quote:

---

Originally posted by b4rry:
Also:

Its a shame those younger persons posting here about their experiences with their brother/sister/cousin don't seem to be able yet to articulate their situation fuller. Could that be one reason why the "deeper" discussions here have more focused on parent-child incest -- making it like we have two seperate worlds here?

---

once again, I'm undone by the inability to post DIRECTLY under the post I'm curious about.

I was asking a follow-up to a question I asked previously of you, and I was trying to narrow the topic. But, since once again, I forgot that this would seat under your ORIGINAL answer to my question, I was undone.

Sorry.

Now, to not get thrice bitten, I'm guessing this is far from where the original post.

Original question was the "mergy" one. You gave a very detailed emotional and spiritual answer. My follow-up was the "carnal corn" post, wondering if this ever happened in an intimate way, of which I was trying to illustrate with some of my own experiences.

And this post, goes back to you not feeling I asked a question, after which you responded to my "ahh, dude" post.

post, post, post toasties.

and I meant to spell analize that way. really, I did. I real-ize the anal-ize.

Let me be sure: You are asking me if I ever had pornographic kind of sex with my tragic girlfriend? You acknowledge my description of the mergy stuff of a more emotional and spiritual kind but want to know about the porn. Did I have porn sex with her?

In a word: no.

I want to explain why. First of all, I have always found that, personally, I get "pornographic urges" when I have lost touch with my heart. Or when I get cut off from contact with my sensuality. I realize this may sound like a contradiction--cut OFF from sensuality.

To me, mergy experience is the exact opposite of pornographic sex. There is a sense of exquisite tenderness and of becoming one with the other person. At its peak, it is ecastasy bordering on the spiritual. Yet, it is decidedly sensual. Not necessarily sexual, not necessarily focused in the genitals. Rather, the pleasure is all over the body and in the mind as well. There is a sense of riding sweet, slowly moving waves--perhaps reminiscent of what the infant feels sleeping on its mother's belly as she breathes. Can you see how this is sensual (and more) without being necessarily sexual?

Now, switch gears: to me, "pornographic sex" is fundamentally being SEPARATE from the partner--instead of BEING ONE with her/him. There is no merging or flowing into each other, there is bumping and grinding. The vernacular describes this very well: "doing it TO her". Merging is not about "doing to", it is about "being with" and even "being one with" the beloved.
There is actually no love in just fucking.

Pornographic sex is focused in the genitals and gets satisfaction only when there is a genital release. Mergy sensuality may never reach an orgasm, but it never feels dissatisfying when one stops (if there is a natural cessation, like the end of a symphony).

As for me and my ex', we never had pornographic sex, even once. We had sex without the mergy feeling some of the time, but it was always filled with lots of affection. On occasion it was just sex, but then it felt pretty empty by contrast.

I want to say that she introduced me to merging. Because she had been abused or traumatized, sexual touching in the usual way and usual places on her body was fraught with anxiety. She discovered, quite spontaneously, that she could touch me in non-imtimate places on my body and feel extraordinary pleasure, and I was led by her into being able to do the same thing. She was my teacher. We later learned that this had something in common with "Tantric sex", although we had not read any of this.

For my part, I was anxious about sex as well, from past disappointments. I looked forward to this new form of touching that felt so sensual without the usual anxiety. What I would have liked is for us to have been able to "cross the boundary" and maintain the same merging feeling while being frankly sexual in the usual ways, but we were always at least somewhat inhibited in that department.

Nevertheless, my experience with her opened up a whole new way of relating for which I will forever be grateful. In a sense, she transformed her horrendously painful experience into a truly wonderful gift.

I wasnt gonna answer. but i dont want u to just leave? so i will answer 1 more time and then I will go. This isnt a place 4 me.

