usually, it is around the age of between 11- 13, when a girl first has her period, and at this time...she usually has developed breasts,in order to feed her baby if she had one. She also has developed pubic hair, and her pussy is prepared to have sex, ...so by all the sense of the term...she is a woman...
therefore I believe that the above ages is fine...

My first-born daughter Tina is the child of my brother Jerry. She hasn't had sex with him but she began doing her stepfather at age 18. My youngest, Debbie, is the daughter I had with Ray. She was 15 when he started doing her. She was very precocious, though.

I don't think the age debate should be about when a girl is physically capable of having sex. It should be about when they feel that they're emotionally ready to do it. I don't think Tina could have enjoyed sex with Ray much before she was 18 and out of high school. Debbie was anxious to go at 15. Different kids have different personalities and temperments. We just had a story in our local newspaper about the new "epidemic" of 12 yr olds having oral sex in middle school. The girls who were interviewed said it was no big deal. Also,many high schools are handing out condoms to kids in freshman class. There's all this hoo-hah about how kids shouldn't have sex that young, but even the education professionals say it's going to happen and the best we can do is try to convince them to have safe sex.

quote:

---

Originally posted by simon_uk22:
hi i dont think young is an option, i think you can start sex as a baby, i wish my parents were into incest and had forced me to have sex ar 1/2 yrs old

simon

---

Truth IS stranger than fiction !

What went through your mind when said they wanted to "feel what it was like to make love", and as you thought about it ?

What was most important as you finally made your decision about what to do.

I don't need to know what your decision was, but it would be interesting.

Thanks,

I had a girlfriend once who had had a sexual relationship with her uncle between the ages of 12 and 16. At the time she was willing although she never particularly enjoyed it. She went to him largely because she was scared of him - he had holds over her based on emotional blackmail - threatening to kill himself etc - and also because she was starved of any kind of attention at home. The experience left her an emotional wreck even ten years later. she learned at the time to just shut off all feelling in that area while he was at it and it was several years after before she was able to feel a man properly when he was inside her again. At the age of 25 she woke up most nights having had nightmares and panic attacks. She still has regular counselling.

You're all so fucking lucky! Nice, 8!

Tightchild@hotmail.com

quote:

---

Originally posted by Meredith:
I was just over 13 when my brother started feeling me up. It went from there gradually. For a long time I would give him blowjobs and let him finger me but not have real intercourse. We finally got around to that when I was about 15. My dad started up with me a few months after Jerry took my virginity.

My first-born daughter Tina is the child of my brother Jerry. She hasn't had sex with him but she began doing her stepfather at age 18. My youngest, Debbie, is the daughter I had with Ray. She was 15 when he started doing her. She was very precocious, though.

I don't think the age debate should be about when a girl is physically capable of having sex. It should be about when they feel that they're emotionally ready to do it. I don't think Tina could have enjoyed sex with Ray much before she was 18 and out of high school. Debbie was anxious to go at 15. Different kids have different personalities and temperments. We just had a story in our local newspaper about the new "epidemic" of 12 yr olds having oral sex in middle school. The girls who were interviewed said it was no big deal. Also,many high schools are handing out condoms to kids in freshman class. There's all this hoo-hah about how kids shouldn't have sex that young, but even the education professionals say it's going to happen and the best we can do is try to convince them to have safe sex.

Forgive me if this stuff has been mentioned before, I haven't read the whole thread.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by MommysGirl:
100th post

i started when i was 13,

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by JennyinCali:
i started to give oral at 11 actual sex at 13

---

MMMMmmmm, the just imagining you doing this makes me wet!

Tightchild@hotmail.com

It's obvious that kids are much easier to manipulate than adults, and who do kids trust more than their own family? Yea, it sucks for the people who are honorable and trustworthy, but such is life.

Society is a large part to blame, with the general thinking that incest is always bad, and such. The taboo we have created about sex is wrong, but cannot fixed with the wave of a magic wand. As I like to say, rome wasnt built in a day.

I would think that "how young is too young" depends on physical & emotional state. As some have posted already, each person varies in both category. Some kids just grow up faster than others.

A child must willingly consent with no coersion, otherwise its totally unjustified and your only satisfying your own selfish desires.

