Question about the posting of U18 material in different forms of media

[bloom]

I've just been curious about one specific rule here for a while - I don't want to come across as critical or like I'm berating staff for it or anything (especially because I'm not sure current staff had anything to do with the formation of this particular rule, but it doesn't matter either way), I'm just confused about why it is the way it is.

Basically, what I'm unclear on is one specific bit of the rule about posting U18 material. As I understand it (and please correct me if I'm wrong), all cartoons are fair to post regardless of the age of the person sneezing but with live-action it's different. I'll quote the relevant bit of the forum Constitution:

Underage content: Underage content is defined as anything relating to any person under the age of 18. There are underage people here so observations or posts relating to them are not banned. However, there must be NO sexual connotation of any kind. There are a number of types of media that can be posted and the rules for each are as follows:

Real-life (Non-animated) Video Clips - No clips involving under-18's may be posted, linked or directed to. Please note this is not limited to standard clips, but also includes links to advertisements, medical sites or news items containing such clips.

Animated Video Clips, Stories and Artwork i.e. works of fiction - Clips, stories, artwork involving characters of any age maybe posted, linked or directed to, though the rules regarding sexualisation of underage people (stated below) still apply.

So, as an example:

- A cartoon clip featuring a character young enough to be in diapers sneezing is fine to post

- A live-action clip of an overage actor portraying a 17-year-old character acting a sneeze is against the rules

Like I said, this is how I'm reading them, so I could be mistaken. But I'm just wondering why posting what's essentially U18 content is okay in one format and not another.

I want to be clear that I'm not at all asking that staff re-evaluate or change this rule at all - I'm just wondering if you guys could provide some clarity on why it is the way it is. (I'm also posting it out in the open rather than contacting privately because I've asked around and I know I'm not the only person scratching their head over this particular part of this rule. )

[Dusty15]

I am afraid there is not a catch-all answer for this but I'll try to explain it as clearly as I can….

In regards to video clips, we've never allowed under-18 sneezing because videos feature real live specific, identifiable people and because, at heart, we are a fetish forum we do not want to be implicated in anything illegal regarding sexualized content of real persons under 18.

With cartoons, they are not real people. Our rule with stories is generally no persons under 13 should be featured (we sometimes allow mentions in regards to sick kids giving colds to parents, etc. but with staff permission) and our observations have a strict no under-13 rule (not under 18 like media because these are second-hand observations of anonymous persons). With cartoons, there's no age-specific cut-off because cartoons are sometimes not given an age or 'ageless', etc. A cartoon character may be a dog who could be 4 or could be 45 but we don't know.

If someone posted a cartoon of a very young character (i.e. one of the Rugrats) and we felt it was inappropriate or being sexualized, I'm sure as a Staff we would decide to remove it at our own discretion.

[bloom]

Thanks for answering so quickly, Dusty! I do have one more question (sorry), this bit:

In regards to video clips, we've never allowed under-18 sneezing because videos feature real live specific, identifiable people and because, at heart, we are a fetish forum we do not want to be implicated in anything illegal regarding sexualized content of real persons under 18.

Am I reading the constitution incorrectly then, or would a clip of a 20 year old acting a sneeze as a 17 year old character (so, not a real person) be permissible to post? Sorry, I realize this is largely hypothetical, I'm just curious how that would be handled.

[Dusty15]

It's by the age of the actual actor. I mean, unless in the super specific situation where it was a sexually charged scene with a character clearly identified as underage or something.

[bloom]

Okay, then I've been reading it wrong for eons, I think it's kind of ambiguous, so thank you.