It seems to me u dont listen very well at all - except so u can make ur own argument better. There is lots I would like to say - including ask why are u here if u are so afraid of incest and dont like it so much? but the biggest thing is that u say 2 things - in lots of ways - that I dont agree with at all.
1. It seems to me that u do think that "biology is destiny". Most of the feminists i have been reading say that is one of the big ideas that has kept women and girls down. That is the idea that ur physical biological self decides who u are and what u can do. (like girls have to be nurses and mothers and cant be astronauts or whatever - it isnt about liking women astronauts!). That is why I said your thinking about little girls can have sex becuz their bodies r small is the same as the idea that women cant be unusual roles like astronauts. Your answer did not talk about the problem with thinking that biology decides a persons fate. it seems to me it didnt because evrtything u say about daddy dau incest depends on the idea that some people cant have sex with other people becuz of the way their bodies are (and their minds are). If biology is destiny then only women who can have babies can do any thing like sex with men who can have babies.
The only reason the size of a girls vagina is so important to you is that it tells you who can have a baby. That is part of your other thing I dont believe in, and that is that sex is about having babies.
2. sex for people is NOT about having babies - or it is not just about having babies. gay sex doesnt have babies. old people having sex doesnt mean babies. anal sex and oral sex and cuddle sex doesnt mean having babies. and neither does young sex. A lot of very mean and nasty ideas about women and gays start with your idea that sex is about having babies - and your 'joke' about mother nature was not a joke - i think u mean it. I think u have an idea about what is 'normal' and what is 'natural' and big surprise it is men fucking women to have babies. and i think u add the science stuff and the correcting evrybody tone to cover up that idea.
I took biology. most individuals in a species dont get to have babies. does that mean no sex? sorry, it doesnt. To me sex, like I said before, is about a lot of things, it is not for humans only about having babies.
so, u may be older than me and u can patronize me and i wont chat here anymore but i hope some other people start to say - lets talk about incest here - a very minority thing - and not have to feel bad with having u tell us what we shd feel.
BTW - Gallileo was in big trouble for saying the earth isnt flat. Times change. one day it is ok for 9 year olds to get married or be a king. Next day a 9 year old is this infant and cant decide anything. next day we discover that biology is changing and 9 year olds can have babies. (and who cares if that is because the environment is changing? I mean maybe we should care about the environment- but does it change that fact that we are changing?) u didnt have a computer when u were 9. now my niece has one and she is 5. times change Daddy
btw - check it out - false consciousness is about thinking something because u dont understand the real deal. feminists talk about it and try to avoid it.
pps I think all the "false memory" recovered memory" stuff is pretty weird. if u want girls to be victims and u will only help them or be nice if they r victims then u 'help' them recover memories about being victims. If u wont ever admit that men abuse girls, u want evry girl who dindt report her dad or her uncle or whoever when she was 9 to be lying when she turns him at when she is 30.

Emily
pps i think there is lots wrong with how people do sex - like rape is so wrong - and i think there is lots wrong with how grown up men do sex to kids. but i think it is weird u r here making every body talk to u and not get to talk to each other about incest and not feel weird about it. i think u r probably a control freak and i wont play.
e

pps - i no how to "cut and paste daddy. i m not gonna bother.
e

quote:

---

Originally posted by LilEmily:
[QUOTE]Originally posted by Daddy:
[B][QUOTE]Originally posted by LilEmily:
[B]Hi Daddy

I wasnt gonna answer. but i dont want u to just leave? so i will answer 1 more time and then I will go. This isnt a place 4 me.

