Underage incest fantasys

[Stella_Omega]

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

hard to tell, sometimes.

I understand what you mean when you equate forcing a child to learn music-- or whatever. And there are a few people who can claim that their entire childhood was defined by their parent's ambition for them-- piano, university, accountancy-- and have to go to the shrinks ever after. Maybe one in a couple thousand, you think?

But most people are quite pleased in later years, when they have a good job that they have the skills for, or realise how often they can get laid by playing piano. Forcing oneself on a kid is nice for the adult, but teaches the kid nothing of value. And the mental health fallout is closer to one in... well, one.

 

[rgraham666]

And there are a few people who can claim that their entire childhood was defined by their parent's ambition for them

My childhood was the opposite. My parents, especially my dad made it quite clear I shouldn't have any ambition because I wasn't smart enough to succeed at anything. So why bother?

My teachers, for the most part, backed up that idea.

I'm still trying to overcome that.

 

[Pure]

I understand what you mean when you equate forcing a child to learn music-- or whatever. And there are a few people who can claim that their entire childhood was defined by their parent's ambition for them-- piano, university, accountancy-- and have to go to the shrinks ever after. Maybe one in a couple thousand, you think?

But most people are quite pleased in later years, when they have a good job that they have the skills for, or realise how often they can get laid by playing piano. Forcing oneself on a kid is nice for the adult, but teaches the kid nothing of value. And the mental health fallout is closer to one in... well, one.

i've answered this, in replying to box. i will say that "a good job" is not a good reason to applaud the parent. it happened with my aunt and her son, and he was miserable for the first 20 years of adulthood.

IMO, the kid was as fucked up as if he'd been fucking mom. narcississtically molding and deforming a child is NOT just the domain of the incestuous parent.

 

[sexgoddd]

There's a difference between actual fantasies (desire) and testing the boundaries of taboo and free-thinking. Immoral and illegal acts are more of a decision than a persuasion, if you are sane.
So you might think about underage or incestual sex, but since you're well-adjusted, you know where to draw the line at your behaviour.
Anyways, never feel alone, doctors, lawyers, psychologists, artists have to consider some of the heaviest and most disturbing shit all of their professional lives.

 

[Boxlicker101]

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.

I agree with you there, but I believe the worst way is sexual abuse. It can be very painful for an undergrown child or, at least, uncomfortable. It can also be very painful psychologically, when the grown or growing children realize that protecters and a nurturers are taking advantage of them. It may result in girls hating and distrusting all men, or boys questioning their own manhood.

Physically intimacy short of sex (back rubs, etc.) can result in problems, but not as many or as serous. Pressuring a teenager to take up a particular profession when neither the aptitude nor the desire is there can also be a problem, but professions can be changed. A young man who has studied dentistry, and realizes he has no interest in it, can change to some other profession.

Parents who push their children into entertainment or sporrts can also be a problem, but that is usually resolved when the teenager is shown to be lacking in talent.

Incestuous sex with a parent, however, will never get undone. ETA; I hope you are not saying that the 20 or 30 year olds will just shrug their shoulders and say something like "Oh, no big deal. Daddy just wanted to get his rocks off."

 

[Stella_Omega]

I understand what you mean when you equate forcing a child to learn music-- or whatever. And there are a few people who can claim that their entire childhood was defined by their parent's ambition for them-- piano, university, accountancy-- and have to go to the shrinks ever after. Maybe one in a couple thousand, you think?

But most people are quite pleased in later years, when they have a good job that they have the skills for, or realise how often they can get laid by playing piano. Forcing oneself on a kid is nice for the adult, but teaches the kid nothing of value. And the mental health fallout is closer to one in... well, one.

I've answered this, in replying to box. i will say that "a good job" is not a good reason to applaud the parent. it happened with my aunt and her son, and he was miserable for the first 20 years of adulthood.

IMO, the kid was as fucked up as if he'd been fucking mom. narcississtically molding and deforming a child is NOT just the domain of the incestuous parent.

I would say that narcissism is a necessary component for an incestuous parent, come to think of that...

