[Mark]

Just read the posts about reverting to the old rules (no incest, beastiality, or under-18 pregnancies) and was wondering if that applies to those situations where we're simply linking to stories/artwork elsewhere on the 'Net that we aren't directly posting on MPC.

I'm checking becase while I did take down two of the stories I wrote and posted on here, because of their involving under-18 pregnant characters, but at the same time I've also posted a few links to fanfic mpreg pics from the Danny Phantom cartoon series - the titular character being under 18 - as well as a link to a story on FictionPress involving under-18 pregnant characters, and I'm not sure if those need to go as well under the new rules (I'll certainly remove them if needed, but I'm sure you understand I'd rather not if it's at all possible).

[ElviraTepes]

Also another question. Does the bestiality rule also mean nothing like a Neko dating a Human and having relations?

[star478]

Also another question. Does the bestiality rule also mean nothing like a Neko dating a Human and having relations?

And to add onto Elvira's question.....What about anthros? Are they still allowed or are they banned? Honestly, it would be extremely helpful if there are some specifics as to what is banned and what is allowed under the "no bestiality" rule.

[fringecore]

I know this was brought on from a legal stance, but I feel this is a bit of regression of the mpreg fandom. To delete all the stories and some authors are no longer among us anymore in this fandom is losing a part of out growing interest to people who like to see some interesting takes of mpreg genre. The question I have is, is there no way we can put stories that have these explicit content, cited in the old rules being instated, in a more member exclusive area in the forum? So that these stories and new ones coming about can be saved and enjoyed instead of being scattered across harddrives and in the hole websites across the world wide web.

[TheKicking]

We're not asking people to exclusively delete them. As we did before, we are allowing people to rewrite stories so that they fit into the rules. Of course there will be some that can't be rewritten and have to be removed, but we are dedicated to preserving as much content as we can.

As for a members only forum, I give no promises. The mods will go through and discuss all suggestions.

The anthro/furries subject and linking back to off site stories are a bit of a grey area. We'll let you guys know what the final verdict is soon.

[Lyric]

Just read the posts about reverting to the old rules (no incest, beastiality, or under-18 pregnancies) and was wondering if that applies to those situations where we're simply linking to stories/artwork elsewhere on the 'Net that we aren't directly posting on MPC.

I'm checking becase while I did take down two of the stories I wrote and posted on here, because of their involving under-18 pregnant characters, but at the same time I've also posted a few links to fanfic mpreg pics from the Danny Phantom cartoon series - the titular character being under 18 - as well as a link to a story on FictionPress involving under-18 pregnant characters, and I'm not sure if those need to go as well under the new rules (I'll certainly remove them if needed, but I'm sure you understand I'd rather not if it's at all possible).

Right now we are discussing whether it's okay to link *directly* to stories/art/etc involving minors/incest/bestiality. We are discussing if it would be acceptable to allow, instead, to link directly to *profiles* instead of directly to stories/art/etc.

Also another question. Does the bestiality rule also mean nothing like a Neko dating a Human and having relations?

And to add onto Elvira's question.....What about anthros? Are they still allowed or are they banned? Honestly, it would be extremely helpful if there are some specifics as to what is banned and what is allowed under the "no bestiality" rule.

This is also being discussed. We realize that the rules are a little vague in this regard and are working to come to a consensus. In the past, anthros/etc were allowed but no definitive answer quite yet. I doubt you'll have much to fear, but no promises.

I know this was brought on from a legal stance, but I feel this is a bit of regression of the mpreg fandom. To delete all the stories and some authors are no longer among us anymore in this fandom is losing a part of our growing interest to people who like to see some interesting takes of mpreg genre. The question I have is, is there no way we can put stories that have these explicit content, cited in the old rules being instated, in a more member exclusive area in the forum? So that these stories and new ones coming about can be saved and enjoyed instead of being scattered across harddrives and in the hole websites across the world wide web.

I understand where you're coming from. There's a lot of amazing content here in our forums and it does seem like a shame to lose it. However, rules are rules and it's difficult to bend the rules for some things and not bend them for others. Having a "member exclusive area" defeats the purpose of the rules and still leaves us at the feet of the legal system. It also excludes other community members and makes the boards more complex than they really need to be. The content that will disappear from this change of rules is an unfortunate loss, but a necessary one. Anything that diminishes the mpreg content available here at MPC is a heavy loss, but a loss that we feel comfortable with knowing that it protects both our asses and the asses of our members.

