Underage incest fantasys

[Stella_Omega]

Not going to say it is the kids that are having a problem nowadays with everything, it is learned behavior. When some dumbass spills hot coffee on themselves, they don't go damn I am in idiot and learn from the mistake. Nope they go running to the courts and file a lawsuit. Kids see this and go well damn I live here to so I can not take personal responsibility and just blame anything and everything on everyone else.

Totally sidetracked-- The real problem is that people don't know the real facts of the macdonald's coffee lawsuit.

The coffee wasn't merely hot-- it was scalding. It put her in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafts... And it was proved that MacDonald's had already settled more tan 700 claims for similar burns before this one-- they knew the coffee was boiling hot. The lawsuit wasn't frivolous in the least.

 

[SlickTony]

Wow. I'd no idea.

 

[amicus]

Man, the bullshit never stops, does it?

Suppose the 'scalding' (liquid heated to the boiling point, how else do you brew coffee?), occured at a little mom & pop restaurant?

Oh, no, let us 'supersize' McDonalds because it is a successful enterprise. Why not let us also castigate WalMart, because they too are successful and represent free market enterprise at its best.

It must be a burden to carry all that hatred of freedom around with you all the time.

Amicus...

 

[WRJames]

I can barely remember a time I wasn't curious, but by that time, I'd already received The Message; I don't consider that that did me a damn bit of good.

Well, I grew up in the fifties and I was looking up encyclopedia articles to try to figure out what the hell was happening to my body.

I still remember asking my sixth grade teacher what was wrong with all the girls -- why were they acting so silly all of a sudden. And he went into this long explanation of how different people mature at different rates -- slowly, it dawned on me that he was trying to say that these girls were MORE mature than I was. That did not make any sense at all to me -- I was perfectly rational, and these girls were off the wall with raging hormones.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Man, the bullshit never stops, does it?

Suppose the 'scalding' (liquid heated to the boiling point, how else do you brew coffee?), occured at a little mom & pop restaurant?

Oh, no, let us 'supersize' McDonalds because it is a successful enterprise. Why not let us also castigate WalMart, because they too are successful and represent free market enterprise at its best.

It must be a burden to carry all that hatred of freedom around with you all the time.

Amicus...

Would you share a link to the forums where you pretend to be a liberal? I'd love to watch you in action there-- prove you're not a one-trick pony.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Totally sidetracked-- The real problem is that people don't know the real facts of the macdonald's coffee lawsuit.

The coffee wasn't merely hot-- it was scalding. It put her in the hospital for eight days while she underwent skin grafts... And it was proved that MacDonald's had already settled more tan 700 claims for similar burns before this one-- they knew the coffee was boiling hot. The lawsuit wasn't frivolous in the least.

I agree the lawsuit was not fvivolous, but that is the only thing I agree with,

I don't like the idea of hijacking a thread, or continuing a hijack, but here goes. First, the organization linked to is hardly neutral on the subject.

The way you make coffee is by taking water that is boiling hot, or close to boiling, and pour it through ground coffee. The hotter the water, the better the coffee you make. Coffee is hot. Everybody knows that, and most people make an effort to avoid spilling it on themselves. I regard the woman as being 100% responsible for her injuries, for handling the hot coffee in such a careless way.

I can buy hazardous materials, such as rat poison and bleach and razor blades. If I were stupid enough to eat the rat poison or drink the bleach or chew on the razor blades, I would inflict serious injury on myself. That's why I don't do it. However, if I ever did any of those foolish things, I would probably not sue the manufacturers of the hazardous items or the store where I bought them, because I was fully aware they could harm me if misused.

That's my take on the case. The "victim" had a dangerous substance and she knowingly handled it carelessly and splled it on herself. Completely her fault. End of the story. MacDonald's should have won the case. Had I been on the jury, I would have voted in their favor. I can feel sympathy for the woman, but it was her own stupid fault.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Well, I grew up in the fifties and I was looking up encyclopedia articles to try to figure out what the hell was happening to my body.