I explicated, in a post on the first page, about what kind of pain and damage can ensue from penetration of a child. It can cause physical repercussions that can last a lifetime; incontinence both urinary and excretory; muscle and ligament problems in the legs, misaligned pelvis, Girls can suffer scar tissue in the vagina, burst Bartholin's glands (no lubrication), the bundle of nerves that connect from the G spot to the clit can be torn.

What's wrong with being a dentist, with a nice office, huh?

 

[WRJames]

I explicated, in a post on the first page, about what kind of pain and damage can ensue from penetration of a child. It can cause physical repercussions that can last a lifetime; incontinence both urinary and excretory; muscle and ligament problems in the legs, misaligned pelvis, Girls can suffer scar tissue in the vagina, burst Bartholin's glands (no lubrication), the bundle of nerves that connect from the G spot to the clit can be torn.

I hesitate to ask -- since this subject is SO touchy -- but what age child are you talking about?

We have defined "underage" as under 18 -- but you seem to be talking about much younger, frialer, prepubescent bodies.

The problem is that there is a range of physical, emotional, and mental development. Certainly there is a point at which all of most of us would say "too young" -- but just where is that? Individuals vary so much in their rates of maturation, particularly in their early teens, that it is hard to give a one size fits all answer.

As for parent-child "incest" -- not a good idea, but we have swung so far away that giving your child a bath, having the child fall asleep in your lap, hugging, kissing -- normal signs of affection -- are becoming questionable. I never thought twice about letting my children see me naked, at least when they were younger (and we made some family trips to nude beaches later on) -- that constitutes abuse, according to some.

Like most things discussed in this culture of ours, we can't seem to find a reasonable middle ground.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I hesitate to ask -- since this subject is SO touchy -- but what age child are you talking about?

We have defined "underage" as under 18 -- but you seem to be talking about much younger, frialer, prepubescent bodies.

The problem is that there is a range of physical, emotional, and mental development. Certainly there is a point at which all of most of us would say "too young" -- but just where is that? Individuals vary so much in their rates of maturation, particularly in their early teens, that it is hard to give a one size fits all answer.

As for parent-child "incest" -- not a good idea, but we have swung so far away that giving your child a bath, having the child fall asleep in your lap, hugging, kissing -- normal signs of affection -- are becoming questionable. I never thought twice about letting my children see me naked, at least when they were younger (and we made some family trips to nude beaches later on) -- that constitutes abuse, according to some.

Like most things discussed in this culture of ours, we can't seem to find a reasonable middle ground.

I was thinking of a very young child, under ten years old. They would usually trust their parents in everything at that age. As they get older, they see their parents are not always right. If Daddy got into the bed of his nine year old daughter and started fondling her, she might be uncomfortable, but think it was okay because it was Daddy. A 12 year old would probably know better and would try to escape, or yell for help.

This is purely hypothetical to me. I was never molested, nor was I ever a molester and, to my knowledge, I didn't grow up with anybody who was either. One of my readers, in effect, accused me of being a child molester, though.

 

[ms.read]

Damnit, Liar, I am not trying to be argumentative, but a 13 year old girl, five foot four inches, 120 pounds, C cup, 23 inch waist and 34 inch hips, in peak physical shape, is a woman, physically.

Mentally, she is not, we all know that, thas why we protect our daughters, because she is a fully functioning female, fertile and curious, and we know that also.

Most, not all, are also innocent at that age, you can see it in their eyes and the way they carry their sex.

My point in joining this thread, in all of this, is, it should be thought about, explored and written about, not prohibited, banned, censored, abolished or blushed about. Thas all...

Amicus...

why do men and boys react to girls of amicus's description (see quote)?
A) because most girls look like hot young things that are bursting with mature reproductive abilities
B)Because they are young enough to be "swept of thier feet" deceptive means by the perpatrator, innocent enough that they dont know enought to say no, I DONT Want that!

