Underage incest fantasys

[amicus]

Well you never know, ami is weird after all.

~~~

I think something I said, in my role as devil's advocate here, to stimulate conversation, got a lil close to emap's core, fancy that.

I figure it is a woman's secret...that she can manage any man for any reason at any time by fluttering her eyelids and other accessories....

I watched my little three year old daughter, the youngest one, begin learning her feminine skills on me at a very early age, I found it amusing...and very informative...

ami...

 

[emap]

Not running away - dammit, I gotta cook for the tribe. I'll be back later.

Starrkers your clock is really fast there. It's 2:30 AM.

Ami nah you didn't, I was teasing ya, your easy to poke fun at.

I know it's so weird, all of these self help books talk about how to make yourself better, how to get your partner to give you better sex and how to meet women, usually for sex but well sometimes just meet. Not a single one says, this is something you really should learn how to do because if you can get her off as much as she wants every time she will come back.

Not to say the information is not out there, Nina Hartley has a whole string of how to do this sexually. I actually think everyone should watch them, I learned a couple new missionary poses.

Those seem to be overlooked because they are not stroke porn, but they are porn so easy targets to say porn is bad I never watch it I guess.

Freud I think had more problems with his mom than anything else. No idea why but everything seemed to be because of the person's mom. Well at least it seemed that way, I haven't seen everything he said.

 

[starrkers]

Just on 9pm here.
I'm back, but everyone else seems to have gone.

 

[amicus]

This will most likely be a wasted effort, but then, some of my most memorable efforts have been when I was wasted...ahem, I will attempt to make it as lyrical and entertaining as I can at this late hour.

I had Feist, 1234, playing, swaying to the music, visualizing the female voice, lilting and lovely, " one two three four, tell me that you love me more..."...recently watched "Blue Lagoon" with Brooke Shields and just tonight, Exodus, a 1960 film with a lovely young blonde girl in a supporting role...

This thread was in my mind and the difficulties that seem to be involved in expressing something so clearly evident...thinking of fairies and nymphs, delightful young girls flitting about and modern cartoons such as "Sailor Moon" and those sexy young characters and visual advertising of all kinds that portray the young, lithe, female body to sell everything, because they know, we all know, sex sells.

And I wondered why the abject resistance to admission that society has always worshiped innocent young virgins, spontaneously emoting the freedom and innocence of youth and why we all crave it so.

I am cognizant, as many of you are, of the history of art and music and literature, prose and poetry and how young women are worshiped throughout the history of art and again, I wondered why is this so difficult to acknowledge and confess...

A young, vital, free feminine spirit has been a symbol of hope and inspiration for all time, yet we ignore the history that brought us here...why?

I hear it in music, I see it in dance, in ballet, I read of it in romantic literature of unrequited love, it seems such a shame to corrupt the innocence of youth with the realities of life...we wish to preserve it forever and cherish it always, yet know it will not last and is but a fleeting moment.

Yet the seeds of denouement are contained in the yearning quest of the nymph in the forest glen; in the uplifted arms and yearning stance to be fulfilled, it is a wondrous thing indeed to behold for it renews us all to that we once were and will never be again.

There is no conclusion to this foray into thought, merely thought and supposition, as most seem to desire a continuation of innocence without regard to reality, for all things change and grow and nothing remains the same.

I for one worship youth and beauty and I wish to explore the very human appreciation for it and the promise it holds to renew us as we move on in life, as too, will they, those young spirits that inspire us to remember the dreams of youth.

Ah, well...it is what it is...


Amicus...

 

[starrkers]

It's the perversion of that worship of innocent youth that is concerning, though.

 

[Just-Legal]

*sigh*

If I had had my second relationship in the US my partner would be behind bars. I was 17 and he was 26, we were together for about a year and only broke up because he had to move away to find work. He was probably the best lover before my fiance I have had, and he *did* teach me a lot. Seems he was a rare breed.

