years old? In the UK or the USA?





Jack Skellington said:


> Again, that's splitting hairs. It's still sexualization of minors and is against the forums own rules and needs to be removed.






Jack Skellington said:


> My "criticism" comes from the sexualization of minors in the story which cleary violates the forum's own rules. If there are other stories that sexualize minors they should be removed as well.



I think Jack makes a valid point....it's an "over 18 for adults only" forum...yet stories about sexually lusting after people younger than that are okay? 
Hell if 14 and 16 years old are "legal" in some countries (16 is "legal" here in the grand old redneck state where I live too) then why don't we let 14 and 16 year olds on the forums? 

Either 18 and up and is considered "adult" on the forums...or not. 


I'm kind of surprised actually.....as someone that has edited some of the library stories. Observer has always told me to make anyone under the age of 18 into an adult over the age of 18....

I haven't read the story in question...anyone have a link?

And the excerpt I read......it sounds like she's being raped or molested. Stories of women being kidnapped, held against their will, force fed under death threats aren't new to the library, btw........

Hell....I'm the lady freak story writer around here....who keeps it vanilla because not everyone would be comfortable reading my "fantasies". I can write you some good slapping around, choking, beating, anal sex ripping, gagging, passing out stuff.....but I don't to put it on public display. 
As TraciJo pointed out.....I don't need to push my shit onto everyone else. If I need to write my fantasies out, I don't even need to post them here. 

I think the library should be more than just wank for fetishists....it should be a mix that holds something for everyone. The site seems to want to push for the idea that big is beautiful.....not that abusing fatties and pretending they love it or sex with minors is real groovy.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Sep 7, 2009)

I don't see a problem here. If it is against rules posted by Conrad it needs to be taken down. If the current Mod cannot follow the rules set by his boss - he/she needs to be removed. Seems pretty simple to me. 

My opinion - underage (meaning under 18) children do not need to be sexualized here or anywhere. If you think fantasizing, in print or in someones imagination doesn't lead to actual acts - think again.


----------



## Wild Zero (Sep 7, 2009)

Sandie_Zitkus said:


> If you think fantasizing, in print or in someones imagination doesn't lead to actual acts - think again.



_10 Things I Hate About You_ was the leading cause of statutory rape from 2000-2003.


----------



## Observer (Sep 7, 2009)

Sandie, this isn't about me or any other mod refusing to do anything. 

As GEF has accurately stated, I've instructed her (and others) to change any underage protagonist to 18 and adjust the plotline accordingly. The alternative has been to delete the story if adjusting the plotline isn't feasible. And that has been done to the story in question, correcting an initial editing oversight that I had to use the search function to even find. . 

What we're talking about is a larger issue - the role of WR fiction.

The rules as they presently exist were specifically crafted NOT to preclude stories like "Fish out of Water Learns to Swim" (which is based on actual events and was one of my first contributions here back in the late nineties before there were any rules). But it does have 100% teen age participants because it took place in a high school.

Some don’t like this nuanced approach. They seem to feel that our WR collection is meant primarily to exploit women, help guys wank, and even encourage pornography and pedophilia. If any of that were true at any level I would never have taken the job of Library curator to begin with. It was hard enough (and everyone knows it) getting me to tolerate publicly visible fetish tales and erotica.

Why did I take this job? Or start writing WR fiction myself?

In part because, in addition to adults, teenage FA's (I was one a half century ago) and BBT (big beautiful teens) and young adults need a counter to the biases against chubbier kids that exists today.

When I was a boy the Hardy Boys and Nancy Drew series were popular. One of Nancy Drew's sidekicks was a plump girl - in the ABC television series she was written out of the script.

In the early 1950's there were comics with chubby kids - Little Lotta plus Little Lulu and her boy friend Tubby. Today they're not around.

Instead we have kids who turn to anorexia because they think they have to be skinny to be successful and popular. Others withdraw into shells, refusing to have a social life because they don't "fit in." The schools, the media and literature reinforce this kind of reaction. In college I saw two coeds (who may have been under 18) faint due to the effects of fad dieting and neither was really large. . 

From Mark Twain's Tom Sawyer to Charles Dicken's Tiny Tim and Oliver Twist to the story of David in the Bible and the literature of China stories of teens help to mold the culture of the day. And, despite the desire of some to pretend ortherwise and say we're "adults only", the Dimensions community is no different.