We're not asking people to exclusively delete them. As we did before, we are allowing people to rewrite stories so that they fit into the rules. Of course there will be some that can't be rewritten and have to be removed, but we are dedicated to preserving as much content as we can.

As for a members only forum, I give no promises. The mods will go through and discuss all suggestions.

The anthro/furries subject and linking back to off site stories are a bit of a grey area. We'll let you guys know what the final verdict is soon.

We're discussing all possibilities at the moment. The decisions I make for the community are never mine alone, as I have an intelligent group of moderators who don't mind putting me into place every once and a while (and probably should do so more often *ahem*). Once we come to a clear consensus about these issues we'll let everyone know about them and update the Rules thread with clear, concise information. And if they're not clear enough, we'll rely on everyone here to let us know.

Otherwise, if people want further clarification or have more questions that they would like answered, please post here and we'll get back to you with what we have.

Thanks for the rational questions everyone. I'd be concerned if there weren't any questions at all, or comments/suggestions. Keep them coming.

-L

[Mark]

If it's all right, may I ask for clarification as to why the blanket ban on
minors/incest/bestiality ("M/I/B" for short) was put in? I'm not trying to be confrontational here or anything (far from it), but I'll admit I'm a bit confused by the sudden change. Please allow me to clarify why I feel confused by this:

There have been several cases where there have been underaged sex (and often pregnancy) in a fictional capacity in mainstream media (see comments by myself and theKicking in the "Rules change concern" thread here started by darkfanboy that started after the ban lift on M/I/B pregnancies a few months ago; similarly, there has been other areas involving minors and pregnancies in some way shape or form, such as the recent Adam Sandler movie "That's My Boy," TV shows such as "16 and Pregnant," and the occasional made-for-TV movie on teen pregnancy, usually under some variation of the title "Too Young To Be A Parent").

Similarly, Mpreg Central has been around for quite a few years and allowed such things in the past (as Lyric noted in "Rules change concern"), also without legal repercussions (yes, I realise that the site's had to move a couple of times becase previous hosts said it was a no-no, but from what I understood, the very reason we ultimately moved MPC to its own domain name was so that we didn't have to worry about getting the site deleted for "violating" those very rules). There are other websites that depict M/I/B sex (and often pregnancies, including Mpreg) that have been around for many years (DeviantArt, FictionPress, Nifty.org, etc.) and continue to be around.

In all these cases, there seem to have been no legal consequences for their existance (barring a few nations in such areas as the Middle East that generally don't allow such books/movies to be distributed within their borders, but that's about it), which does seem to indicate that minors/incest/bestiality MPREG is allowed in at least some form, hense the reason why I'm scratching my head over the sudden blanket ban on M/I/B Mpreg.

Now, yes, a part of my brain points out that I'm certainly not a lawyer (and that most others, if not everybody else, here aren't lawyers, either) and that I don't know exactly where the legal line is drawn in this subject, and that it's entirely possible that y'all decided it was just easier to initiate the current rules than to hire a lawyer (which would undoubtedly not be cheap) to explain in-depth as to what would generally be permitted (or at least ignored as not being worth the effort of prosecuting) and what would get the Feds cracking down on us faster than we could say, "But it's only fiction!"

(As I noted above, further clarification would be very greatly appreciated, even if it's just saying the above paragraph is why you did what you did. )

[TheKicking]

Well, you haven't said anything that I haven't thought of myself, Mark. The reality is that minors do and will continue to get into trouble, and having stories about minors reflects that. And yes, there are TV shows, books, and movies depicting these kinds of things, fictional or otherwise.

But you have to take into account that although Mpreg Central was not founded as a fetish website, that is essentially what we are and will be perceived as. Anything put on this site is subject to this interpretation. There are some members/posters who don't view mpreg in a sexual way, but I would have to say that the bulk of us do, and many of us know from experience that most people outside the community view our shared fascination as a sexual fetish. I would go so far as to say that some people might classify us as a porn site, no more.

I have to say that most of the content on this site has been shared with the thought that someone else might... enjoy... it. And that is the difference between us and those TV shows, books, and movies you mentioned. They were created for a different kind of entertainment. While I can't say that no one watches 16 and Pregnant because they like the bellies, I would bet anything that the producers did not conceive the show with these people in mind. We do. And that is where the law will draw the line, I believe.

[Goddess]

I find this somewhat disappointing.