 

[cantdog]

Amicus, I don't consider myself a zealot. or an ostrich with my head in the sand. I know there are people out there that like the kind of arousal they get when they think about doing sexual acts with people who may not have the capacity to say no. I do not want to read anything having to do with men and women who should have the common sense of stopping those kinds of thoughts in thier track.

These people are targeting "children" because of their innocence,vulnerability,innability to defend themselves, and thier not knowing the consequences of what can happen during/ and because of a sexual interlude.

That is why there is an age of consent. At a certain point in a person's life, they should be knowledgeable enough to be able to engage in happy sexual activity. The United States Federal Law states that the age of consent is EIGHTEEN. People who do not attain the ability to say no, or defend themselves, are appointed a gaurdian. Because in the face of today's society these people, will be labeled as "children" and seen as off limits to sexual activity.

Yes, there is sexual activity between children and adults. It does not mean I should accept the fact. People who commit sexual acts with children should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law. If its the case between someone who is a couple of years younger than the legal age, the person over the age of consent should be able to wait until the younger one's eighteenth birthday to commit sexual stuff. :caning:

Children who are having sex between themselves, should NOT BE HAVING SEX AT ALL. It is the Gaurdian's responsibility to make sure that this does not occur. There should not be any ACCIDENTAL PREGNANCIES OR BIRTHS. to people under the age of consent. ITS DISGUSTING.

I think that chastity belts should be used on minors that have reached puberty, until they have reached thier eighteenth birthday.

You're under a misapprehension about federal law. Just saying. And eighteen is ridiculous.

I submit that it is the guardian's responsibility to prepare the child for the real world. Accidental pregnancies could happen to anyone, but one which occurs because the parent was so fearful of sex education that she shielded the child from essential knowledge only can be blamed on the parent.

When are they old enough to know? When they are old enough to ask. And that ain't eighteen, by a damn sight. When are they old enough to make decisions of this kind for themselves? When they have good judgment. That's the whole answer. That's the only answer that makes sense.

Some people never have good judgment, others get there quite soon. In much of the world, sixteen years of age functions as an arbitrary date for age of consent. Think of it as a deadline for the guardian. By then, at the very latest the guardian should have jolly well made sure that the child can make a decent decision under stress. I'm not talking like amicus about any instructional fucking, I'm talking about proven, demonstrated good judgment on the part of the child. If your child can't decide well without supervision by sixteen, you really have failed as a guardian.

 

[emap]

You bet he was, he taught you alot.

So Ami care for a giggler?

This whole have to be this old before you can have sex, smoke or drink legally is a pretty darn recent thing, as in the last 60 years I think. Not all at once of course but gradually each thing gets restricted to only someone this old. Drink was the first one, sex was the last, or was it smoking, I don't recall.

Anyway, the laws on sex and such, are not done by the church, they would marry a twelve year old to a 112 year old if somebody asked and payed of course. The actual decisions on things like this are done by the government in this case as a reaction to a discovery in mental health, namely most everyone under this age is not developed enough to decide they can do this or not.

Usually I think it is to high, but well heck it does protect the younger from the old perverts who would pray on their innocence and trust. Japan has a 13 year old can have sex, but you have to be older than that to appear on TV nude. Before you ask, I assume there are shows that have contestants strip for some odd reason. It is Japan of course, they are a teensy weird.

Cant, I so can't beleive I am going to say this, but I agree with you.

 

[cantdog]

It's the perversion of that worship of innocent youth that is concerning, though.

Worshiping innocent youth is a perversion all by itself, in my view.

For what is innocence? Ignorance. Some child says something cute, some conclusion they have come to because of insufficient data, and people smile. They are amused; it is no doubt charming.

The impulse to preserve that is essentially the impulse to keep a child in such a state of ignorance, for that's what insufficient data is, that the child will continue from time to time to charm everyone with their amusing innocence.

To do this, you have to refrain from educating the kid to know any better, and a lot of people go one better and feed them lies. Cabbage leaves, storks, hospitals, you name it.