When I came here the Alice series and its companions were already here despite the supposed "no underage contributions" rule. So were Deryk Shanes works. They had been posted to the old BBS board and no one even realized that not only were they about teens - they were being written by teens who at the time were under age 18.

So we did a more nuanced version of the rules that prevented exploitation of minors while allowing some teen age involvement. 

Underage had not been defined either - and a surprising proportion of our writers come from the UK. So we decided to follow the local custom of their country of origin - never even considering the location of the server as a criteria. Now, as has been pointed out, some countries would take that down much lower than the UK limit, and that could present problems if someone from there made a contribution. But frankly we weren't aware of those extremes at the time.

With these revised and more practical rules in place I purged some sixty stories from the VB collection and created a spread sheet for the over 1000 stories in he Weight Room. Over time we identified a number more for deletion, not just for child involvement but for pornography and other inappropriate mateial. Wilson Barbers has eliminated nearly 100 such tales and has a list of about thirty more to go when he gets to it. 

Thosze who chasrge that we've "alwasys" had teen storiues are correct - but he ones today are PG and G rated instead of the R and X variety that can be found on several other sites. Ours is the "gold standard" when it comes to WR fiction and ome criticize us for being soo "prudish." 

Yet, as the comments in the lounge thread this weekend show, there are those who still think of WR fiction and our library as codewords for wanker heaven. 

This in my opinion is not now the case - if it ever was. We now have stories for everyone. If some think that a tale like Fish out of Water is in any way exploiting teens rather than providing a positive role model, or that positive role models don't belong in our collection, then I guess we have to agree to disagree.

So where do we go rom here? 

The nuanced rules now may be changed to make 18 an iron clad rule -in which case someone has a major job to do. This is especially so if we say that even those which have "age 18" labels are going to have to be viewed and analyzed to see if the portrayals really reflect someone younger.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 7, 2009)

hey observer - comparing weight stories to the hardy boys and saying the characters are meant to be "role models" is complete bullshit

but more importantly, are people really arguing that 16y/os should not be in stories because only adults are allowed in this forum?


----------



## Donna (Sep 7, 2009)

Observer, are you kidding? :blink:

You are comparing the works of Mark Twain & Charles Dickens (amongst others, including the many authors of the Hardy Boys/Nancy Drew books) to the amateur prose found in the Dimensions' Library? 

Again I have to ask, if Dimensions Forums are for adults (defined by Conrad's rules as being over 18 years of age,) why would we include prose for and about teens here? Surely there are sites catering to teens that would/should carry size positive fiction (hopefully without straying into the sexual arena of things. But I digress.)

:doh:


----------



## mossystate (Sep 7, 2009)

Don't allow underage kids to post on Dimensions, just allow the older people who want to imagine 13 year olds in tight panties, to learn about how underage fat children deal with pressures of living in a world where they have so much stacked against them. 


Observer says...

" _In part because, in addition to adults, teenage FA's (I was one a half century ago) and BBT (big beautiful teens) and young adults need a counter to the biases against chubbier kids that exists today._ "

How the FUCK is having explotative stories about ' little piggies stuffing their faces, as other little piggies press against the ass cheeks of the little piggy in front of them, as they are huffing and puffing and dreaming of the next suitcase full of mallowmars....countering biases. That comment is very sick and manipulative, when placing it next to stories like this.

Even you, Observer, cannot keep a straight face ( or, maybe you can, which is frightening ), as you try and make this OK.

This has nothing to do with helping young people. It is for older people to get off, and having a comfortable place to find stories about kids. There are plenty of places for this sort of thing. Or, let 13 year olds post on Dimensions, so they can have THEIR say, about how it is to be 13 and fat on this planet. Their experiences can be exploited, but they have no voice. THAT is very chilling.


----------



## kayrae (Sep 7, 2009)

This thread is full of lolz. I have been giggling since last night.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 7, 2009)

mossystate said:


> Don't allow underage kids to post on Dimensions, just allow the older people who want to imagine 13 year olds in tight panties, to learn about how underage fat children deal with pressures of living in a world where they have so much stacked against them.
> 
> 
> Observer says...
> ...



any 13 year old with a brain can already do this. adults will imagine 13y/os whether observer follows a rule or not. they can't be exploitative because the exploitees don't exist. when 13 year olds post here you'll be a dick to them and *ruffle their hair*.


----------



## mossystate (Sep 7, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> any 13 year old with a brain can already do this. and adults will imagine 13y/os whether observer follows a rule or not.