It seems to me u dont listen very well at all - except so u can make ur own argument better. There is lots I would like to say - including ask why are u here if u are so afraid of incest and dont like it so much? but the biggest thing is that u say 2 things - in lots of ways - that I dont agree with at all.
1. It seems to me that u do think that "biology is destiny". Most of the feminists i have been reading say that is one of the big ideas that has kept women and girls down. That is the idea that ur physical biological self decides who u are and what u can do. (like girls have to be nurses and mothers and cant be astronauts or whatever - it isnt about liking women astronauts!). That is why I said your thinking about little girls can have sex becuz their bodies r small is the same as the idea that women cant be unusual roles like astronauts. Your answer did not talk about the problem with thinking that biology decides a persons fate. it seems to me it didnt because evrtything u say about daddy dau incest depends on the idea that some people cant have sex with other people becuz of the way their bodies are (and their minds are). If biology is destiny then only women who can have babies can do any thing like sex with men who can have babies.
The only reason the size of a girls vagina is so important to you is that it tells you who can have a baby. That is part of your other thing I dont believe in, and that is that sex is about having babies.
2. sex for people is NOT about having babies - or it is not just about having babies. gay sex doesnt have babies. old people having sex doesnt mean babies. anal sex and oral sex and cuddle sex doesnt mean having babies. and neither does young sex. A lot of very mean and nasty ideas about women and gays start with your idea that sex is about having babies - and your 'joke' about mother nature was not a joke - i think u mean it. I think u have an idea about what is 'normal' and what is 'natural' and big surprise it is men fucking women to have babies. and i think u add the science stuff and the correcting evrybody tone to cover up that idea.
I took biology. most individuals in a species dont get to have babies. does that mean no sex? sorry, it doesnt. To me sex, like I said before, is about a lot of things, it is not for humans only about having babies.
so, u may be older than me and u can patronize me and i wont chat here anymore but i hope some other people start to say - lets talk about incest here - a very minority thing - and not have to feel bad with having u tell us what we shd feel.
BTW - Gallileo was in big trouble for saying the earth isnt flat. Times change. one day it is ok for 9 year olds to get married or be a king. Next day a 9 year old is this infant and cant decide anything. next day we discover that biology is changing and 9 year olds can have babies. (and who cares if that is because the environment is changing? I mean maybe we should care about the environment- but does it change that fact that we are changing?) u didnt have a computer when u were 9. now my niece has one and she is 5. times change Daddy
btw - check it out - false consciousness is about thinking something because u dont understand the real deal. feminists talk about it and try to avoid it.
pps I think all the "false memory" recovered memory" stuff is pretty weird. if u want girls to be victims and u will only help them or be nice if they r victims then u 'help' them recover memories about being victims. If u wont ever admit that men abuse girls, u want evry girl who dindt report her dad or her uncle or whoever when she was 9 to be lying when she turns him at when she is 30.

Emily
pps i think there is lots wrong with how people do sex - like rape is so wrong - and i think there is lots wrong with how grown up men do sex to kids. but i think it is weird u r here making every body talk to u and not get to talk to each other about incest and not feel weird about it. i think u r probably a control freak and i wont play.
e

pps - i no how to "cut and paste daddy. i m not gonna bother.
e

---

Emily, thank you for your long post. I will leave it above my reply so people will be sure to read it and can decide for themselves what to think.

I am sorry you are leaving. I do not, however, feel that--try as I have--actually, hours of posting to you--you have heard me although I have tried to hear you.

Is there any point in answering you? I will try one more time because the issues you raise are important ones, and your misconceptions about my points are also important because they are actually typical misconceptions.

I never said "biology is destiny". I have been over this many times on this site and several times with you. I feel like screaming: I DID NOT SAY THIS!! Nor did I mean this. You are clearly suspicious of me and reading into my words. You even tell me you suspect I am a "control freak"! Fact is, my background was as a dancer and am in the health field as well as writing. I would not have survived in any of these fields if I were a "control freak". I would not have been creative or able to have rapport with my patients.

My position on biology is simply that it has something fundamental to do with who and what we are. Of course, on top of biology we are conditioned by our culture. And even beyond that, we can be free of our culture, our mind can transform itself through metidation and enlightenment. My point in stressing the absence of Mother Nature was exactly because nobody here seemed to be considering the contribution of biology or the associations we attach to size, etc. I emphasized what had been de-emphasized. I also thought that the notion that a baby could not fit inside a five-year-old's pelvis should say something about what the act of intercourse was clearly NOT about. Thus raising the question of what it WAS really about. And that there were certain things we could be sure of based on biology. NOT that everything is conditioned by biology.

The arguments of the femininsts--depending on who wrote what and when--has changed over the years, as you may know. And the importance of biology has been de-emphasized and even re-emphasized. Depending on who you read and in what fields. Read the WHOLE field of literature on the subject--by both sexes. As you said, question your assumptions. Feminists have many emotionally based assumptions. In many ways they have become as intolerant and irrational as the men they are attacking. The more reasonable ones are striving for balance and truth.