Your child is not your toy. It is not there to amuse you. However endearing and priceless such moments are, they are of value only to you, and only socially, as a conversation piece. They are not of any use to the child. On the contrary, the child is your charge, and you owe the child enough sound data to form a clear picture of the world, so far as either of you are able.

Innocence, fooey. The cult of innocence is a fancy word for calculated deception. It's a Bowdler fantasy. Victoria is dead, my dears.


Defeating ignorance is also a good start on arming the kid to defend herself against pedos.

 

[oggbashan]

...
Innocence, fooey. The cult of innocence is a fancy word for calculated deception. It's a Bowdler fantasy. Victoria is dead, my dears.


Defeating ignorance is also a good start on arming the kid to defend herself against pedos.

Queen Victoria was no prude. She enjoyed sex. It was her subjects, particularly the middle classes, who were sickeningly prudish and two-faced. Prostitution, and particularly child prostitution, in 19th Century London was prevalent and the practices available were far worse than any Far East country sank to in the 20th Century.

The age of consent was raised because children were being exploited wholesale even being forced into prostitution by their parents. Unfortunately that still happens in the UK today. Some parents will rent out their infants to finance a drug addiction.

Og

 

[cantdog]

Queen Victoria was no prude. She enjoyed sex. It was her subjects, particularly the middle classes, who were sickeningly prudish and two-faced. Prostitution, and particularly child prostitution, in 19th Century London was prevalent and the practices available were far worse than any Far East country sank to in the 20th Century.

The age of consent was raised because children were being exploited wholesale even being forced into prostitution by their parents. Unfortunately that still happens in the UK today. Some parents will rent out their infants to finance a drug addiction.

Og

Yes, some will. But raising the age of consent to 21 will not stop that, nor will it stop teen pregnancies. It would, though, criminalize a lot of people. I think it's not a productive avenue to explore, for any of those things. I am comfortable with 16.

 

[Stella_Omega]

Lord, Ami, the assumptions you make are so wierd!

And I wondered why the abject resistance to admission that society has always worshiped innocent young virgins, spontaneously emoting the freedom and innocence of youth and why we all crave it so.

What "abject resistance" are you talking about?

yes indeedy, historically, society has worshipped these characteristics. There is no "abject resistance-- in fact no resistance at all-- to agreeing with that, it's a common boase.

What I note is your "abject resistance" to admitting that that worship has been often perverted and caused terrible damage those very same objects of worship, often due to an overwhelming need on the part of some man to possess that innocence, freedom, and virginity.

Here's just one sort of damage, for example; A little girl, deflowered at puberty by a large man may experience tearing of the ligaments that hold her urinary bladder in place, rendering her incontinent for the rest of her life. A careless move on the part of this man can easily tear into her urethra, making urination both impossible to control, and painful-- for the rest of her life. Or he can tear the perineum that separates her vagina from her rectum, with consequences that should be obvious.

Needless to say, the infections that can arise can kill her, painfully. Imagine, if you will, the insides of your penis being eaten out by bacteria.

I don't mean to be unkind when I invite you to this horrible thought, but I want you to understand that the nerve endings and signals that involve a woman's genitalia are every bit as acute as a man's. I know the care and regard which every man treats his dick-- and it might surprise you to know that women feel the same way about their clitoris and vagina.

Of course, as Ami pointed out (speaking about lubrication) these wounds would not prevent a man from fucking her again, if he desired to. Nor will they halt pregnancy and childbirth, although they might lead to her fatality. So, in the evolutionary scheme of things irreparable physical harm to a young girl isn't real important... Nor is irreparable psychological harm for that matter. All she needs to do is produce a viable child, and she can die, evolution will be satisfied.

So much for freedom and innocence!

 

[3113]

Worshiping innocent youth is a perversion all by itself, in my view.

For what is innocence? Ignorance. Some child says something cute, some conclusion they have come to because of insufficient data, and people smile. They are amused; it is no doubt charming.