Second, mostly for the critics: Pedophilia is an accepted practice in many cultures. It is highly criticized in the U.S. because of people like Tipper Gore and Jerry Falwell. People that are no more than well paid lobbyists. I urge all reader's to do the following:
"Sit back, close your eyes, take deep breaths, and think...think...think!
"Where do my values come from? Why are those values there? Why am I so adamant about them? What would be so wrong about, thinking outside the box, or breaking a norm?

quote:

---

Originally posted by BluesTraveler:

Pedophilia is an accepted practice in many cultures. It is highly criticized in the U.S. because of people like Tipper Gore and Jerry Falwell. People that are no more than well paid lobbyists. I urge all reader's to do the following:
"Sit back, close your eyes, take deep breaths, and think...think...think!
"Where do my values come from? Why are those values there? Why am I so adamant about them? What would be so wrong about, thinking outside the box, or breaking a norm?

Bottom line is this. I think that consensual, as long as it remains within the context of the word, is okay at/with any age, provided the level of cognizance required, does exist. After that, I urge all to quit following ridiculous restrictions of select societal norms, and begin to think for yourself. Consider, that if you let others do all your thinking, and make most of your decisions for you, then you've voluntarily let yourself become a mindless, thoughtless, twit.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chloe:
Can this long dormant thread be revived? I read the whole thing waiting for someone to bring up the point of other cultures where sex at a young age is accepted. Finally, Bluestraveller did. Are we so squeamish about introducing 9 yr olds to sex because of brain-washing?
Just a thought..
Chloe

---

Please elaborate. Which cultures? Where? What type of sexual behavior? With who? And what context: When? Why? Are there rituals involved? I'd like to hear some Margaret Mead or such cultural anthropology here. Some real edification, please.

this would be particularly interesting, I think. And not just in an academic way. Every society faces the task of guiding its newborn into functional members of the society's next generation. But how that is done obviously must vary to some extent in direct relation to what the society is all about. The basics of human development can take on different particulars. It would be interesting to hear of different societies' approaches to childhood sexuality.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Guyyre:

***snip***

I wonder what Camille Paglia has to say about this ? No need to Wonder, the Internet Provides:

www.aclu.org/about/transcripts/paglia.html

"I have called for a reduction of the age of consent to fourteen. For example, how absurd to imagine that seventeen-year-old Amy Fisher was somehow a child that needed protection from stud muffin Joey! I am very radical in my view that there should be no sexual laws of any kind--this is one of the few areas where I agree with that overrated fellow, Michel Foucault. I think that the law should control only matters of physical assault or injury. In the absence of hard evidence, we cannot, in my view, have this he said/ she said type of justice, cases impossible to prove and dragged out a decade after the disputed event. The Anita Hill episode was a particularly abysmal example of this sort of creeping fascism. If women truly want equality with men--and that is my central feminist principle--then they must let go of these special protections which make a fetish of their innocence and purity. "

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by b4rry:
I think the following was an extremely good point:

It'd be nice if the laws were limited to where there was actual and substantial harm done.

---

Me Neither. The key though, is this. It must be conducted with consent and without coercion. Coercion and duress lead to hostility and compiled hatred.

My theory,
live to the fullest, respect all others, but never become the cattle of the norms. In other words,
Think outside the bun.

Ecch. Listen to your violent imagery.

Explosion...passing out...blast hole...little throat.

Something is seeping through to me. The focus, the justification for incest, is so often "sensation",'pleasure", "orgasm", "peace", according to the post-ers. It is getting through to me that this is all about "what is in it" for the one doing the incesting.

As B4rry has asked, what is happening for the one "on the other side"?

Just this to add on this same point:

Why is orgasm the ultimate form of pleasure, peace, intimacy? I know of people who experience peace and fulfilment without orgasm, even without sex. And they are satisfied with this.

We can find testamonies here on these threads which point to the lack of ability of a parent to express himself or herself emotionally. In other words, that person is unable to be intimate emotionally. These adults sometimes are only able to express their emotions and emotional needs through sexual or genital contact--in this context, with their children. Where non-incestual parents might cuddle, play, and hug to show affection--and not need to burden their young pre-teen children with their adult emotional concerns (which are beyond the experience of children to begin with), it seems that blocked adults sometimes turn to incest in order to funnel all their frustrated emotional and sexual needs into their young children's bodies.

I simplify and generalize to make my point, which is that: if we were emotionally open and fulfilled to begin with, perhaps most incest would not occur. And, part of my point is that orgasm is not necessarily the only way to be fulfilled--deeply, emotionally and physically.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chloe:
B4rry, then someone has to decide exactly WHAT the damage is and we're back in the "he said/she said" thing. I do agree that - to-day - the age of consent should be lowered.
Chloe

---

Chloe, I do not think we are back to deciding age of consent entirely on the basis of "he-said/she-said". I guess you mean by this, the child says he/she consents and the adult says he/she consents--mutual consent? And that whenever this consent is arrived at agreeably, that is an OK age to have incest? Is this your belief? Or, if not in each individual case, taking some kind of census or other, to see what the population is generally agreeing would be a revised age of consent ("they said")?