I still remember asking my sixth grade teacher what was wrong with all the girls -- why were they acting so silly all of a sudden. And he went into this long explanation of how different people mature at different rates -- slowly, it dawned on me that he was trying to say that these girls were MORE mature than I was. That did not make any sense at all to me -- I was perfectly rational, and these girls were off the wall with raging hormones.

You certainly must have led a sheltered life. I also grew up in the Fifties, going from 11 to 21 years old, and I knew what was happening. I was becoming a man, instead of continuing to be a boy.

Girls do mature physically before boys. The girls in sixth grade would have been 11 or 12 years old, and some of them would have ben going through puberty. Boys would reach that point later, maybe two years or so. When I was that age, it didn't seem to me that the girls who were my contemporaries were acting any goofier than usual.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I make my coffee by boiling the water, too- but I let it cool a little before I serve it to my guests. UNlike rat poison, bleach-- you DO drink coffee.

 

[WRJames]

You certainly must have led a sheltered life. I also grew up in the Fifties, going from 11 to 21 years old, and I knew what was happening. I was becoming a man, instead of continuing to be a boy.

Well -- you were an adolescent in the fifties. But I don't think the early fifties were quite as squeaky clean as it got later on. Also, I grew up in a VERY fifties environment -- utopian suburbs where everyone was going to live a perfect life.

Going from that to Columbia in the late sixties was like stepping into an alternate universe.

 

[emap]

I wasn't saying the lawsuit on McDonalds was a bad thing. I remember the case and her spending time in the hospital because of it. I mean yes it was way to hot to actually just hand to someone in those crappy little styrofoam cups. Of course she should have known better than to just sit it in her lap even at 6 AM most people have way more brains than that.

The problem with the McDonalds lawsuit, the amount of money she was given for being a complete moron and not listening to the drive thru person when they said it is hot and fresh. Not to mention not listening to her hand that said hey dumbass this is hot down here.

Should she have won the lawsuit, well not really since she is the reason she was burned in the first place. She did win though, overall not that big a deal, what is a big deal is the amount of money she got. Which is the whole reason for all of the lawsuits that are happening now.

Ummm Wr far as I know any college in the sixties is like stepping into another world. Not to say they are all that different now either.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Well -- you were an adolescent in the fifties. But I don't think the early fifties were quite as squeaky clean as it got later on. Also, I grew up in a VERY fifties environment -- utopian suburbs where everyone was going to live a perfect life.

Going from that to Columbia in the late sixties was like stepping into an alternate universe.

I grew up in a small farming town in Wisconsin, and learned "the facts of life" on the proverbial street. In the late fifties I was in the Air Force. I thought the sixties were pretty wild, but I lived in California at the time, which may have been a big part of the reason.

 

[Eluard]

I make my coffee by boiling the water, too- but I let it cool a little before I serve it to my guests. UNlike rat poison, bleach-- you DO drink coffee.

Stella, don't know what it is, but whenever I read your posts I feel an enormous desire to hug you.

 

[elsol]

You know, studies suggest that people who felt pleasure when they were molested end up with more emotional issues later on. How much of that do you think is due to the fact that all they hear on the subject of incest is how revolting it is and what sick freaks people who enjoy it are?

Rape is rape, and it will pretty much always mess a person up good because of the aspect of force, of violation. But say a child is sexually aware at a young age, even prepubescant (it does happen), and a much older family member engages in consensual sexual activities with them, stopping short of intercourse; would they have any issues if they weren't told by everyone around them that they'd been too young to give consent? That the older family member was a pervert who'd sexually assaulted them?

Feel free to call me a monster or a pervert or the devil incarnate, but I think this is just one of those topics where rational thought has been replaced by an almost hysterical fear of being labelled a pedophile.

My two cents. Carry on.

The child and the adult are not equals in social standing, maturity, power, and control over the situation--and the child perceives the inequality. Adults have enforced the view on the child that there exists an inequality which places the adult (ANY adult) in the position superior.