The impulse to preserve that is essentially the impulse to keep a child in such a state of ignorance, for that's what insufficient data is, that the child will continue from time to time to charm everyone with their amusing innocence.

I think this is a brilliant post, Cant, one of your best, and I agree. Innocence is far over-rated, like virginity, and the cult of innocence makes us keep or want to keep a lot of people in a childlike state. Immaturity is rewarded, as is virginity and there's no real reason for either to be celebrated.

However, there is only so much a child can learn and understand at any stage of their life. Precociousness aside, the brain and body take their own sweet time to develop. So while you can teach a child all the facts of life, scary ones included, by a certain age this doesn't mean that they will understand it with mature emotion or psychology. In short, you can teach a child a lot of things, but that doesn't mean they're ready to learn, absorb or fully understand all those things. You can give a kid a sexual problems and phobias for their entire life if you teach them something they're not ready to learn too early and in a not-good way. And by this I do NOT mean teaching them by having sex with them. I mean just teaching them about sex and how to view it.

Of course, in full agreement with you, kids are very interested in their body parts and the emphasis that our society puts on that "innocence" and teaching kids that certain parts are dirty and such leads to some of those sexual phobias and problems. I'm not advocating ignorance, I'm just reminding you that you can't rush learning. Kids at a certain age are going to think the opposite sex is icky and they will not understand why putting a penis into a vulva is fun. Their brains and bodies are just not ready to understand that. So you can teach them about it--and should--but they aren't going to "get it" until their hormones kick in. Just like a mother bird can't teach a baby bird to fly until it's ready. That's just the way it is.

Granted, necessity sometimes requires that we must teach kids things that might be better taught later, like not letting private parts be touched, avoiding strangers, etc. But if our aim is to teach kids a healthy, happy regard for sex, then everything must be taught in its own good time. When they can not only understand it intellectually, but also emotionally and psychologically.

 

[3113]

Lord, Ami, the assumptions you make are so wierd!

See, now you've got me wondering...is Ami "RifRaff"? Because I get awful suspicious when a "virgin" resurrects such an old thread rather than creating a new one, especially one this old and this buried. That, to me, suggests an "alt." At the very least, RifRaff is "Incestfantasy" returned.

And I have to say that for all everyone is talking calmly and seriously about this subject (bravo folks, honestly!), aren't alarm bells going off about this? Threads like this are rarely created by disinterested folk, nor are they resurrected by disinterested folk. There's a bit of "protesting too much" in the argument that that "There's no harm in THINKING about it...is there?"

That kind of question seems like a set-up to me. It is asked in such a way as to get a positive response, a "fantasy is fine" response. Odd thing, to ask for approbation about a fantasy. That sounds to me like someone fishing for others like him, looking to share the fantasy. And look at what Rifraff, having resurrected it, asks next, "I would love to have a woman's perspective" (hmmm, that sounds like a phone sex request: "tell me what you're thinking while daddy's fucks you...."). He goes on: "It must be painful but emotionally rewarding...." Ah. So not just "imagining" the teen-incest sex now, but how beneficial it would be to daddy's little girl! And he wants a real-life woman's perspective on it...NOT just a fantasy. He wants a real woman to tell a real story about how sex with dad at 15 was the best thing that ever happened to her, and so absolve daddy of all blame.

Alarm bells are going off in my head. When someone asks for a woman to affirm his belief that a daughter forced to have sex with her dad at 15 is an emotionally rewarding experience, I get a little sick to my stomach. Because there should be no NEED to tell this person that such a belief is, indeed, pure fantasy and that the reality is that it's horribly damaging. What are they doing, or want to do, that they need such affirmation...if it's all just fantasy, then they can imagine what they like. Why the need for a real woman to tell them it's okay?

I'm just a wee bit suspicious about the resurrection of this thread by a newbie who asks such a question.

