In my first novel, two of the main characters lose their virginity at relatively young ages (for some). When the main character, a male, loses his virginity at the age of 12, there are two camps;
cute and child pornography. in this case cute outweighs kid porn.
However, when his sister discovers herself sexually (based on my own experience, names changed to protect the innocence) at the age of 11, there is one camp;
"Dude, you're f-ed up, see a doctor."
The passage was cut considerably, leaving the details to the imagination and gave a similar result, yet leaning deeper into kid porn. Further editing and again the same result. Both situations are important to the story and we (hopefully) have all been there.
So, which is worse---stating directly and clearly, or allusion?
I don't care if the church burns my writing, but being on an FBI wanted list is another story. How much do we leave to the 'Theater of the Mind'?
(Sorry, not posting the passage due to the obvious.)
I don't blame anyone for not replying. Do I care what you think of me? May be or not. I'm dropping the entire scene, it may be just a bit much...and NO there were no overt details, just two kids under the porch exploring each other and overheard by the main character. The scene has changed to "What were you doing down there? You two are filthy, go wash up and we can go out and get a burger or something." Chickening out, I know, but this book has gone from 'crude and rude criminal how to manual' to the story of one guy's struggle with 'guilt' among other things. Originally it was very unfriendly with few or no laughs. A difficult read, even for me. So, back burner or just plain burn it. :-D
]I don't blame anyone for not replying. Uhhmm...only 11 people have viewed your question. Most are probably like me, they don't know the answer.
A note on the "legalities" creeping in here. There's a difference between writing and images. Written pornography isn't illegal--even underage, violent rape, incest, and snuff. It's images that can become illegal. The issue with written pornography is what risk a publisher/Web site wants/is willing to to take of the written stuff bringing in those dealing with the images and thus scrutiny and name IDing by the authorities--or just plain their own comfort level in dealing with the material. On this basis, many publishers/Web sites/distributors draw their own lines on what material they will handle (which is their right to do). But it's not based on whether or not it's legal.
David, you could leave out all descriptions of childhood sex and just go with the aftermath. When it comes to kids, most people don't want to read that he touched that, or that she did this. You could give a generalization of what happens and then go from there. But if this is such a big question for you, then you already know that you don't feel good about writing it. JMHO
David has told us this was a memory of his having had sex with a minor; I'm assuming he was a minor as well. That said, even if he writes this thing up as a short story, there are caveats he can avoid by seeking the competent advice from a lawyer, not writers on a website.
David said this is a novel, not a memoir. What does he need a lawyer for?
Nothing "cute" about 11- and 12-year-olds having sex; so, with that in mind, I really couldn't answer your question.
I understand Jena, but it does occur. I also agree with the Tinman, there most likely is no answer. It was NOT written to upset or bring on the negative. It was just a crazy idea from a wonderful memory that is now no longer in print and archived in my head and hers. Innocence, loss of, and discovery was the point that has become obtuse. I'm almost sorry I mentioned it. You people are great, I am learning alot from you and I love you for it. THANK YOU, ARIGATO GOZAIMAS, VIELEN DANKE, MERCI BEAU COUPS, TANTE GRAZIE and MIL GRACIAS! Always feel free to shoot me down or prop me up. I'm my own worst critic so anything negative you have to say will be mild in comparison.
I would challenge anyones frame of mind who considers sex at 12 as cute. That's wrong.