I never said little girls cannot have sex because their bodies are small. You said that I said that. I said small bodies cannot bring forth babies, and do not have the hormones to widen their pelvis, transform the uterine environment, and lactate. Except, in the very young now, xenoestrogens (environmental contaminants) are changing female biology without altering female psychology accordingly. This is a big, largely unrecognized problem for women...and indirectly men. If you want to be of service to the feminists to whom you are apparently relating, investigate the impact of xenoestrogens and hormone replacement therapy on them. By the way, it was a woman who brought this knowledge to my attention.

Keeping women down? What more can I say? I demonstrated on civil rights movements before you were born. Later, while you were in diapers, I supported women's rights. On this site, I wrote a eulogy to the fallen heroes that included two women. Did I ever say women should stay at home and have babies? How on earth can you twist what I say to beieve this?? I do not even have a particle of that as a belief.

You may want to enquire as to why you do not believe that I am being honest with you. And why you believe, it seems, that only feminists are honest. What emotinal issues are driving you to disbelieve what I say even when my words ARE IN AGREEMENT WITH YOU!

I agree sex is not only about babies. I have lots of sex without making babies.

I agree sex is not only heterosexual. I have friends who are gay. I was exploring the world of sex before there was such a thing as Gay Rights and all that. When the closet was a vault people never came out of.

I agree biology is not destiny.

I am not "afraid of incest and don't like it so much". My history of inquiry and attitude on the subject is amply displayed here. Why you cannot see my perspective, so clearly delineated, is beyond me. I am obviously fascinated by the subject or I would not be here with hundreds of postings. I have never condemned incest. Like you, I condemn rape and overpowering somebody. Maybe where we differ is that I perceive overpowering somebody to include psychological seduction and manipulation. I did not come by this idea on my own. It was told to me or came out of my now uncountable conversations with people here. Not only that, but some people here believe that they were manipulated and seduced psychologically and are having a second look at whether they were abused or not. The issue is not so clear as "like"/"don't like".

One of the difficult things is getting good information when people who are having incest and could talk first-hand about it, leave the site.

Several people are collaborating with me on a book. They did not leave. They do not share your view about me being "afraid of incest and don't like it so much".

You know, you have something here. People ARE more talking to me than to each other these days. I wish they would talk more to each other, and I have said so. I am not intentionally trying to get them to talk only to me. I am not "controlling" or trying to control this to happen. Maybe it is just that I talk the most. Or that I raise the most issues. I am not sure, to be honest. I wish people like you would stay and talk. But if you run away, how does that change anything?

On that topic, I think you will find noplace where there will be actual INQUIRY going on on the subject of incest. Not just people stroking themselves or stroking each other in the sense that they are supporting and agreeing with each other. Mere agreement is not inquiry. It is just getting supported in your particular viewpoint or orientation. There may, for example, be a site where rapists gather and support each other. Would you say that is OK? You are against rape, you say. Why is THAT not OK? Yet, you want support for your views. Why can't somebody disagree with you the way you disagree with rape? I am trying to say I am about something DIFFERENT. I am about inquiring into the truth of every view--my own included. It is not all just opinion, we agree or disagree. Some opinions are based on observation, experience, and they naturally accord with reality more than speculations and opinion without experience. This is just the way life is. It is not condescending to say this, it is just the way life and knowledge grow together. You, for example, are an authority or expert on incestual experience (I gather you really have incest). As I have said, nobody can take this away from you unless you undermine your own power. You will never find a place where you will not be challenged somewhat. If this bothers you, then your own FEAR, not me, not anyone who challenges you, is the problem.

I am truely sad to hear you're leaving since you represent the very sort of voice this place so desparately needs.

I wish you'd stay and keep talking back to those that don't get your message -- and to gain from the messages of others here.

quote:

---

Originally posted by b4rry:
Also:

Emily, if you do stay, please look at some of the questions I've been asking around the board. I so much want so new voices responding to them with their fresh perspectives.

---

B, I want to "second" that. You do ask good questions, ones that have influenced my own perspective, as you yourself have noted.