Obviously, a relationship does not have to be between perfect equals or even equals. But in a very important way, society does perceive two adults to be equal even if not economically, socially, etc. It's not that society says 'Poor you, you've been violated'; the possibility for damage has already been created because for years society has been telling the child 'You are not equal to an adult... on any level.'

The child has a sexual identity, but most of the time, that identity is still being shaped. At that time in the child's life when their overall identity and sexual identity are being much better defined, the child gets into a relationship where the child may perceive the other person to be holding all the cards.

Take that statement: 'Holding all the cards', think about it for a second, set a definition for it...

Would Amicus or you or Pure or sweetsubsarah or stella omega or I have sex with someone who held all the cards? They weren't paying us, they weren't violating us... they just 'held all the cards' in the way you just defined it to yourself.

I would not; I could not.

As an adult, it's difficult for me to imagine another person actually 'holding all the cards' in any situation.

As a child, I was, as you say, sexually aware but that word 'consensual' is a tough sell. The issue for me with consent is not 'Can the child say yes?' but actually, 'Can the child say NO?'

Accepting that there might be something about me that's different, I believe there were people in my life that at an early age I would NOT have thought in terms of 'yes or no'. As a child, I did perceive certain adults as holding all the cards. With some, I actively perceived them in that fashion, but with others, it is only looking back now that I understand I operated from the position in which the adult held all the cards. I'm not talking about pre-pube either, but healthily into my teens.

I think about those people, I think about sex the way I thought about sex back then, and I think... "Consent, what?"

You're right: how the child perceives the situation is VERY important, but it's not just about perceiving a violation.

So my answer to "Would the child have issues?" is: I think you could get lucky... but I know you could end up with an abnormal sexual identity, one with some severe control issues.

Of course, I do accept that 'normal' is a misnomer for 'ideal', most of the times for one's person (my) ideal.

 

[Pure]

reply to el.

The child has a sexual identity, but most of the time, that identity is still being shaped. At that time in the child's life when their overall identity and sexual identity are being much better defined, the child gets into a relationship where the child may perceive the other person to be holding all the cards.

Take that statement: 'Holding all the cards', think about it for a second, set a definition for it...

Would Amicus or you or Pure or sweetsubsarah or stella omega or I have sex with someone who held all the cards? They weren't paying us, they weren't violating us... they just 'held all the cards' in the way you just defined it to yourself.

I would not; I could not.

As an adult, it's difficult for me to imagine another person actually 'holding all the cards' in any situation.

As a child, I was, as you say, sexually aware but that word 'consensual' is a tough sell. The issue for me with consent is not 'Can the child say yes?' but actually, 'Can the child say NO?'

Accepting that there might be something about me that's different, I believe there were people in my life that at an early age I would NOT have thought in terms of 'yes or no'. As a child, I did perceive certain adults as holding all the cards. With some, I actively perceived them in that fashion, but with others, it is only looking back now that I understand I operated from the position in which the adult held all the cards. I'm not talking about pre-pube either, but healthily into my teens.

I think about those people, I think about sex the way I thought about sex back then, and I think... "Consent, what?"
--

i not sure about this 'having all the cards.' would i have sex with someone 'holding all the cards"? well it depends. these are like 'women in prison camp' scenarios. some persons w/o power, of course have no choice, but others do. e.g. the woman who sleeps with the warden to get her kids better treated.

--
can the child say 'no'? just as my daughter to empty the dishwasher! i'd say once a kid is 6 or 8 or certainly 10, they can say 'no'. they do say 'no.'

---
for me the issue of child's 'yes' or 'no' is irrelevant. if a 10 year old wants to say 'yes' to a 20 year old, and she in my care, i'm going to say 'no'. it's a protection issue.

===

PS I like the general drift of your comments. you are trying to look at things realistically. i think the major danger, as shown in this thread is that adults *fantasize* about what the child gets. formerly it used to be utter trauma. now, some 'liberals' fantasize the child 'learning' or being fulfilled.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Elsol!!!

What an absolute winner of a post!

The issue for me with consent is not 'Can the child say yes?' but actually, 'Can the child say NO?'

