They could steal the key to their raunchy older sister's chastity belt?
It's not that kind of novel.Sam Kates said:They could steal the key to their raunchy older sister's chastity belt?
No... because they've stolen the key.JRTomlin said:It's not that kind of novel.
JRTomlin said:...erect. His cock...
James gave both boys a shake.
James gave them both another shake although it wasn't a hard one...
(And then they get into more trouble later and get taken in hand)
Boys have cocks. I don't think that is smut. It's a biological fact, and how is a father shaking his son smut? There you got me.Sam Kates said:I know this is a first rough draft, but there are too many opportunities for smutty innuendos (or maybe I've watched too many Carry On films)...
They dump all the flour out on the floor and play in it like a sandbox!JRTomlin said:I hate writing about children.
Ok, there are two (noble) boys about 5 or 6 in a medieval palace. It's winter and snowy. They're bored and get into mischief. Suggestions for mischief?
Ignore me - I was being infantileJRTomlin said:Boys have cocks. I don't think that is smut. It's a biological fact, and how is a father shaking his son smut? There you got me.
I would not use erect, since the subject has to do with their cocks. I understand they are five. I get that, but it reads in a way that takes me out of the actual prank and makes me instead laugh at the innuendo, while hoping you as an author are not trying to be juvenile. I know you, so I know you aren't. A stragner might think you were trying for innuendo. I also saw the one about "the hard one". I don't consider myself juvenile, but certain words do make people think along a different way than one might intend. The cocks aren't the issue, the unintended innuendos are.He jumped to his feet and fumbled at his lacings as his cousin was still pushing himself erect.