Anyway, Im currently writing a story where a teen pregnancy of a non-character is very briefly mentioned. Is it necessary for me to remove that?

[TheKicking]

I'll review it and let you know.

[Mark]

Would it be possible to go back to the old "under-18 pregnancies are allowed as long as they aren't sexualized" rule, or not?

(Also, how's it going with the decision on linking to off-site material involving minor/incest/beastiality pregnancies?)

[Gravid Lutra]

Honestly, I'm extremely disappointed. This reversion - regression - is arbitrary and paranoid. Every -single- fic I was following has been 'closed for review'.

Someone send me a PM when a new mpreg forum pops up that allows such content, please? Because it's going to happen, and it's going to draw members away from here, and while I'll stick around here no matter what on account of the community and introductions/RP threads... how long until mentioning a preference for ageplay or the fact that, sometimes, oh god, I RP as an anthro, because I'm a furry, gets my RP profile locked for review, or...?

There's no sane world in which the 'legality' of porny mpreg fanfiction would wind up seriously coming into play. Some of the admins are uncomfortable about the sexuality of mpreg. I understand this. Trying to decouple 'furry' from 'sex-obsessed perverted kinkfiend' in the public eye is almost an insurmountable difficulty, and furriness isn't even intimately tied to sexuality like ideas concerning pregnancy inevitably are. Pregnancy is the result of having sex, in almost all cases; of -course- it's going to be heavily sexualised. The only way to handle this consistently would be to wipe out the boards entirely, remove all the RP threads - because RP is just cybering at about the same ratio as mpreg art and fiction is porn, let's face it - remove all stories and artwork, and have a discussion forum with strict PG-13 enforced rules. Either that, or allow things to continue as they've been going for the last several /years/, and be comfortable with the fact that mpreg, for many if not most of its fans, is a strongly sexualised idea and one that doesn't necessarily conform to completely arbitrary laws about the age of consent.

I'd like to see the exact legal clause that states and stipulates whatever it is that you're actually worried about happening, because I haven't seen it; just a lot of hand-wringing about "what if the FBI busts us for having some erotic fiction about two brothers boinking", despite the fact that there are sites where you /pay/ for that kind of thing - thus, Commerce clauses could factor in, etc. - that haven't been remotely threatened with legal action. I don't think this is the result of rational concern whatsoever, as opposed to moral disgust or, more forgivably, paranoia on the part of some of the moderators, and given the sweeping effect this has already had on the extant fics, I think is something that should have been subject to a much more open, honest, visible debate.

[Mark]

Gravid Lutra does bring up some valid points here. While we certanly realize that this is really Lyric's site in the end, to do with as he pleases, I, for one, am still a bit confused by the mentality that having written stories or tastefully done artwork that cover certain topics will somehow get this site shut down or us all arrested.

Consider this:

The movie "That's My Boy" (produced by actor Adam Sandler's company, Happy Madison) does deal with a (male) minor having sex with a (female) teacher and getting her pregnant, and also has a scene involving incest, while the book series "A Song of Ice and Fire" (of which the HBO TV series "A Game of Thrones" is based) includes multiple cases of incest (which prodoced at least 3 pregnacies to date within the storylines). Neither has had the U.S. government go after anybody involved with either.

Similarly, the Nifty website I previously referred to (http://www.nifty.org) has been in operation in one form or another since 1992 (that's 21 years of operation, longer than some people here on MPC have been alive). It is a website that deals with sexual stories around gay, bi, transgendered, and beastiality, and within the first three of those categories has subsections that include incest, adult/youth sex, and youth/youth sex). No Nifty author (of which I am one) has ever been arrested, and the site is still in operation. Not only that, but Nifty Archive Alliance was formally incorporated as a not-for-profit organization in April of 2000, with the IRS determining that the Nifty Archive Alliance was a tax-exempt charity under IRS Code 501©3 (which, i think, rather effectively eliminates the arguement that the U.S. government hasn't shut Nifty down or gone after any of its authors on the basis of simply not knowing about the site).

I suppose that, in short, what's bothering me is that while I'm not a lawyer (by my own admission), neither is anybody else here (if there are any lawyers, here, they've not identified themselves as such to me), and I feel we're having non-lawyers implementing rules based on interpretations that seem to have little basis in basic logic, if not established fact (because if the government really did legally go after people/companies/websites/whatever just for wrinting fictional stories, the "A Song of Ice and Fire" book series would never even have been published, much less turned into a major TV series on a major cable network, "That's My Boy" would never have been produced - watch just the first 10 minutes of it and tell me that it wasn't made at least in part for exactly that "kind of entertainment" - and the Nifty website wouldn't exist any more, and I could very well be writing this from prison, assuming the government didn't shut MPC down, too).