I agree that children should know to the full extent of their capabilities of what sex is( a reproductive activity/ recreational activity), what it's for (pleasure, and making kids) and what can happen if they don't protect themselves it until they are ready. ( possible STD, pregnancy, or death)

I think that the gaurdian should be protecting the child from sex until they are MENTALLY MATURE enough to handle the consequences, and thus physically restricting the minor from having sex at all,while educating them about sex, until a predetermined age (18 in US). then let them run free.

Yes, kids are exploring their own sexuality from birth. Parent's and responsible adults should not be exploring the children's sexuality for them or letting others do that to the children, OR letting the children explore someone else's sexuality whether underage or not.

 

[Stella_Omega]

I hesitate to ask -- since this subject is SO touchy -- but what age child are you talking about?

We have defined "underage" as under 18 -- but you seem to be talking about much younger, frialer, prepubescent bodies.

The problem is that there is a range of physical, emotional, and mental development. Certainly there is a point at which all of most of us would say "too young" -- but just where is that? Individuals vary so much in their rates of maturation, particularly in their early teens, that it is hard to give a one size fits all answer.

Under 18 is under age legally, yes. I have my doubts about that-- I didn't think it was reasonable when i was sixteen, that's for sure!

I am talking about younger ,frailer bodies. Obviously-- I think it's obvious-- the smaller the body. the more delicate those structures are, but any child who hasn't begun her menses is unready for intercourse. She could be fourteen, she could be six.

As for parent-child "incest" -- not a good idea, but we have swung so far away that giving your child a bath, having the child fall asleep in your lap, hugging, kissing -- normal signs of affection -- are becoming questionable. I never thought twice about letting my children see me naked, at least when they were younger (and we made some family trips to nude beaches later on) -- that constitutes abuse, according to some.

Like most things discussed in this culture of ours, we can't seem to find a reasonable middle ground.

According to whom? There have always been those who are bizarrely prudish, that's nothing new.

 

[Boxlicker101]

I hesitate to ask -- since this subject is SO touchy -- but what age child are you talking about?

We have defined "underage" as under 18 -- but you seem to be talking about much younger, frialer, prepubescent bodies.

The problem is that there is a range of physical, emotional, and mental development. Certainly there is a point at which all of most of us would say "too young" -- but just where is that? Individuals vary so much in their rates of maturation, particularly in their early teens, that it is hard to give a one size fits all answer.

As for parent-child "incest" -- not a good idea, but we have swung so far away that giving your child a bath, having the child fall asleep in your lap, hugging, kissing -- normal signs of affection -- are becoming questionable. I never thought twice about letting my children see me naked, at least when they were younger (and we made some family trips to nude beaches later on) -- that constitutes abuse, according to some.

Like most things discussed in this culture of ours, we can't seem to find a reasonable middle ground.

I somewhat agree with your last paragraph, but parents and grandparents still bathe their descendents and change their diapers, and hug them and kiss them. It would actually be neglect to not do these things.

 

[Weird Harold]

http://i217.photobucket.com/albums/cc311/ignant1/dilbert2611160071217.gif

 

[WRJames]

According to whom? There have always been those who are bizarrely prudish, that's nothing new.

Hey -- you can't make this stuff up -- "exhibitionism" is listed as one of the most common forms of child abuse -- not surprisingly, one that pushes the statistics for child abuse way up.

Here is just one example of this among many

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/312/7042/1326

I first stumbled upon this bizarre fact when I was at a church meeting where they solemnly reported that one in six boys and one in four girls had suffered some form of abuse -- I did some digging and discovered that just seeing your parents naked is abusive!

 

[Stella_Omega]

Hey -- you can't make this stuff up -- "exhibitionism" is listed as one of the most common forms of child abuse -- not surprisingly, one that pushes the statistics for child abuse way up.

Here is just one example of this among many

http://www.bmj.com/cgi/content/full/312/7042/1326

I first stumbled upon this bizarre fact when I was at a church meeting where they solemnly reported that one in six boys and one in four girls had suffered some form of abuse -- I did some digging and discovered that just seeing your parents naked is abusive!