 

[cantdog]

I think this is a brilliant post, Cant, one of your best, and I agree. Innocence is far over-rated, like virginity, and the cult of innocence makes us keep or want to keep a lot of people in a childlike state. Immaturity is rewarded, as is virginity and there's no real reason for either to be celebrated.

However, there is only so much a child can learn and understand at any stage of their life. Precociousness aside, the brain and body take their own sweet time to develop. So while you can teach a child all the facts of life, scary ones included, by a certain age this doesn't mean that they will understand it with mature emotion or psychology. In short, you can teach a child a lot of things, but that doesn't mean they're ready to learn, absorb or fully understand all those things. You can give a kid a sexual problems and phobias for their entire life if you teach them something they're not ready to learn too early and in a not-good way. And by this I do NOT mean teaching them by having sex with them. I mean just teaching them about sex and how to view it.

Of course, in full agreement with you, kids are very interested in their body parts and the emphasis that our society puts on that "innocence" and teaching kids that certain parts are dirty and such leads to some of those sexual phobias and problems. I'm not advocating ignorance, I'm just reminding you that you can't rush learning. Kids at a certain age are going to think the opposite sex is icky and they will not understand why putting a penis into a vulva is fun. Their brains and bodies are just not ready to understand that. So you can teach them about it--and should--but they aren't going to "get it" until their hormones kick in. Just like a mother bird can't teach a baby bird to fly until it's ready. That's just the way it is.

Granted, necessity sometimes requires that we must teach kids things that might be better taught later, like not letting private parts be touched, avoiding strangers, etc. But if our aim is to teach kids a healthy, happy regard for sex, then everything must be taught in its own good time. When they can not only understand it intellectually, but also emotionally and psychologically.

Oh yes, thirty-one, I agree with you. I have to confess, though, that I am not able to read the makeup of a child's mind, spirit, and emotional state of maturity with any kind of reliable success.

I got the whole skinny early myself. My informant would stop when he saw I wasn't interested any more, but once I'd assimilated the new information a bit, I came back and elicited more. I fancy I had a pretty full understanding of matters sexual by the time I hit school, at least in a theoretical way.

I suppose it might have screwed me up, but there were other factors at play screwing me up! I don't think the knowledge had as big an effect as the physical abuse did, for instance.

Regardless, not every child, for sure, is as I was at that age, which would have been just-turned-5. Some child somewhere would likely be Scarred For Ever, I can't tell.

All that aside, having that knowledge served me very well. When sex jokes were told, I was able to know, and even to point out, that their assumptions were inaccurate. I could debunk misconceptions about all kinds of sex related concepts my misguided contemporaries had. I was the go-to guy for it. "Bob's sister says it'll rot off if..." and I could say, "No, that's not how it works."

As far as I was able to judge, that was the sole effect of this "premature" knowledge. Clearly, the kids who came to me for the scoop didn't think having that knowledge was bad, either.

 

[cantdog]

So, as far as I can see, even if I wish, as I do, not to inflict horrors of fact on a mind which is unready for it, I can't tell whether they are ready or not ready.

Except in one way. If they ask, they want to know. If they lose interest in my answer, I stop. Start simple and work into complex, and stop when they signal they're done listening now.

I know that isn't necessarily going to protect the fragile psyche of every child. But that has been my policy, and it has the advantage of being a method you can actually use. The worries you entertain about the mind and emotions of children do not come with good handles. How do you tell? What criteria, based on external evidence, do you use to determine "readiness?"

 

[oggbashan]

One of our recent local high profile cases was the repeated rape of a family's children, with the consent of the parents by "family friends" (for money and goods in kind).

The youngest child raped was 21 months. The oldest was eight years.

Og

 

[cantdog]

One of our recent local high profile cases was the repeated rape of a family's children, with the consent of the parents by "family friends" (for money and goods in kind).

The youngest child raped was 21 months. The oldest was eight years.

Og

You're so cheery, og.