[TheKicking]

Now you guys bring up valid points, but here is the bottom line or lines;

As you pointed out, Mark, it IS Lyric's site. Sure there is a very slim chance that someone will decide to investigate us and shut us down. Yes, there are other sites who post up content that is as graphic or more graphic than what we are planning to host. But it's Lyric's site. If Lyric doesn't want to chance it, then please respect his position.

And I will reiterate a point I made earlier. Most of the content put on this site is posted with certain expectations. These expectations are what set us and Game of Thrones apart. The show and the book were not made so that people could jerk off to them. I'm sure there are people who do, but that is not their purpose. Most of the stories, RPs, and pictures posted on here ARE, and that is why we will be judged differently. Say what you want, but anyone who does not understand our interests or have fetishes of their own (or are in denial) will not see us as anything but a porn site that caters to pedophiles.

This debate is moot. Lyric has already made his decision, and this time, it is final.

[star478]

Honestly, I'm really not going to continue arguing over what's right and what's to allow/ban. In the end, it's all the mods and Lyric's decision as they make the rules (Lyric mainly with input from the mods).

However, I do hope they still allow bestiality. Yes, you can get arrested in real life for having (or trying to have) sex with an animal BUT a lot of the cases (that I've heard of on the news) have either been out in the open (ie, a field) or stem from a different accusation discovered by a search through the house (hopefully I'm right about that. I don't remember exactly). Getting pregnant (or getting another animal pregnant) simply by having sex (if you're a human) is scientifically impossible (thus making this sight even more of a syfy pregnancy sight than what it already is). Unless the animal you are having sex with (and getting pregnant/getting pregnant by) an ape (chimpanzee mainly) because our DNA is closer to the DNA of a chimp than it is any other animal...except for having two fewer chromosomes than chimps but I learned (through my intro to anthropology class this past semester...or was it my cell/molecular biology class? I don't remember) that scientists belive that two chromosomes (don't ask which ones. I don't remember) fused together somewhere along the evolutionary line (if you believe in evolution). So allowing bestiality would not be a problem (I think. Like Mark, I'm not a lawyer nor am I studying to be one). Granted, some people may view it as a sexual fetish, but, in my opinion, what is determined as a sexual fetish varies from person to person making it slightly more difficult to "officially" declare "this activity is a sexual fetish and is illegal" or "that is a sexual fetish and is illegal" (generalized of course since there are WAY too many actual sexual fetishes--including the strange ones--to say out right).

As for incest/under 18 stuff...I can see why it would be banned. In a majority of countries (and the definition of incest varies from country to country, but it is the only thing that is universal nonetheless) incest is illegal (including here in the US). I don't want to see anyone on here go to jail for something like that. As far as I know (and don't trust what I'm about to say--only in this sentence--because I haven't done any research into it), the US is the only country that throws you in jail for having sex with someone under 18 (if you're exactly 18 or older). I'm not sure about other countries. Will have to look it up at a later date (or if someone else could it would be greatly appreciated). Back in the Middle Ages/Medieval Times era, there were no laws preventing an older man/woman from having sex with a "man"/"woman" under 18 (not sure when that changed. Something else to research into). However, as seen in the majority of high schools (more than likely ALL high schools), two people that are both under 18 can have sex together. Whether having that situation is illegal in this site's case, I don't know (again, I'm not a lawyer).

Sorry this is so long. Just wanted to give my opinion and voice what I think I know (since the only portion that I know for certain is the bestiality portion since I learned it in my classes as well as the "incest is universally illegal but is defined differently in each country" part). I am not a lawyer (like Mark) so a lot of the legality parts may be incorrect.

[Gravid Lutra]

For the record, 'paedophilia' refers to 'primary or exclusive sexual interest towards prepubescent children'.

i.e., people who, categorically and literally, cannot even be pregnant in the first place because puberty is the onset of sexual maturity.

If there were a rule against paedophiliac mpreg, I think it would do nothing other than drastically increase the quality and internal consistency of our fiction, because a prepubescent character being pregnant makes no sense! I haven't actually read anything like that here, though (and if I did, I'd honestly be really squicked out.)