You suggest perhaps science should look into this question. I think we do not have to wait for science to look further. The scientific realities are already avialable to us:

Biological, physiological, even developmental psychological, and commonsensical realiies exist which point ineluctably to the answer, if not exactly to what age is an age of consent, at least to what stage it must be.

I have strung these themes out someplace on other threads months ago. I do not have the energy to redo them here. I will just indicate them:

Biologically, children's hormones are not functioning sexually. They have no sex drive as a result. Whatever goes on with their genitals when an adult stimulates them, it is not the same as for the the adult whose hormones are functioning sexually. If a child has an orgasm--if that is really possible, and I do not know--then it cannot be the same experience as for an adult with mature hormones. And, there may be some subtle damage to the child by bringing on orgasm, if it is possible, before it is motivated by the individual's own hormones instead of externally with an adult finger years ahead of when it would happen otherwise.

Physiologically, clearly the immature pelvis is not ready for childbearing, and that is nature's purpose for sex. So, quite bluntly put, incest with children is not natural from this point of view. Because there is no possibility, pre-menstrually, for pregnancy; and conception is nature's intent. Since this event cannot be brought on earlier than the maturity of the pelvis and associated bodily changes,it follows that sex with a child is motivated by something other than the basic sexual drive, and that children were not meant for sex. The stretching it takes to try to force an adult penis into a tiny, undeveloped vagina, ought to drive the point home to the adult incestor that what he is doing is not in tune with nature.

Psychologically, children are not developed. Depending on the age, there is more or less of a capacity to understand the full significance of the incestual act. The infant, for instance, is completely in a state of sensation and does not foresee the future or remember much of a past (because he/she has practically none to remember). This person cannot foresee consequences such as social castigation or unwanted pregnancy. The fully developed adult can, however, foresee this and more, and has a lifetime of experience on which to guide his/her own behaviour.

The gap in development and experience between child and parent guarantees that the incest experience must be radically different for both cross-generational partners. This guarantees that the experience can never truly be shared. The partners are truly unequal. And this includes unequal in power. The child will always fear displeasing the adult, so there is a big pressure (even if not overtly introduced by the parent, who SEEMINGLY is not forcing the child in any way) on the child to do as the giant parent (who holds love, approval, even survival over the head of the small child) wants. Add to that the love of the child for the parent, and there is a whole lot of push on the child to please the parent.

This power difference is inescapable in a cross-generational incest. It has to be, because the parent IS bigger, stronger, and actually feeds and clothes the child. That power is real. Moreover, the child perceives the parent as the protector. When the child is suddenly not the protected but is being called upon to be an equal, a grown up in the bed, and maybe even the protector of the parent (role reversal as when the child is asked to fulfill the emotional needs of the parent), this can be very disorienting because the child is not physically, physiologically, nor psychologically prepared yet.

"How young is too young?"-- Sometimes people here dodge this question and instead ask, "is it consensual"? The unspoken code of ethics here holds that "if it is consensual it is ok." This is meant to apply to children as well as adults. I hope it is clear from the above facts of life that consent is irrelevant in a sense. The child who is undeveloped physically, physiologically, and especially psychologically in relation to cognition and experience--is unable to make INFORMED consent. There is no such thing as "consensual" here. The child simply has not enough to go on and go with in order to make a decision based on things such as future consequences, pregnancy, how the child will feel keeping a family secret or secret from other family members, the whole incest scenerio. Only the adult in this situation can hope to make an informed decision, and if he/she has any responsibility at all and intends to go ahead and ignore the realities of biology, physiology and psychology, then at the very least the adult should attempt to INFORM the child, as well as possible, from his/her own experience, what the future consequences are likely to be.

The sheer impossibility of explaining these complexities to a child, or even a teenager (!), should alert the responsible parent to the fact that the child simply CANNOT understand. It is clear, on common sense grounds, that any person an adult cannot explain adult complexities and consequences to successfully--is already beyond the possibility of informed and mutual consent!