That explains the statistics for sure-- I was thinking that out of the women I know I can't possibly say that three out of four have been molested as children-- it might be the other way 'round, one in four at best. I was wondering if I were a magnet for the unmolested.

Well, if seeing naked parents is abuse-- then I, my husband, my children, and the children in just about every family that I know have been abused. What a fucking joke!

 

[oggbashan]

The definitions of child abuse and the definitions of rape or of being a paedophile are much wider than the general public realise.

Child abuse can be very destructive without any physical contact or sexual behaviour by constant and persistent belittling of the child's abilities or physical attributes. Neglect of a child covers everything from failing to feed it to failing to nurture its intellectual abilities...

Rape can be apparently consensual sex between adults except that one of the "adults" has lied about being of the age of consent.

In the UK a person can be convicted of being a paedophile and required to be included on the sex offenders register by downloading and saving (even if inadvertently) inappropriate images of children, even if those images were produced elsewhere and the person did not distribute or manipulate the images in any way. There may have been no contact whatever with any child and no intention of seeking any contact with children.

That is a long way from the perception of a paedophile as someone who is a danger to children and would sexually abuse any child.

The law's definitions criminalise some people for thought-crime.

Og

 

[amicus]

Good points all, Ogg...the very best to you and yours for the coming year...


Ami...

 

[Pure]

note to og.

In the UK a person can be convicted of being a paedophile and required to be included on the sex offenders register by downloading and saving (even if inadvertently) inappropriate images of children, even if those images were produced elsewhere and the person did not distribute or manipulate the images in any way. There may have been no contact whatever with any child and no intention of seeking any contact with children.

That is a long way from the perception of a paedophile as someone who is a danger to children and would sexually abuse any child.

The law's definitions criminalise some people for thought-crime.

While i agree there have been serious miscarriages of the judicial process, there are not *THAT* many cases where hundreds of pictures of fiveyearold girls getting fucked turn up on one's computer either by accident or by stealthy inserted by a malicious third party.

I'm not sure that the possession of pictures of anything---save of oneself murdering or raping someone-- should be a crime, but let's assume that there is some case for it, in the case of *criminal acts against children* and i don't mean nude 10 year olds on the beach. the rationale of such a law is that likely the possessor PAID for such pictures, at least some. in that case, money was being fed to those who commit and film the criminal acts. notice that this rationale voids your defense:There may have been no contact whatever with any child and no intention of seeking any contact with children.

Assuming that some kinds of "possession" are to be criminalized, searching out and dowloading such images, 'swapping them' etc, is surely an overt act, leaving overt evidence. So the party, if subjected to due process, based on the evidence (of willful and/or knowing possession, implying willful or knowing downloading), is hardly being punished for a "thought crime."

There are examples that better fit your approach. An artist here in Canada, drew some pictures in a journal/sketchbook of children being molested (it's said that he had been, and was 'exorcizing his demons'). i believe they were exhibited, whereupon he was arrested for 'child porn' making or possession. *IN THIS CASE, it's clearly a thought crime only, since no children were posed in the making of his pics.

 

[cantdog]

In the UK a person can be convicted of being a paedophile and required to be included on the sex offenders register by downloading and saving (even if inadvertently) inappropriate images of children, even if those images were produced elsewhere and the person did not distribute or manipulate the images in any way. There may have been no contact whatever with any child and no intention of seeking any contact with children.

That is a long way from the perception of a paedophile as someone who is a danger to children and would sexually abuse any child.

The law's definitions criminalise some people for thought-crime.

While i agree there have been serious miscarriages of the judicial process, there are not *THAT* many cases where hundreds of pictures of fiveyearold girls getting fucked turn up on one's computer either by accident or by stealthy inserted by a malicious third party.

I'm not sure that the possession of pictures of anything---save of oneself murdering or raping someone-- should be a crime, but let's assume that there is some case for it, in the case of *criminal acts against children* and i don't mean nude 10 year olds on the beach. the rationale of such a law is that likely the possessor PAID for such pictures, at least some. in that case, money was being fed to those who commit and film the criminal acts. notice that this rationale voids your defense:There may have been no contact whatever with any child and no intention of seeking any contact with children.