An mpreg community literally cannot consistently be a porn site catering to paedophiles, though. It is /literally impossible/.

I guess 'hebophiles' or 'ephebophiles' would be the word you might be looking for, but those don't really have the same tinge of moral panic to them, so I understand why the fallback to the incorrect terminology. It's important to be precise, though!

I respect Lyric's capacity as site moderator - and I thank him for all the hard work he's done. I just don't want it to go to waste, and I don't feel like "porn is bad, but only some porn" is a coherent or consistent stance, and I'm worried that predicating the rules on an inconsistent stance could jeopardise the hard work he's put into making sure this forum has a place to be. I've been a site admin and a community leader myself, and I valued dissent - even dissent I disagreed with, even dissent I ultimately decided was not useful or helpful. It's entirely his call; I know I wouldn't be able to put forth the time and effort he has. Honestly, if he openly admitted that he made the rules based on what he was and was not personally comfortable with or disgusted by, I'd respect that too - because, hell, it's where I'd draw the line if I were site admin, when it comes down to it, I'd just draw it at a slightly different place, contingent upon site precedent and my own rather different preferences and comfort zones.

I'd like to see clarification of the bestiality rule, and in an ideal world I don't see why the incest rule is necessary, nor do I see why the 'anti-pedophilia' rule cuts out depiction of sexuality that's actually perfectly legal in most U.S. states and developed countries. If it's an anti-paedophilia rule, do what the rest of the internet does and put the cutoff point at puberty.

As a suggestion, are there any sites - like nifty, perhaps, although I don't think their specific policies would work for us - where people could post mpreg fiction that doesn't qualify according to the site's rules? It wouldn't kill me if no more fiction at all was ever posted to the fiction board, let alone if all fiction started there from now on was in accordance with the modified rules, but I'd very much like to see a few currently worked on pieces of fiction completed, even if I'd have to go offsite to do so.

Thanks for reading, and despite any differences we may have, or how sternly I might word them, I love and respect the work the mods have done and honestly do understand why you'd try to properly present the mpreg fanbase / community in a less porntacular light. It's a good idea, even if the devil's in the details.

<3

[Lyric]

Hey everyone,

Thanks for letting me know your thoughts and stating them so clearly. I understand how disappointing these changes are for people but my reasons for these changes are as follows, and begins with the laws that concern me the most. It begins by listing all of the obscenity laws (some of which are not applicable to us):

Citizen's Guide to U.S. Federal Law on Obscenity
18 U.S.C. § 1460- Possession with intent to sell, and sale, of obscene matter on Federal property
18 U.S.C. § 1461- Mailing obscene or crime-inciting matter
18 U.S.C. § 1462- Importation or transportation of obscene matters
18 U.S.C. § 1463- Mailing indecent matter on wrappers or envelopes
18 U.S.C. § 1464- Broadcasting obscene language
18 U.S.C. § 1465- Transportation of obscene matters for sale or distribution
18 U.S.C. § 1466- Engaging in the business of selling or transferring obscene matter
18 U.S.C. § 1466A- Obscene visual representations of the sexual abuse of children
18 U.S.C. § 1467- Criminal forfeiture
18 U.S.C. § 1468- Distributing obscene material by cable or subscription television
18 U.S.C. § 1469- Presumptions
18 U.S.C. § 1470- Transfer of obscene material to minors
18 U.S.C. § 2252B Misleading domain names on the Internet
18 U.S.C. § 2252C Misleading words or digital images on the Internet

The U.S. Supreme Court established the test that judges and juries use to determine whether matter is obscene in three major cases: Miller v. California, 413 U.S. 15, 24-25 (1973); Smith v. United States, 431 U.S. 291, 300-02, 309 (1977); and Pope v. Illinois, 481 U.S. 497, 500-01 (1987). The three-pronged Miller test is as follows:

-Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter, taken as a whole, appeals to prurient interests (i.e., an erotic, lascivious, abnormal, unhealthy, degrading, shameful, or morbid interest in nudity, sex, or excretion);

- Whether the average person, applying contemporary adult community standards, finds that the matter depicts or describes sexual conduct in a patently offensive way (i.e., ultimate sexual acts, normal or perverted, actual or simulated, masturbation, excretory functions, lewd exhibition of the genitals, or sado-masochistic sexual abuse); and

- Whether a reasonable person finds that the matter, taken as a whole, lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value.

Any material that satisfies this three-pronged test may be found obscene.