Gerald, Emily is probably young. She wants her views respected. She sees us word-slingers here who sound as though we know so much because we are good with the language. Often language is the way we hurt each other (criticism). She fears someone like me, B4rry, perhaps you, who are facile with words, may hurt her with words in a very sensitive area of her experience. Unlike you when you were young, she may not feel her incestual life is protected; she may not feel criticism or the taboo is "irrelevant". I can say to her that her fear is her worst enemy, alluding to that. But, she may nonetheless remain vulnerable.

I for one want everybody to have a chance to talk about their feelings. They cannot come out, in most of us, if we are afraid of criticism, especially from older people. It just goes with the territory.

It is OK to be a "fool", Gerry. To not listen and impose one's own interpretations on what one reads. It makes for very bad or non-existant relationships--and I have screamed at people in here about this very thing!--but that does not make these people "fools". Just inexperienced, perhaps.

And, how will they grow or gain experience? Is it by beating them up with words or criticizing them? If that were possible, I would have made fools into saints decades ago!

I share your frustration, Gerald. My challenge is to learn to listen to people and get past my own habit of judging them.
Sometimes I am amazed that, when I can do this, I feel so much happier and really see something delightful, youthful, in the other person. Or, some insight that they have had that I would have ignored or suppressed if I had let myself be critical.

More than that, when I can listen non-critically, sometimes the person actually grows into a fuller awareness of their issue--that absolutely astounds me as to its depth.

I know you want a different sort of company here sometimes than we are providing. Can you be more helpful and share what that might look like?

And, yes, it is ironic that the nemesis, this incredible thread that never answers with consensus the everlasting question, should somehow not die but survive the forces of dissolution.

I am hoping that these "traditional" posts will be restored somehow, but I suspect they have been housecleaned to allow more space.

As one that is posting as an observer I have found that some larger and more import issues have been over looked. However, from what I have read and seen here, it would fall on bigoted and blocked ears.

Personal I feel that this site would be better served without the thoughs of "smallville" or "Hans" as I can not see why they are even here in the first place.

As for "Daddy" several words come to mind. Long winded, diareaha of the mouth, one that loves to hear himself speak, and soapbox come to mind. However, I will reframe from labeling him as he does have a right to express his feelings, and was it not said that "Opinions are like assholes, everbody seams to have one!"

This thread could have been a lot shorter if he had reframed from attacking every opsoing viewpoint and tryed to keep his feelings to just a few words with limited post.

I base the following on these notes:
1. Pages 86
2. Words 43,304
3. Paragraphs 673
4. Lines 3,662
5. Characters 203,227

But who is counting.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Numnutts:
Hello,

As one that is posting as an observer I have found that some larger and more import issues have been over looked. However, from what I have read and seen here, it would fall on bigoted and blocked ears.

Personal I feel that this site would be better served without the thoughs of "smallville" or "Hans" as I can not see why they are even here in the first place.

As for "Daddy" several words come to mind. Long winded, diareaha of the mouth, one that loves to hear himself speak, and soapbox come to mind. However, I will reframe from labeling him as he does have a right to express his feelings, and was it not said that "Opinions are like assholes, everbody seams to have one!"

This thread could have been a lot shorter if he had reframed from attacking every opsoing viewpoint and tryed to keep his feelings to just a few words with limited post.

I base the following on these notes:
1. Pages 86
2. Words 43,304
3. Paragraphs 673
4. Lines 3,662
5. Characters 203,227

But who is counting.

num

---

It may be that I have only been reading this string for the last 2 days and posting since yesterday.

I think that most people that are decenting have failed to understand that this is an open forum of discussions and NOT a place where my lifestyle or views will be inflicted upon them.

Heaven forbid that I be inflicted with some of the viewpoints that I have read here.

Somehow I would hate to have to pass the approval of a panel of judges before I could engage in any kind of relationship as to not offend them or meet with their approval.

Forcing your viewpoints on me is just as vile as forcing a child into sex. I can share and listen to other opinions as long as they are offered as such.

As I do read more I may find that your statement is true. However, so may mine...

No one get's forced to watch. No one gets forced to read. And no one gets forced to accept a viewpoiint.

Certainly no one gets forced to count letters.

And your point? Or have you run out of things to do. Could this be a personal forum where members only with like-minded viewpoints are accepted and others attacked?