Assuming that some kinds of "possession" are to be criminalized, searching out and dowloading such images, 'swapping them' etc, is surely an overt act, leaving overt evidence. So the party, if subjected to due process, based on the evidence (of willful and/or knowing possession, implying willful or knowing downloading), is hardly being punished for a "thought crime."

There are examples that better fit your approach. An artist here in Canada, drew some pictures in a journal/sketchbook of children being molested (it's said that he had been, and was 'exorcizing his demons'). i believe they were exhibited, whereupon he was arrested for 'child porn' making or possession. *IN THIS CASE, it's clearly a thought crime only, since no children were posed in the making of his pics.

Thousands of child porn images originated in the 1970s, and still circulate today. At the time, it was NOT A CRIME to produce or distribute such pictures. Most distribution of those thousands of images takes place on peer-to-peer, now, since the sites and newsgroups which used to make them available are now closed down. A person using PTP file sharing can rapidly accumulate gigs and gigs of most anything, so I assume this would be no exception.

Any harm to those models took place fifty years or so ago. Many of the images do not look particularly as if the participants are underage.

People could seek them out obsessively, and cherish a paedophilic fantasy life, or they could capture via PTP some dozens which no one not in the know would ever realize involved someone sixteen instead of eighteen, and cherish no such fantasies.

Some people in "possession" of child porn might be innocent, others actual paedophiles, in other words. Some of your own collection may actually be from this group of infamous images, and you wouldn't realize it. The specialists who hunt child porn possessors would know them right away, of course.

But in all cases, the models used to make the pix were indeed children, and so, at law, harm could be said to have resulted when they were produced, even though no one thought so at the time, when all such images were entirely legal.

Your example is a work of art, for heaven's sake, not a photo or video. No one at all had to actually do anything for the image to be made, except the artist, whose action was to scratch a piece of graphite on some paper. No child can possibly come to harm because someone scratched a pencil across a piece of paper.

Artworks are intrinsically different. Just as works like our stories are. They consist of words, formed by typing on a keyboard, and their production hurt no one.

 

[MzDeviancy]

Excellent point! And I like Pure's and Box's very thoughtful answers as well. But both of them seem to have missed your point that pre-pubescent children might enjoy sexual attention-- stopping short of intercourse; as you say. and I can agree with you there too; I know of such cases.

And yes, the atmosphere around the issue is one of hysteria; but I think that's mostly because this is the first time the subject has been addressed in such a large forum (meaning the world-wide-web) and the first time women, in particular, have been able to lead the discussion. And I don't know if you've ever noticed this, but-- the first times anyone has a chance to be listened to, they tend to overstate and speak in apocalyptic language; just think of divorce courts! I think we're looking at that same phenomenon, society-wide. So things get over-stated. It could take a while for the conversation to subside to reasonableness.

I notice that you were careful to say; stopping short of intercourse; Why?

Pregnancy. Children shouldn't be mothers or fathers, and there's of course the risk that it can physically harm a girl to be pregnant before she's done maturing. I don't believe in relying on contraceptives like they never fail.

Without the factor of force/coersion, and the stress of being told to deceive other family members, I believe the only source of emotional handicapping would be external. And, sorry Amicus, but I find Pure's comparison to homosexuality very apt; something shouldn't be illegal just because it gives some people a case of the yuckies.

And no, elsol, I would have no issue with having sex with someone who has authority over me, provided they didn't force or coerce me. In fact, that's the kind of fantasy that keeps my vibrator in good use.

 

[WRJames]

My childhood was the opposite. My parents, especially my dad made it quite clear I shouldn't have any ambition because I wasn't smart enough to succeed at anything. So why bother?

My teachers, for the most part, backed up that idea.

I'm still trying to overcome that.

Now that is TRULY abusive. Unfortunately, we do that. I was fat an bookish as child -- everyone knew I was smart, but I was always the last one chosen for any of the games. So which child in that group was the college athlete?