Federal law prohibits the possession with intent to sell or distribute obscenity, to send, ship, or receive obscenity, to import obscenity, and to transport obscenity across state boarders for purposes of distribution. Although the law does not criminalize the private possession of obscene matter, the act of receiving such matter could violate the statutes prohibiting the use of the U.S. Mails, common carriers, or interactive computer services for the purpose of transportation (See 18 U.S.C. § 1460; 18 U.S.C. § 1461; 18 U.S.C. § 1462; 18 U.S.C. § 1463). Convicted offenders face fines and imprisonment. It is also illegal to aid or abet in the commission of these crimes, and individuals who commit such acts are also punishable under federal obscenity laws.

In addition, federal law prohibits both the production of obscene matter with intent to sell or distribute, and engaging in a business of selling or transferring obscene matter using or affecting means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce, including the use of interactive computer services. (See 18 U.S.C. § 1465; 18 U.S.C. § 1466). For example, it is illegal to sell and distribute obscene material on the Internet. Convicted offenders face fines and up to 5 years in prison.

Moreover, Sections 1464 and 1468 of Title 18, United States Code, specifically prohibit the broadcast or distribution of obscene matter by radio communication or by cable or subscription television respectively. Convicted offenders under these statutes face fines and up to 2 years in prison.

Obscenity Involving Minors

Federal statues specifically prohibit obscenity involving minors, and convicted offenders generally face harsher statutory penalties than if the offense involved only adults.

Section 1470 of Title 18, United States Code, prohibits any individual from knowingly transferring or attempting to transfer obscene matter using the U.S. mail or any means or facility of interstate or foreign commerce to a minor under 16 years of age. Convicted offenders face fines and imprisonment for up to 10 years.

Section 1466A of Title 18, United State Code, makes it illegal for any person to knowingly produce, distribute, receive, or possess with intent to transfer or distribute visual representations, such as drawings, cartoons, or paintings that appear to depict minors engaged in sexually explicit conduct and are deemed obscene. This statute offers an alternative 2-pronged test for obscenity with a lower threshold than the Miller test. The matter involving minors can be deemed obscene if it (i) depicts an image that is, or appears to be a minor engaged in graphic bestiality, sadistic or masochistic abuse, or sexual intercourse and (ii) if the image lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value. A first time offender convicted under this statute faces fines and at least 5 years to a maximum of 20 years in prison.

There are also laws to protect children from obscene or harmful material on the Internet. For one, federal law prohibits the use of misleading domain names, words, or digital images on the Internet with intent to deceive a minor into viewing harmful or obscene material (See 18 U.S.C. §§ 2252B, 2252C). It is illegal for an individual to knowingly use interactive computer services to display obscenity in a manner that makes it available to a minor less than 18 years of age (See 47 U.S.C. § 223(d) –Communications Decency Act of 1996, as amended by the PROTECT Act of 2003). It is also illegal to knowingly make a commercial communication via the Internet that includes obscenity and is available to any minor less than 17 years of age (See 47 U.S.C. § 231 –Child Online Protection Act of 1998).

The standard of what is harmful to minors may differ from the standard applied to adults. Harmful materials for minors include any communication consisting of nudity, sex or excretion that (i) appeals to the prurient interest of minors, (ii) is patently offensive to prevailing standards in the adult community with respect to what is suitable material for minors, (iii) and lacks serious literary, artistic, political, or scientific value for minors.

In addition to facing imprisonment and fines, convicted offenders of federal obscenity laws involving minors may also be required to register as sex offenders. Furthermore, in some circumstances, obscenity violations involving minors may also be subject to prosecution under federal child pornography laws, which yield serve statutory penalties (For more information, see Citizen´s Guide to U.S. Federal Child Pornography Laws). Source: http://www.justice.gov/criminal/ceos/cit...enity.html


18 USC § 1462 - Importation or transportation of obscene matters

Whoever brings into the United States, or any place subject to the jurisdiction thereof, or knowingly uses any express company or other common carrier or interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(e)(2) [1] of the Communications Act of 1934), for carriage in interstate or foreign commerce—

(a) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy book, pamphlet, picture, motion-picture film, paper, letter, writing, print, or other matter of indecent character; or

(b) any obscene, lewd, lascivious, or filthy phonograph recording, electrical transcription, or other article or thing capable of producing sound; or

© any drug, medicine, article, or thing designed, adapted, or intended for producing abortion, or for any indecent or immoral use; or any written or printed card, letter, circular, book, pamphlet, advertisement, or notice of any kind giving information, directly or indirectly, where, how, or of whom, or by what means any of such mentioned articles, matters, or things may be obtained or made; or

Whoever knowingly takes or receives, from such express company or other common carrier or interactive computer service (as defined in section 230(e)(2) [1] of the Communications Act of 1934) any matter or thing the carriage or importation of which is herein made unlawful—
Shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than five years, or both, for the first such offense and shall be fined under this title or imprisoned not more than ten years, or both, for each such offense thereafter.