I'd fill this entire post up with roses-- but lit won't let me

 

[elsol]

can the child say 'no'? just as my daughter to empty the dishwasher! i'd say once a kid is 6 or 8 or certainly 10, they can say 'no'. they do say 'no.'

I will accept that.

If she does not say 'No!', it cannot be rape. We disregard emotional state and circumstance, if she did not say no, he walks, no questions asked.

She said 'No...' in the office that day when I asked her if we had a meeting, so that night when we 'fucked' because she could have said 'No!' and didn't, the whole calling the cops was a woman being a woman.

When can we write that into the law books?

 

[Stella_Omega]

i not sure about this 'having all the cards.' would i have sex with someone 'holding all the cards"? well it depends. these are like 'women in prison camp' scenarios. some persons w/o power, of course have no choice, but others do. e.g. the woman who sleeps with the warden to get her kids better treated.

Speaking as a mother, that looks exactly like a no-choice scenario to me.

What the fuck, Pure?

 

[Boxlicker101]

Speaking as a mother, that looks exactly like a no-choice scenario to me.

What the fuck, Pure?

It looks like one to me too, even though I'm not a mother. If the warden says: "You suck me off (or eat my pussy) or you spend the next six months in the hole", that does not look like anything between equals. Or the teacher who says "If you want that scholarship, (or to be accepted into the U. or whatever else the student needs) you do what I say to do," it is not between equals.

At the same time, if there is no relationship between the adult and minor, it could be another matter entirely.

 

[emap]

Well actually, if there is no relationship between the child and an adult, taken literally that means stranger, the child is more likely to not say no because they think they have no choice. Sorta the same situation as say your in prison and 5 big buff guys are with you in the shower saying your going to blow us all or we will cut you.

If they are friends, like say neighbor Bob, him between the door and the child chances are pretty good they will say yes for the same reason. Even bigger chance of Uncle Albert getting a yes, most kids just assume family members won't do anything bad to them.

Most adults are larger than most kids by a good margin, not to mention stronger. So if say I was twelve and a big strong guy, to a twelve year old mind a normal guy in a suit is big and strong, came up to me got me alone with him and said would you like to have sex with now as he is undressing. If he is between the door and me, yes would be the answer, I'd of course delay answering and edge toward the door, but if I could not make it, no way I am saying no, simple self defence there.

Which I suppose is the whole reason behind the age of consent laws, adults being larger than kids can scare kids into saying yes when they don't want to just by being there.

 

[Pure]

i not sure about this 'having all the cards.' would i have sex with someone 'holding all the cards"? well it depends. these are like 'women in prison camp' scenarios. some persons w/o power, of course have no choice, but others do. e.g. the woman who sleeps with the warden to get her kids better treated.

Speaking as a mother, that looks exactly like a no-choice scenario to me.

as box says, below, i distinguish a prison guard saying 'fuck me or i'll kill you,' from a director saying, "there are perks to being my 'girld friend'... extra food and medicine for the kids."

one is pressure, the other 'inducement.' [the difference is in result; bad in one case; failing a reward in the other] both are and ahve been used with kids for a number of purposes.

---

at first glance, my impression is that the sex with underage kids, including ones own, is not different in kind from other types of situations or conflicts. e.g. making the kid take piano lessons or go to a good university. the difference is in degree.

kids are pressured and 'induced' all the time, 'for their own good,' as the saying goes. when they are 20 or 30, they look back and deside if it was bullshit.... in theory, same for sex.

 

[Stella_Omega]

i not sure about this 'having all the cards.' would i have sex with someone 'holding all the cards"? well it depends. these are like 'women in prison camp' scenarios. some persons w/o power, of course have no choice, but others do. e.g. the woman who sleeps with the warden to get her kids better treated.

Speaking as a mother, that looks exactly like a no-choice scenario to me.

as box says, below, i distinguish a prison guard saying 'fuck me or i'll kill you,' from a director saying, "there are perks to being my 'girld friend'... extra food and medicine for the kids."

one is pressure, the other 'inducement.' [the difference is in result; bad in one case; failing a reward in the other] both are and ahve been used with kids for a number of purposes.

yes, i understand what you were saying. I was thinking about it-- a mom who knows that her kids might be less misery if she approached the guard, director, bossman, whatever. You can call it a choice, and I'm sure he will. I kinda sorta don't-- once the idea has occurred to her, her conscience will not let her not try it.