I have observed where there is a concern over people leaving or being pushed out of this forum, and with posts such as yours I can see why.

If you think that by your witless comments that you can chase me off, get a life as you have already missed the contents of my post and anymore effort on my part would only go wasted on you.

I have found over the years that the people that are "just looking" have little or nothing to offer.

If there's one underlying problem with this board, it comes as a side effect from the common quest for answers we've had here: when people have their answers they tend to use them as a basis to respond to others. So as our stock of answers has grown, so has this board's tendency to appear it favors political correctness.

Additionally, though, you've got to remember the time frame of the posts you've read here: they've been made while the conservative, "religious" right have ruled in trying times in America, a time that's seen a tremendous expansion of federal powers to intervene in the affairs of American citizens. Whether we like it or not, this too has colored this board's evolution. (How many times have I had e-mails from one person or another worrying about what might happen to them if the authorities investigate this site?)

Your statement of "No one consistantly giving us a reasoned pro-pedophilia argument. No one consistantly giving us a reasoned pro-family sex argument. Etc. Ummm. Perhaps that means something." lacks one major fact.

Like a swarm of locust you would desend upon them with such a feverish frenzy that they would not have a chance to openly make their views seen.

num...

Either there's insufficient numbers on some sides to make a good stand representing their argument or their sides are presently too politically incorrect for them to wish to make a good stand.

Read from January 2004 forward and then re-read this archival excerpt, if you want to see striking change.

There seems to ba a "taboo" here, as nearly everywhere, that "judgement is wrong". Usually the person who insinuates this (since I have never actually heard it said outrightly) is really afraid of being judged harshly him/herself and is not daring to say so. Very often, that person beligerantly, judgementally in fact, accuses others of judging when they really are not!

We usually dislike that which reminds us of something in ourselves we do not like or have not faced. People who fear judgement are very judgemental themselves.

If you would like not to be judged for your views here, I would suggest a friendlier approach. We have a rather tolerant community of friends here at the moment. And, if you read as I said from January onward, you will see just how it developed.

It is quite remarkable because some of these same people were very judgemental and beligerant prior to January 2004. Significantly, we have made a choice and gone away from that. That is what b4rry is alluding to when he asks why pay much attention to the archive?

It is worth noting, as you will be able to read for yourself, that we who are relating in relative harmony here now do NOT represent a single viewpoint--quite the contrary! The amazing thing is how we manage to live happily within our diversity. There is a lesson to be learned here, and if you ask, we can tell you how we got this way. Or, you can read it for yourself.

Thank you for your improved post over what I have read in the past. While you speak of one side of the coin, I still see the other side raring its ugly head.

There are many things that I do not myself believe in, but have always tried to hear the other sides view and then pass my judgment.

You will never find me active in a homosexual act myself or looking for a relationship with another male. However I do have several friends that have chosen this life style and we co-exist WITHOUT bashing or looking to slam each other’s choices in life.

Because of this, I have a better understanding even though this is NOT my cup of tea.

If I show little tolerance for the comments of "Smallville" and "Hans" it is in direct relationship to their comments and attacks on those that were trying to openly express their feelings, thoughts, and/or fears.

I have a very good friend that is Mormon and we have different views that have NEVER gotten in the way of our friendship.

At one time I told him that I too almost became a Mormon but when I found out that they had done away with the only socially redeeming value to their religion I decided not to join.

If I had been thinking (and looking) before I opened my mouth, I would have saved myself the temp loss of hearing in my right ear for a week where my sister hit me.

In this world, I have found that there is NO one pill cure for everything that is bad.

I note you approve of my reformed style somewhat. Your positive, though guarded, judgement is noted.

I am not sure what you wished to express in the rest of your post. I just get a feeling of edginess and uncertainty and I get a tightening in my gut I usually get when I sense somebody is holding in a lot of anger or negative judgement. You can correct me if my gut reaction is off.

What is it you would like to say or have me comment on?

See, this community is functioning (rather than dysfunctioning) because we discuss pretty openly what we feel. But we do that because we know we can trust each other on an emotional level not to attack each other. This, as I said last time, does not mean we have a uniform set of values and beliefs here. Our diversity is really our strength and our caring acceptance is our community.