Source: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/1462

By law, the United States government has the power over matters of obscenity. I am not a lawyer either so I can only guess as to whether or not we are truly in danger here, but it seems clear to me that the government could find some of the content here obscene. An example of someone being tried in court and found guilty for obscene textual content over the internet can be found in full here. The case tried and prosecuted a man for sending links to fictional pornographic stories involving children over the internet. The stories he wrote were entirely fictional and yet still considered "harmful to society as a whole". And while the content we have here is mild in comparison, it's still very jarring to see someone tried for fiction.

While we have maintained rules for how young subjects in art/stories/etc could be, I now feel hesitant and uncomfortable in allowing any content involving minors at all. Other websites host a variety of sketchy pornographic content across the web like Mark mentioned. Another website that does this is called "ASSTR" which continues to host Frank McCoy's (the guy prosecuted in the above link) stories without any problem. I believe that the new rules will protect the community at large and that's the whole point here.

The other thing here is that the website is going to be featured on Discovery in which a couple of our members had a chance to be involved with. With Mpreg Central in the public spotlight I want to make sure that we are in accordance with the laws and that our image is presented in a good light.

Here are the current decisions we've made so far:

INCEST is not allowed. Incest is described as sexual intercourse between two closely-related people. The reasoning for this rule is tied to the obscenity laws (incest can be considered obscene) as well as the desire to have standards for Mpreg Central going forward. While we do not judge anyone who likes incestual content, they simply will have to go elsewhere to find it.

BESTIALITY is not allowed. Bestiality is described as sexual intercourse between a person and an animal. Anthro/Neko/human hybrid/werewolf/etc stuff IS ALLOWED. The reasoning for this rule is also tied in with the obscenity laws (bestiality can be considered obscene). The reasoning for allowing Anthro/etc content is because of the humanization of these peoples -- they're more human than animal.

We're still talking about whether or not we we allow pregnant MINORS in stories as long as there are no sexual tones or descriptions. We will let you know our decision on this soon.

LINKING to off-site sources of INCEST/BESTIALITY/PREGNANT MINORS is allowed as long as it links to the *user profile* and not to the story directly. If linking to said user profile, it is okay to state the name of the story/art/etc involving mpreg so that users can find the relevant content. IE. Hey guys, JohnDoe has a cool mpreg incest story over at [link to off-site profile page] called "Title", go check it out!

Gravid Lutra:

I'd like to see clarification of the bestiality rule, and in an ideal world I don't see why the incest rule is necessary, nor do I see why the 'anti-pedophilia' rule cuts out depiction of sexuality that's actually perfectly legal in most U.S. states and developed countries. If it's an anti-paedophilia rule, do what the rest of the internet does and put the cutoff point at puberty.

As a suggestion, are there any sites - like nifty, perhaps, although I don't think their specific policies would work for us - where people could post mpreg fiction that doesn't qualify according to the site's rules? It wouldn't kill me if no more fiction at all was ever posted to the fiction board, let alone if all fiction started there from now on was in accordance with the modified rules, but I'd very much like to see a few currently worked on pieces of fiction completed, even if I'd have to go offsite to do so.

Thanks for reading, and despite any differences we may have, or how sternly I might word them, I love and respect the work the mods have done and honestly do understand why you'd try to properly present the mpreg fanbase / community in a less porntacular light. It's a good idea, even if the devil's in the details.

Anyone who has stories up that are no longer allowed here are free to finish those stories off-site like at Deviantart, FictionPress, or anywhere else, and those authors are more than welcome to post links to them on the forums. I think this is a good compromise and also stays true to our idea of being "Mpreg Central". Even though we don't allow some content to be directly posted here we can at least link to it.

The devil is definitely in the details here and is as tedious as ever. I appreciate you and everyone else's thoughts on the matter and thanks for keeping everything so civil :) Keep the comments, questions, and concerns coming! I'd be glad to answer anything that I might have missed.