 

[cantdog]

See, now you've got me wondering...is Ami "RifRaff"? Because I get awful suspicious when a "virgin" resurrects such an old thread rather than creating a new one, especially one this old and this buried. That, to me, suggests an "alt." At the very least, RifRaff is "Incestfantasy" returned.

And I have to say that for all everyone is talking calmly and seriously about this subject (bravo folks, honestly!), aren't alarm bells going off about this? Threads like this are rarely created by disinterested folk, nor are they resurrected by disinterested folk. There's a bit of "protesting too much" in the argument that that "There's no harm in THINKING about it...is there?"

That kind of question seems like a set-up to me. It is asked in such a way as to get a positive response, a "fantasy is fine" response. Odd thing, to ask for approbation about a fantasy. That sounds to me like someone fishing for others like him, looking to share the fantasy. And look at what Rifraff, having resurrected it, asks next, "I would love to have a woman's perspective" (hmmm, that sounds like a phone sex request: "tell me what you're thinking while daddy's fucks you...."). He goes on: "It must be painful but emotionally rewarding...." Ah. So not just "imagining" the teen-incest sex now, but how beneficial it would be to daddy's little girl! And he wants a real-life woman's perspective on it...NOT just a fantasy. He wants a real woman to tell a real story about how sex with dad at 15 was the best thing that ever happened to her, and so absolve daddy of all blame.

Alarm bells are going off in my head. When someone asks for a woman to affirm his belief that a daughter forced to have sex with her dad at 15 is an emotionally rewarding experience, I get a little sick to my stomach. Because there should be no NEED to tell this person that such a belief is, indeed, pure fantasy and that the reality is that it's horribly damaging. What are they doing, or want to do, that they need such affirmation...if it's all just fantasy, then they can imagine what they like. Why the need for a real woman to tell them it's okay?

I'm just a wee bit suspicious about the resurrection of this thread by a newbie who asks such a question.

I gotcha beat. I think they are both cops.

 

[Weird Harold]

If we are discussing a rational legal "age" of consent, I would suggest that it correspond a hell of a lot closer to puberty than current law.

The current laws and cultural opinions on this subject are the vestiges of our puritanical past.....

NO, the current laws and cultural opinions are the result of the fairly recent "science" of "Child Psychology" that dictates that children are naturally too stupid to be exposed to anything unpleasant or that isn't "age approrpriate."

Within my lifetime, the age of consent has risen in almost every "western" jurisdiction around the world from an average of 14 to an average of around 16.5 -- not as any response to the actual capability of an avaerage child but because of the increased "protection" of "children" from learning what they need to know when they most need to know it -- intellectual knowledge, NOT "practical demonstrations."

Some people never have good judgment, others get there quite soon. In much of the world, sixteen years of age functions as an arbitrary date for age of consent. Think of it as a deadline for the guardian. By then, at the very latest the guardian should have jolly well made sure that the child can make a decent decision under stress. ... If your child can't decide well without supervision by sixteen, you really have failed as a guardian.

The idea that children are not emotionally capable of dealing with relationships -- sexual or just romantic -- and/or "aren't ready for marriage" is because "western societies" has put legal and cultural barriers to preparing them for more mature roles in life.

A picture is worth a thousand words, but you can be prosecuted for showing an underage child -- or even just not preventing them from finding -- an explicit picture that will answer the embarassing questions they start asking around age 8 or 9.

The way the law is structured, preparing a child to make a decision about a relationship that may involve sex by age 16 is probably going to leave you open to a charge of "contirbuting to the delinquency."

In the 19th and early twentieth century, it was extremely common for young girls to be married between fourteen and sixteen and unmarried women over eighteen were verging on being Spinsters and Old Maids.

As noted earlier by several people, that was an economic necessity when more children meant more farm hands and it took three or four births to raise one adult. But the argument that those young women weren't prepared for the responsibility of "being a wife and mother" is absolutely laughable; those young women were trained as mothers and home-makers from the time they could walk. They learned child care by watching their younger siblings or neighbor children, they learned to clean and cook as they progressed through the childhood chore assignements normal to big families.