* finger in nose *...well....duh, exile...gee whiz...glad you spelled that out for me

13 year old OPENLY posting as being 13, so they can counter the OPEN posts about.....oh......nevermind.....lol

Oh..and...I would only ruffle their hair if they were like you. So, probably not much ruffling. Now, go be a dick to trolls, or those who you think are trolls, even though they might just be confused and need people to help them to not be trolls and not mock. * wink *....* pulls hand away...resists the urge *


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 7, 2009)

yeah, you've certainly never kneejerk-responded to an OP.

not that mini did anything much worse, but all i said in that thread was "great thread."


----------



## Risible (Sep 7, 2009)

Please observe the "no personal attacks" rule, or risk infraction/time-out.

Thank you.

/mod


----------



## Observer (Sep 7, 2009)

I fully agree that apassage such as you cite would be wrong. But I did did a search on both suitcases+piggies and mallomars in the VB forum as well as mallomars in the weight room. No such passage as you quote exists on the site.

And the comparision I was making was that all litersaturte contains a juvenile element, not that our writers or stories are of the same level as the ones noted. 

Right now until much later I'm AFK, so if I don't respond further for awhile its not that I'm ignoring anyone.


----------



## mossystate (Sep 7, 2009)

" I fully agree that apassage such as you cite would be wrong. But I did did a search on both suitcases+piggies and mallomars in the VB forum as well as mallomars in the weight room. No such passage as you quote exists on the site. "

Observer, are you just having too much fun pretending you don't understand what is being said? It's fine...I mean, you can enjoy this....just be honest.


----------



## Jes (Sep 7, 2009)

Observer said:


> First of all, regarding the story in question:
> 
> 1) There are no underage characters or underage sex issues - this is a British finishing school for girls - so no boys..​




this is particularly interesting to me. People very often do consider 'real' sex only that which involves the penis and the vagina, not 2 (or more) vaginas. That's why so many women engaged in physical relationships with other women in, say, the Victorian period, while never being labeled homosexual or adulterer. Their relations didn't involve a penis; hence, no actual sex.​


----------



## Jes (Sep 7, 2009)

Re: Mods--yes, I believe she does have the final say.


----------



## rainyday (Sep 7, 2009)

Observer, if the library rules say no underage characters are allowed, why wasn't your response *from the start*, "That's obviously a story we didn't catch. Let me correct that _immediately_." 

It's mind boggling that this discussion has even carried on into machinations about international definitions of the age of consent, delusions about how the characters aren't involved in anything sexually enticing, etc. Not even going to touch the bizarreness of dedicating yourself to the library out of belief that the content provides kids with a much-needed counter to society's biases. Kids who aren't even supposed to be reading it.

If this discussion were about provocative drawings calling attention to "sexy" features of underage teens would you be splitting hairs as to why those were acceptable too? That the content exists in text makes it no different.

It's disturbing me to find I'm participating on a site with even a whiff of acceptance for sexually related content about minors.


----------



## liz (di-va) (Sep 8, 2009)

I'm a little confused and appalled at the back-and-forth about this too. Do you know how fast this place would be shut down if it were perceived as trafficking in anything involving underage people? All this arguing is off the point; legally, you have to draw clear lines. I am also uncomfortable personally that it's not being handled that way.


----------



## Webmaster (Sep 8, 2009)

rainyday said:


> It's disturbing me to find I'm participating on a site with even a whiff of acceptance for sexually related content about minors.



There is no acceptance. I long ago made the decision that Dimensions is an adult site and community, and the legal age limit is non-negotiable. We do not, categorically not, allow underage participation or inclusion of sexual connotation to underage individuals. We'll eliminate any ambiguity in the rules and whatever stories don't comply will have to go.


----------



## Suze (Sep 8, 2009)

why is it so hard to admit when you're wroooooong


----------



## liz (di-va) (Sep 8, 2009)

Thanks, Conrad--


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 8, 2009)

liz (di-va) said:


> I'm a little confused and appalled at the back-and-forth about this too. Do you know how fast this place would be shut down if it were perceived as trafficking in anything involving underage people? All this arguing is off the point; legally, you have to draw clear lines. I am also uncomfortable personally that it's not being handled that way.



i'm fine with what conrad says.

i just want to point out about legality: text is text. literotica.com is the biggest sex stories database on the web and it's loaded with incest, rape, adolescent and high school fantasies. nothing is "involving underage people" because there are no "people" in fiction to be underage. it's definitely legal, but i completely understand why dimensions would not want to deal with this albatross.

as a discussion, this has only led me to the conclusion that the fetishists are not the ones with the problem distinguishing reality from fantasy.