[Mark]

I haven't actually read anything like that here, though (and if I did, I'd honestly be really squicked out.)

I first came across this site when it was being moved to Activeboard (which is where MPC was just prior to moving to the current mpregcentral.net domain) and in the course of things, I learned that just such a story had been started on the site MPC was moving from that did cause a bit of ruckus. (Out of a bit of curiosity, I went over to the other site and tracked down the story in question - as memory serves me, the premise of the story was that a couple with a young son were trying to have another kid, but were unable to do so. They started fertility treatment when the boy was 10 years old, and apparently the woman was supposed to get the fertalized egg into her womb by drinking an orange liquid that had the zygote in it. For some strange reason, they were going to do that in the kitchen of their own home, but for some reason all the adults were taken out of the kitchen, leaving the liquid sitting on the counter. A few minutes later the son, unaware of what's been going on, walks in, sees the liquid, thinks it's orange juice, and decides to drink it, causing him to become pregnant with the baby his mom was supposed to carry and give birth to.)

As a suggestion, are there any sites - like nifty, perhaps, although I don't think their specific policies would work for us - where people could post mpreg fiction that doesn't qualify according to the site's rules?

I do have a few Mpreg stories on Nifty, though I can't guarantee that they'd automatically accept any Mpreg story submitted to them (usually stories there should have at at least some sex somewhere in the story, and anything else, including pregnancy of any sort, is really secondary). There are also sites like FictionPress.com and FanFiction.net (both run by the same people, one for, obviously, fanfic and the other for fiction made up entirely by the author) that also allow Mpreg stories, although I don't know how much they'll permit as far as descriptions of sex go (I've seen stories that have a bit, but not much, so I'd suggest that any story that anyone wants to post there should be written in good taste). This was my reason for asking earlier about linking to off-site stories/artwork.

Since I' m to understand that the possibility of having under-18 stuff still be posted if it's non-sexualized is still being considered, I did a bit of casual checking with a couple of lawyers I know, particularly in the direction of having "non-sexualized" under-18 stories/artwork (if I'm wrong in my understanding of this, I apologize, and ask that you skip directly to the last paragraph). Their viewpoint (yes, it could be viewed as unofficial and not "official" legal doctrine, being in casual conversation, but considering the source...) is that a certain amout would be permitted, at least as far as written stories go.

This would be based on the idea of the previously mentioned shows as "16 and Pregnant" or fictional made-for-TV "Too Young To Be A Parent" movies. It could be argued that because the government has permitted such shows to be aired, there is a limited amount of room for written stories about pregnant teens. The stories could have the act of conception occur after the start of the story, but could not actually dewscribe it (as an example from one of the TV movies I saw a few years ago, when the time for the conception occured, the teens were shown heading towards the bedroom, kissing and shedding a few basic items of clothing like jackets; it then switched to them laying in bed, obviously after the sex - with no physical contact occuring - and the blankets pulled up to their shoulders).

Under-18 artwork (drawings, morphs, etc.) would be a little more difficult in their viewpoint, and it was suggested that it was probably better to stay away from that, at least for direct posting to this site. (Again, these are just some thoughs from casual conversation; Lyric, I leave it up to you to decide how much of it, if any, you'd like to accept.)

Even if it's ultimately decided to stick to 18-and-older charactes in stories, they do make one other suggestion, Lyric - Nifty is registered with 3 of the big companies that make those Internet filters that parent can buy (CyberPatrol, CYBERsitter, and NetNanny; the links to those three are at the very bottom of Nifty's main page) "in a good-faith effort to provide parents with control over what their children access online." (Nifty also adheres the SafeSurf PICS rating system; link to that website is just under the abovementioned filters.) The advice is to consider also register with those sites as well (you don't have to, but it couldn't hurt, the way I see it).

[Lyric]

Here's what we've decided:

PREGNANT MINORS are not allowed in any capacity, not even if the character is portrayed in an unsexualized way. All pregnant characters must be 18 or older in all forms of art, fiction, morphs, and roleplay. The reasoning for this rule related to obscenity laws and laws against child pornography.

--

I realize how disappointing this is but we're simply trying to keep everything safe and tidy here. The rules will be updated.

[Mark]

As engaging as this rhetoric may be, everyone here needs to put their argument guns away.

Am I missing something? :huh: I was under the impression that the "arguement guns" had already been put away and that Lyric's decision had been acknowledged and accepted.