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chloe:
For Blues Traveller...Thank you for your posting about cultures that condone sex for the young. I have been reading all I could get my hands on and find it fascinating - not the "sex for the young" but learning about other cultures. Isn't it amazing what this forum brings about?
Chloe

For B4rry, am I off the hook? I did bite off more than I could handle... It;s been an interesting thread. Now I have to take Daddy's latest and studeeeeee.
Chloe

---

Chloe,

Daddy has his views, just as others here do. He's persistant and pretty strong in his statements too, much more than most here. You, like each of the rest of us, have to come to your own conclusions (of course).

I will say, though, that Daddy often gives me the feeling he focusses a bit too exclusively on adult male coercing/manipulating female child. And that he views things a bit too exclusively from the position of an somewhat older person. I've even come to wonder if that ultimate outcome of Daddy's quest for understanding of incest will be for him to become vehemently anti-incest.

Now to B, I know D feels strongly about Father/daughter relationships. I also feel uncomfortable talking about another forum member in a post. It feels a bit like talking behind their back...I know, I know, they can defend themselves in a post. What I try to do is read everything, weigh it and either file away or throw away. No-one will ever know what I do to which.
Each of you in here have something to say and potentially teach me...or anyone else reading your posts. Open minds with open eyes can discriminate. That's what I am trying to be...open.
This thread will never end, I think, the subject is just too fascinating.
Chloe

the whole hormone thing and pelvis thing relates well to penetration of a female, but little else of non-intercourse sex-play.

sex-play is just that, play.

when the adult is in a position of treating the child as an object, not an intimate play-partner, then the door is open to all sorts of evils.

if it is mutual sexplay, with initiative on both sides, as opposed to initiative on one side, and acquiesence on the other, then what's hormones go to do with it ?

All children go through a progression of stages reflecting their own growth. A good parent guides and assists their children along the way.

This is true in all aspects of our human being, but why is it that in the *****n of connectedness via touch do we have such an adversion to guiding/assisting our children through the progressive stages of their growth? Instead, we back out of connected touch involvement from a fairly high level when a child is an infant to a much, much lower level just a few years later.

Is this due to a common wish for the child to grow into their own independent person? If so, its misguided because each individual will always is and remains independent; independence is not the issue but what sort of adult they will become is.

Is this because we've afraid of the connectedness of touch becoming sensual and later sexual? If so, we belittle our own powers to control ourselves. Is this our only possible way to make it through from having an infant to having a son or daughter leave the houshold? I doubt it -- unless we really are too weak as adults to give our children all what they need.

And while backing out we deconnect our children from closeness, leaving a hole in their development. That hole holds back our development of empathy and understand of our fellow man while causing us to relish anything that seems to fill it (people, money, power, etc.).

quote:

---

Originally posted by b4rry:
Another point:

All children go through a progression of stages reflecting their own growth. A good parent guides and assists their children along the way.

This is true in all aspects of our human being, but why is it that in the *****n of connectedness via touch do we have such an adversion to guiding/assisting our children through the progressive stages of their growth? Instead, we back out of connected touch involvement from a fairly high level when a child is an infant to a much, much lower level just a few years later.

Is this due to a common wish for the child to grow into their own independent person? If so, its misguided because each individual will always is and remains independent; independence is not the issue but what sort of adult they will become is.

Is this because we've afraid of the connectedness of touch becoming sensual and later sexual? If so, we belittle our own powers to control ourselves. Is this our only possible way to make it through from having an infant to having a son or daughter leave the houshold? I doubt it -- unless we really are too weak as adults to give our children all what they need.

And while backing out we deconnect our children from closeness, leaving a hole in their development. That hole holds back our development of empathy and understand of our fellow man while causing us to relish anything that seems to fill it (people, money, power, etc.).

I wish we could understand that keeping connected is important, but absolutely does not HAVE to become sexual.

---

quote:

---

Originally posted by Chloe:
I was initiated by my father far too young, I know that now. However it is too late for me, all I can do is tell you how I wish it had been.
I think a healthy awareness of the human body is important with no sexual content. In other words, don't be afraid to let a child see you (both parents) naked. In the case of fathers, even erect, because it's natural and leads to questions that follow in a natural way. When the off-spring is old enough to be responsive and responsible he/she can choose the direction. Too many parents shun sexually educating their children through ***dishness and so, many kids find out for themselves, often disasterously. Which is better, to learn the facts of life in a loving way within the family, or in a cold, sterile - sometimes inaccurate - classroom lecture?
I know this doesn't answer the question about how young incest should start but, all I can ask is, at what age are children sexually active in other areas? Shouldn't it follow that the same age applies for family sex?
Above all I repeat what I said before, the parent must respect the child.
Chloe

---