We are so obsessed with developing children early, that we forget that some traits don't develop at the same rate in everyone. Some of the kids that were athletic superstars in junior high school were fat and balding midway through college.

Same thing, obviously, with intelligence. The most successful person in my wife's extended family is a high school drop-out. And, through watching many programs on the Discovery Channel and History Channel, he's acquired quite an education.

 

[StephenThorn]

Ooooh...dangerous ideas!

Regarding the idea of intergenerational sexual conduct, as in a person over the age of majority having consensual sexual relations with a minor, I have yet to see a worthy reason why it cannot be discussed in appropriate venues (which Literotica should be). I've never run into an idea that was, in and of itself, so dangerous that it couldn't be talked about. Now, granted, some ideas will get your skull dented if you voice them in certain company (if you doubt it, walk into a 1%er biker bar and scream "You buncha riceburner-riding faggots couldn't kick the ass of a quadrapeligic three-year-old!" and see what happens).

That having been said, it seems to me that our culture needs to decide what's really real. No jurisdiction prosecutes a 14-year-old girl for having sex with a 19-year-old man -- only the MAN gets an arrest record, yet both he and the girl consented to and acted in the same sexual contact. They are equally "guilty" in this, but she goes free. That's a load of crap.

Additionally, in many jurisdictions in the US minors can obtain (either by purchasing over the counter or even by receiving free from their physician or their school, for crying out loud) birth control devices, sexual counseling, testing for venereal diseases, abortion services, etc. on their own say-so (even if their parent's insurance is paying for it and said parent isn't permitted to know that their little darling is fucking somebody). That indicates to me that in those jurisdictions minors are considered mature and intelligent enough to determine their own sexual conduct (therefore, ostensibly, with WHOM they will share their sexual favors) even when those behaviors may result in the termination of a human life (the unborn child they will abort)! So where do we draw the line? A person is smart/mature enough to decide WHETHER to have sex, with WHOM to have sex, and what to do BEFORE, AFTER, and DURING the sex...but they're only smart/mature enough to decide those things if their intended partner is, like them, a minor? What idiot thought that up?

I figure that things should be what we SAY they are. If a thing is wrong, it's wrong; if it's right, it's right. Either drop the intergenerational discrimination BS or enforce the prohibition on both partners.

 

[amicus]

Interesting....welcome to the forum...

Last day or so on LMN Lifetime Movie Network, chic flic, mother discovers her 14 year old daughter is sexually active....thas on tv, folks...even hint at writing about a 14 year old having sex here on LITEROTIC, folks throw a hissy fit.

happy new year~

amicus...

 

[Stella_Omega]

Interesting....welcome to the forum...

Last day or so on LMN Lifetime Movie Network, chic flic, mother discovers her 14 year old daughter is sexually active....thas on tv, folks...even hint at writing about a 14 year old having sex here on LITEROTIC, folks throw a hissy fit.

happy new year~

amicus...

No one has a hissy fit about writing about it, discussing it (what else have we been doing here?) -- but when people want to post erotic stories featuring underage characters here, we remind them that literotica won't allow it.

It has nothing to do with LMN, it has everything to do with the preferences of the owners of lit.

And it's no big whoop.

 

[amicus]

No big whoop to you perhaps, but then you can't conceptualize yourself out of a wet brown paper bag.

Some law, some where, poses a thread to internet site owners by imposing a moral standard or guideline as to can/should and cannot or should not be published and that is always how censorship begins, a little at a time.

But the liberal philosophy tolerates small abridgments of freedoms and liberties, always, of course, for a good reason, for the benefit of the greater good and thus freedom gradually slips away.

I do not know precisely how the mechanics of this kind of censorship affects Laurel and Manu, but I do recall seeing a 'free speech' logo on one of the opening pages and I doubt very much they are pleased by having to submit.

Of course, you and yours accept it without a whimper as you are accustomed to compromising your values at the drop of a feather.

Amicus...

 

[Guest]

. . . . .