---

at first glance, my impression is that the sex with underage kids, including ones own, is not different in kind from other types of situations or conflicts. e.g. making the kid take piano lessons or go to a good university. the difference is in degree.

kids are pressured and 'induced' all the time, 'for their own good,' as the saying goes. when they are 20 or 30, they look back and deside if it was bullshit.... in theory, same for sex.

And at second glance, can you see a difference?

 

[Boxlicker101]

i not sure about this 'having all the cards.' would i have sex with someone 'holding all the cards"? well it depends. these are like 'women in prison camp' scenarios. some persons w/o power, of course have no choice, but others do. e.g. the woman who sleeps with the warden to get her kids better treated.

Speaking as a mother, that looks exactly like a no-choice scenario to me.

as box says, below, i distinguish a prison guard saying 'fuck me or i'll kill you,' from a director saying, "there are perks to being my 'girld friend'... extra food and medicine for the kids."

one is pressure, the other 'inducement.' [the difference is in result; bad in one case; failing a reward in the other] both are and ahve been used with kids for a number of purposes.

---

at first glance, my impression is that the sex with underage kids, including ones own, is not different in kind from other types of situations or conflicts. e.g. making the kid take piano lessons or go to a good university. the difference is in degree.

kids are pressured and 'induced' all the time, 'for their own good,' as the saying goes. when they are 20 or 30, they look back and deside if it was bullshit.... in theory, same for sex.

I believe they are incomparably different. Children are always pushed into doing things they don't want to do. Eat your vegatables. Do your homework. Brush your teeth. Clean your room. Practice the piano. Generally speaking, such orders are intended to benefit the child, by doing things such as instilling good habits, providing a healthy diet, preventing tooth decay, or other possible benefits. The ability to play the piano is usually a plus, and getting into a good university is a major plus.

On the other hand: "Here, Honey, take Daddy's thing in your mouth." or "Spread your legs for Daddy, Honey. It'll be fun." is not meant to benefit anybody but the incestuous parent.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Sometimes I can't tell the difference between Pure and Ami. I swear.

 

[Boxlicker101]

Sometimes I can't tell the difference between Pure and Ami. I swear.

I must say, on this thread, they seem to be the same person.

 

[Pure]

thanks, guys, box and stella,
the difference is that my rationality is real.

as to box's point:

pure//kids are pressured and 'induced' all the time, 'for their own good,' as the saying goes. when they are 20 or 30, they look back and deside if it was bullshit.... in theory, same for sex. //


I believe they are incomparably different. Children are always pushed into doing things they don't want to do. Eat your vegatables. Do your homework. Brush your teeth. Clean your room. Practice the piano. Generally speaking, such orders are intended to benefit the child, by doing things such as instilling good habits, providing a healthy diet, preventing tooth decay, or other possible benefits. The ability to play the piano is usually a plus, and getting into a good university is a major plus.

On the other hand: "Here, Honey, take Daddy's thing in your mouth." or "Spread your legs for Daddy, Honey. It'll be fun." is not meant to benefit anybody but the incestuous parent.

---
starting with the last line, that was my point about how grown up kids figure things out: at 20 or 30 the answer will be obvious that Daddy's just getting his rocks off, in the guise of 'prepareing her for life.'

i don't think the difference is very clear, for many things taught, at all. "brush out mommy's hair" "rub mommy's back" "come home early so you won't get in trouble [i.e. really for company to the parent]".
also pressuring for certain careers, e.g. dentistry [as in my extended family], is done sometimes to benefit the parent in later life. pressuring for confidences and 'friendship' ("tell mommy everything") also come to mind.

in general the therapists call certain relationships 'incestuous' even without the sex. the point being there are many ways to abuse a dependent and keep them in thrall.