Those young women ofen went to their virgin marriage beds with more practical knowlege about sex and sexual relations than modern prudes would believe; the close quarters of large families in small houses meant that everyone knew about sex or sex didin't happen -- and the large families are proof that it DID happen.

And yes, sadly many of them weren't virgins when they were married off because there is more than a bit of truth to the punchline, "if she weren't good 'nuff for her prothers, then she weren't goood 'nuff for me." Nobody ever talked about sibling incest or even father/daughter incest any more than they talked about wife-beating, but incest and abuse were rampant until the mid-twentieth century.

The social changes that have happened in my lifetime are for the most part good changes -- child and spouse abuse are no longer open secrets but punishable crimes -- but the trend of "protecting" children from life and responsibility for their actions because "they're too young to understand" is IMHO destroying society.

 

[Stella_Omega]

He wants a real woman to tell a real story about how sex with dad at 15 was the best thing that ever happened to her, and so absolve daddy of all blame.

He's shit out of lluck, then.

 

[cantdog]

NO, the current laws and cultural opinions are the result of the fairly recent "science" of "Child Psychology" that dictates that children are naturally too stupid to be exposed to anything unpleasant or that isn't "age approrpriate."

Within my lifetime, the age of consent has risen in almost every "western" jurisdiction around the world from an average of 14 to an average of around 16.5 -- not as any response to the actual capability of an avaerage child but because of the increased "protection" of "children" from learning what they need to know when they most need to know it -- intellectual knowledge, NOT "practical demonstrations."



The idea that children are not emotionally capable of dealing with relationships -- sexual or just romantic -- and/or "aren't ready for marriage" is because "western societies" has put legal and cultural barriers to preparing them for more mature roles in life.

A picture is worth a thousand words, but you can be prosecuted for showing an underage child -- or even just not preventing them from finding -- an explicit picture that will answer the embarassing questions they start asking around age 8 or 9.

The way the law is structured, preparing a child to make a decision about a relationship that may involve sex by age 16 is probably going to leave you open to a charge of "contirbuting to the delinquency."

In the 19th and early twentieth century, it was extremely common for young girls to be married between fourteen and sixteen and unmarried women over eighteen were verging on being Spinsters and Old Maids.

As noted earlier by several people, that was an economic necessity when more children meant more farm hands and it took three or four births to raise one adult. But the argument that those young women weren't prepared for the responsibility of "being a wife and mother" is absolutely laughable; those young women were trained as mothers and home-makers from the time they could walk. They learned child care by watching their younger siblings or neighbor children, they learned to clean and cook as they progressed through the childhood chore assignements normal to big families.

Those young women ofen went to their virgin marriage beds with more practical knowlege about sex and sexual relations than modern prudes would believe; the close quarters of large families in small houses meant that everyone knew about sex or sex didin't happen -- and the large families are proof that it DID happen.

And yes, sadly many of them weren't virgins when they were married off because there is more than a bit of truth to the punchline, "if she weren't good 'nuff for her prothers, then she weren't goood 'nuff for me." Nobody ever talked about sibling incest or even father/daughter incest any more than they talked about wife-beating, but incest and abuse were rampant until the mid-twentieth century.

The social changes that have happened in my lifetime are for the most part good changes -- child and spouse abuse are no longer open secrets but punishable crimes -- but the trend of "protecting" children from life and responsibility for their actions because "they're too young to understand" is IMHO destroying society.

Another excellent and informative Old Weird post. May you never wither, Weird.

 

[Varian P]

He wants a real woman to tell a real story about how sex with dad at 15 was the best thing that ever happened to her, and so absolve daddy of all blame.

He's shit out of lluck, then.

I Know Why the Caged Bird Sings by Maya Angelou would probably be an edifying read.

 

[tickledkitty]

See, now you've got me wondering...is Ami "RifRaff"? Because I get awful suspicious when a "virgin" resurrects such an old thread rather than creating a new one, especially one this old and this buried. That, to me, suggests an "alt." At the very least, RifRaff is "Incestfantasy" returned.