----------



## rainyday (Sep 8, 2009)

Webmaster said:


> There is no acceptance. I long ago made the decision that Dimensions is an adult site and community, and the legal age limit is non-negotiable. We do not, categorically not, allow underage participation or inclusion of sexual connotation to underage individuals. We'll eliminate any ambiguity in the rules and whatever stories don't comply will have to go.



Glad to hear a definite line will be enforced, Conrad. Thanks for responding.


----------



## Sandie_Zitkus (Sep 8, 2009)

Thank you for that Conrad.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 8, 2009)

Theon: i can't believe the argument has gone on this long it's not even an argument

Dan: yeah i fucking know

Theon: are children being exploited or molested
no
okay

Dan: it's frightening how much i banged my head against the wall on that point

Theon: are the stories causing people to molest children
i dunno maybe we can think about that important issue while we all go see noted great film inglourious basterds

Theon: also okay: computer-generated images of five-year-old girls being raped gleefully with shotguns while sobbing uncontrollably

Dan: yes i know
i know
i know alllllllll this

Theon: you should just post that verbatim what do you care about this stupid board anyway

Dan: fine

Theon: do these people hate "i saw her standing there" cuz17
complete with super-lecherous "IF YOU KNOW WHAT I MEAN" nudgenudge

Dan: i'm posting that

Theon: i mean no not if you want to like Keep Rep or whatever
you might make the fat girls cry
oh my god this hardy boys post

Dan: yeah observer is a whole other story


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 8, 2009)

Theon: _the fattening school_

Dan: it's like an r.l. stine book
_the haunted adipose_


----------



## Weeze (Sep 8, 2009)

and ladies and gentlemen, the thread takes a turn!


----------



## vardon_grip (Sep 8, 2009)

rainyday said:


> Observer, if the library rules say no underage characters are allowed, why wasn't your response *from the start*, "That's obviously a story we didn't catch. Let me correct that _immediately_."
> 
> It's mind boggling that this discussion has even carried on into machinations about international definitions of the age of consent, delusions about how the characters aren't involved in anything sexually enticing, etc. Not even going to touch the bizarreness of dedicating yourself to the library out of belief that the content provides kids with a much-needed counter to society's biases. Kids who aren't even supposed to be reading it.
> 
> ...



Agreed! It sounds like a lot of misguided justification thrown in with a ton of smoked red herring and a hall of mirrors. The rules look black and white to me and when there is an attempt to re-interpret them it feels like there is a large conflict of interest .


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Sep 8, 2009)

This thread has been a very interesting one to read. 

I identify with those who say this type of story has no place here, and I understand what Dan is saying in that its just fantasy, but as someone who was molested as a child and as a mother of two children I just can't see it as not being possibly harmful at some level. 

To me, there is a big difference between two *adults* fantasizing about age play, and a grown man or women fantasizing about having sex with a child. The difference being if the fantasies were lived out, in the first example its just two adults engaging in consenual sex, in the second a child is being harmed. FWIW the story was about adults, with one was playing daddy and the other daughter I wouldn't have a problem with it. 

ETA: Dan upthread you said " i obsess over the idea of waking up as a pedophile just as i did as a feeder, just waking up one day and there you are: illegal, guilt-stricken, uncontrollable."

I'm trying to understand where you are coming from with this sentence, and I just can't equate the two. With one you like and fantasize about feeding people and making them fatter, in the other your fantasize about having sex with children. Surely you can see that one is wrong? 

I get that you think someone shouldn't be punished for their fantasies, that a person isn't in control of what turns them on. On that much I will agree with you. What I don't understand though, is why you seem to be so in support of stories portraying children in a sexual manner. Is it the story you support? Or the idea of censorship that you are against?


----------



## Green Eyed Fairy (Sep 8, 2009)

@Ella....I already tried. Trust me......



Webmaster said:


> There is no acceptance. I long ago made the decision that Dimensions is an adult site and community, and the legal age limit is non-negotiable. We do not, categorically not, allow underage participation or inclusion of sexual connotation to underage individuals. We'll eliminate any ambiguity in the rules and whatever stories don't comply will have to go.



Thank You :bow:


----------



## mossystate (Sep 8, 2009)

Webmaster said:


> There is no acceptance. I long ago made the decision that Dimensions is an adult site and community, and the legal age limit is non-negotiable. We do not, categorically not, allow underage participation or inclusion of sexual connotation to underage individuals. We'll eliminate any ambiguity in the rules and whatever stories don't comply will have to go.



What is the legal age limit?

In the story in question, there is a mention of someone being 13 years old when they apply for the ' academy ' ( while I suppose she might have had to wait until she was 18, I think it is obvious from the story, that the little girl got in soon after the application was approved ) . There is a mention of a 17 year old. There are many mentions of " first year " students, and of girls having gone there for years. Observer changed, for the third time, the age in one passage...started out as 14...he upped it to 16 after her went on about age of consent in England...now they are new students of 18. Just how many years do the girls stay at The Academy?

No matter how Observer wants to spin it, this story is all about underage girls, and it is very obvious. It is not just about changing a couple of ages, when the whole story was...and remains to be... about young girls.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 8, 2009)

fatgirlflyin said:


> With one you like and fantasize about feeding people and making them fatter, in the other your fantasize about having sex with children. Surely you can see that one is wrong?



waking up one way is wrong? my sympathies lie with having no control over what you become attracted to, not how you choose to act on it.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 8, 2009)

in about half the u.s. it's 16. in new jersey you can have consensual sex at 17 with someone as young as 13. 18 with someone as young as 14, etc. in canada, anyone can have consensual sex with someone as young as 16. if the law was changed to universally 16, there would be a flood of stories about 16y/os.

in fiction, however, it's legal to fuck a newborn in the ass with a shoehorn and illustrate it with paintings made from your own feces. why are people still asking about legalities? conrad's dispensed with ambiguities about what's legal on _his_ site and the rest you can look up.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Sep 8, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> waking up one way is wrong? my sympathies lie with having no control over what you become attracted to, not how you choose to act on it.



Maybe I should have worded it differently.

You can't control what turns your crank. I beleive that preferences, whether they be for fat chicks, feeding, tall men, big dicks, even attraction to children, is something that we are born with. No one chooses it. 

But, if a person were to choose to act upon any of those preferences there would be a huge issue if the one they were to act upon was the attraction to children. That's what makes the story an issue for me. Even though no children were physically exploited in the writing of the story, there is still at the very least an opportunity for someone (a pedophile) to take that little seed and let it grow into something that would be very ugly and very damaging.


----------



## mossystate (Sep 8, 2009)

Calm down. I am asking about Dims, not any other site and not any particular persons head. I started this thread to talk about DIMENSIONS, and the rules HERE.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 8, 2009)

fatgirlflyin said:


> Even though no children were physically exploited in the writing of the story, there is still at the very least an opportunity for someone (a pedophile) to take that little seed and let it grow into something that would be very ugly and very damaging.



how about this, in ten years i'll let you know if i've banged any kids? you were much more eloquent the first time.


----------



## fatgirlflyin (Sep 8, 2009)

exile in thighville said:


> how about this, in ten years i'll let you know if i've banged any kids? you were much more eloquent the first time.



In 10 years will you let me know if you're more open minded too? Or if you still just enjoy arguing for arguments sake? 

I really don't understand you (not that it matters to you I'm sure) but if I can go out on a limb and try to understand where you are coming from, and even acknowledge that people are not in control over what turns them on, why can't you even _entertain_ the idea that stories such as this can cause problems?


----------



## Miss Vickie (Sep 8, 2009)

fatgirlflyin said:


> Maybe I should have worded it differently.
> 
> You can't control what turns your crank. I beleive that preferences, whether they be for fat chicks, feeding, tall men, big dicks, even attraction to children, is something that we are born with. No one chooses it.
> 
> But, if a person were to choose to act upon any of those preferences there would be a huge issue if the one they were to act upon was the attraction to children. That's what makes the story an issue for me. Even though no children were physically exploited in the writing of the story, there is still at the very least an opportunity for someone (a pedophile) to take that little seed and let it grow into something that would be very ugly and very damaging.



I think you were perfectly eloquent. 