And I have to say that for all everyone is talking calmly and seriously about this subject (bravo folks, honestly!), aren't alarm bells going off about this? Threads like this are rarely created by disinterested folk, nor are they resurrected by disinterested folk. There's a bit of "protesting too much" in the argument that that "There's no harm in THINKING about it...is there?"

That kind of question seems like a set-up to me. It is asked in such a way as to get a positive response, a "fantasy is fine" response. Odd thing, to ask for approbation about a fantasy. That sounds to me like someone fishing for others like him, looking to share the fantasy. And look at what Rifraff, having resurrected it, asks next, "I would love to have a woman's perspective" (hmmm, that sounds like a phone sex request: "tell me what you're thinking while daddy's fucks you...."). He goes on: "It must be painful but emotionally rewarding...." Ah. So not just "imagining" the teen-incest sex now, but how beneficial it would be to daddy's little girl! And he wants a real-life woman's perspective on it...NOT just a fantasy. He wants a real woman to tell a real story about how sex with dad at 15 was the best thing that ever happened to her, and so absolve daddy of all blame.

Alarm bells are going off in my head. When someone asks for a woman to affirm his belief that a daughter forced to have sex with her dad at 15 is an emotionally rewarding experience, I get a little sick to my stomach. Because there should be no NEED to tell this person that such a belief is, indeed, pure fantasy and that the reality is that it's horribly damaging. What are they doing, or want to do, that they need such affirmation...if it's all just fantasy, then they can imagine what they like. Why the need for a real woman to tell them it's okay?

I'm just a wee bit suspicious about the resurrection of this thread by a newbie who asks such a question.

Thank you! You said this much better than I could.

 

[Boxlicker101]

See, now you've got me wondering...is Ami "RifRaff"? Because I get awful suspicious when a "virgin" resurrects such an old thread rather than creating a new one, especially one this old and this buried. That, to me, suggests an "alt." At the very least, RifRaff is "Incestfantasy" returned.

And I have to say that for all everyone is talking calmly and seriously about this subject (bravo folks, honestly!), aren't alarm bells going off about this? Threads like this are rarely created by disinterested folk, nor are they resurrected by disinterested folk. There's a bit of "protesting too much" in the argument that that "There's no harm in THINKING about it...is there?"

That kind of question seems like a set-up to me. It is asked in such a way as to get a positive response, a "fantasy is fine" response. Odd thing, to ask for approbation about a fantasy. That sounds to me like someone fishing for others like him, looking to share the fantasy. And look at what Rifraff, having resurrected it, asks next, "I would love to have a woman's perspective" (hmmm, that sounds like a phone sex request: "tell me what you're thinking while daddy's fucks you...."). He goes on: "It must be painful but emotionally rewarding...." Ah. So not just "imagining" the teen-incest sex now, but how beneficial it would be to daddy's little girl! And he wants a real-life woman's perspective on it...NOT just a fantasy. He wants a real woman to tell a real story about how sex with dad at 15 was the best thing that ever happened to her, and so absolve daddy of all blame.

Alarm bells are going off in my head. When someone asks for a woman to affirm his belief that a daughter forced to have sex with her dad at 15 is an emotionally rewarding experience, I get a little sick to my stomach. Because there should be no NEED to tell this person that such a belief is, indeed, pure fantasy and that the reality is that it's horribly damaging. What are they doing, or want to do, that they need such affirmation...if it's all just fantasy, then they can imagine what they like. Why the need for a real woman to tell them it's okay?

I'm just a wee bit suspicious about the resurrection of this thread by a newbie who asks such a question.

I can't help but think that a person, male or female and regardless of age, being forced to have sex with another person, either rape or extortion, would be a traumatic experience, rather than a rewarding one. Under certain, very limited circumstances, sex between a man and his teenage daughter might be rewarding to her. Except for Lot's daughter, I have never heard of such an instance, but it might have happened.