My feeling about it as it relations to Dimensions (as opposed to whether stories about schtupping children is exploitative in theory which is a whole other issue) is that Dimensions has very clear guidelines about who can post here. Kids, even 17 year olds who desperately needed guidance, have been kicked off the site when it came out that they were under 18. Even though their questions were not of a sexual nature and were just having difficulty coming to terms with being a fat teen (which, hey, can be very tough as those of us who have actually been fat can tell you). Because rules are rules, they had to leave. PERIOD. I totally get that, rules are rules, etc. But having said that, why then would it be okay for anyone to write and publish a story with obviously sexual overtones that involved children, when they aren't allowed to participate on the site? Whether or not there are actual sex acts in the story is immaterial; the language is clearly meant to be of prurient interest to those who like fat. Yes? If we're going to have children in our stories here, and use them for our gratification, then why not let them post here? But if they can't participate on the site, then I think it's wrong to (even theoretically) exploit them in stories.


----------



## exile in thighville (Sep 8, 2009)

fatgirlflyin said:


> In 10 years will you let me know if you're more open minded too? Or if you still just enjoy arguing for arguments sake?
> 
> I really don't understand you (not that it matters to you I'm sure) but if I can go out on a limb and try to understand where you are coming from, and even acknowledge that people are not in control over what turns them on, why can't you even _entertain_ the idea that stories such as this can cause problems?



because they don't? as much as you want me to validate your fears, that's just not how it works. and my friend was correct, these sort of what-ifs are better applied to the violence in video games or tarantino films, where the content is at least transgressive and cathartic, which achieving orgasm is not.


----------



## Observer (Sep 8, 2009)

The following statement is perhaps anti-climactic because. due to various factors, I resigned this past weekend from curatorship of the Dimensions Library. 

It should be noted that this was a decision made before Conrad made his announcement today, but I am sure made it made his rules revision decision easier. 

There has always been a realistic disconnect between the stated "adults only" policy and actual content access privileges. The promulgation of the library rules four years sgo allowed a nuanced approach to story content designed to address the realities of the situation. It served its intended purpose but also resulted in the elimination of numerous stories for which I was at that time crucified by a few as a hard-handed censor. .

For the record, because there have been statements in this thread to the contrary, I have never written any scene or story, or approved any scene or story, involving sexual activity between an adult or minor. Such stories are and always have been to me predatory and pedophilic. Both Ris and GEF can attest to my diligence in striking down such themes - as well as others which I felt objectified and abused protagonists, not just minors. I frequently wanted to be even more restrictive . 

This said, the new policy, which now extends to all pre-18 persons, period, will take several months to implement. I estimate that somewhere between 10-15% of the present collections have underage teen protagonists. Their level of involvment was within the old rules but now will not be.

My resignation was thankfully already in place before Conrad made his commitment today. These should hopefully avoid anyone seeing my departure as any kind of protest or punishment  it isnt, and my resignation wasn't solicited. 

My departure stems from a realization that the atmosphere has been polluted to the point that I personally have become an issue - making me both a liability to Conrad and personally unable to continue happily in what Ive enjoyed. There is wisdom in knowing when to leave, and in my estimation the time has come. 

Conrad has made his decision - and as I've always said this site is his so I accordingly support it. There is no animus or "sour grapes" hard feeings on my part - and hopefuly there will be no rumors to the contrary. I've even offered to help identify the VB forum stories which now need to be deleted (those on the WB are beyond VB mod reach). 

It has been a pleasure to have served as Curator of the Dimensions Library these past four years, and I wish success to my replacement, whiomever he or she may be.

O


----------



## mossystate (Sep 8, 2009)

Observer said:


> For the record, because there have been statements in this thread to the contrary, I have never written any scene or story, or approved any scene or story, involving sexual activity between an adult or minor. Such stories are and always have been to me predatory and pedophilic. Both Ris and GEF can attest to my diligence in striking down such themes - as well as others which I felt objectified and abused protagonists, not just minors. *I frequently wanted to be even more restrictive . *
> 
> You don't, and obviously never did, understand the defintion of sexual. The story that had me start this thread is Exhibit A. You will leave as an editor, without admitting you happily allowed what you did. None of this had to happen, if all along, those who were in charge of that area of Dims, had upheld the rules.
> 
> ...


----------



## Observer (Sep 8, 2009)

Mossy, you obviously have no idea what I meant by personal enjoyment - it is you who have apparently had a false impression of what I am all about. 

The majority of my time and enjoyment here has been spent working with authors on stories. Most are not even teen related. They are already writing and expressing their regrets - although I've assured them I'll still be around to kibbitz as needed.


----------