I am one that is always looking at the ½ full glass of water in front of me. Guarded yes, but with an open mind.

As for the other, I am only trying to tell you that I too live in a real world of people where I myself do not accept their lifestyles as my own, but refuse to burn a cross in their yard to show my disapproval either.

If I speak, it is from first hand experience and observations and not from a book crying out ones moral or immoral thoughts of a third or forth party. There is good in many things in life daddy and THAT is what I try to seek first while filtering out the bullshit.

There are a number of government studies (several that it would take a mad man to have approved.) that I have seen that would put an end too much of this heated debate here. However like the Presidential investigation into pornography my Nixon, it failed to show what they wanted so it got buried and down played.

And now the worst for last. I do not hold in anger (I learned years ago anger never is productive and keep it out of my life.) but do express my distaste for people and things that I have found as wrong or out of place. As a small boy my one friend told me that it was against God’s law to eat meat on Fridays. I only know of 10 laws from God and incest like eating meat on Fridays in not on that list.

As Nana is always saying, “Listen, even an idiot has something to say. Heaven forbid, you may learn something!”

quote:

---

Originally posted by Numnutts:
Daddy,

As Nana is always saying, “Listen, even an idiot has something to say. Heaven forbid, you may learn something!”

num...

---

Oy, vay! And ve should listen to her already! But now you listen to your father!

Num,

I personally am made anxious and irritated by phrases such as "If you think by your witless comments you can chase me off..." (to justlookin who is my friend)and your calling me "long-winded."

You cannot expect to be met with a welcome reception when you say things like that. You are very fortunate that we have the control we do not to abuse you back, and that we are tolerating this kind of abuse with relatively even tempers.

You say you do not hold anger, but the fuel behind such remarks--such judgements--is not affection, not compassion, not even friendliness. I can only speak for myself: when I say things, or think things like I heard just come out of your mouth, I am feeling angry. And I know, for myself, that my anger comes from fear. Perhaps the "swarm of locusts" you expect us to "unleash" on you is in fact an image of your fear we may suddenly hurt you with our anger if you say the "wrong thing".

It is difficult to build bridges of trust--on both sides. The people whom you have just bumped into here have known each other and weathered some storms caused by each other and from outside (see the jason affair). We are like a dysfunctional family that somehow found out that we can function.

How did we do that? Not by coming in here all of a sudden and criticising and demanding that we be listened to. We did the usual thing, we told a little about ourselves, exposed ourselves a bit at a time. We found out what was safe and what was not. We fought over being able to express certain viewpoints that were important to us--but we did that RESPECTFULLY.

This was met with a compliant response exactly because it was offered respectfully. Trust, cooperation, the things that make a community or family work, has to be earned. Trust is earned by being trust-worthy. It does not make one trustworthy to criticize, expect, almost call names the first two minutes after you have arrived.

To expect a friendly response and to be trusted when you do that--is unrealistic. Note, I am not blaming you. I am not saying you behaved "badly". I am just pointing out what is realistic and what you can expect. And how to realistically get what you want, which I gather is to be trusted here and to be able to trust others. Make sense?

So, why don't you start by telling us something about yourself. Just what you feel safe in revealing.

Why don't you ask us if there are any topics or behaviours that we do not like, so we can list them and you can decide if you want to risk talking about them.

Thank you for proving my point for me.

Game, Set, and Match!

num...

Everything Daddy just said regarding our community is correct. We have evolved into a caring, helpful family. It's very much like a LARGE family where you have some brothers and sisters you enjoy more than others and for the ones you don't enjoy as much, you at least tolerate them, provided they'll allow it.

For some of us, we approach the community with a helpful, caring attitude. When one of us hurts, the rest of us hurt. When someone is testy, the rest look for the "why" and search for a basis of understanding.

None of this is a game with a winner and a loser. It's a way of life. And when everything works, we all win.

In case you missed the point, the caring exhibited here is a WAY OF LIFE among a group of dissimilar people who have worked to understand, accept, and appreciate each other.

Sorry, I do not play sports and do not understand the tennis (?) reference.

I do not know what point of yours I made.

I asked you to be friendly and tell us about yourself, but you did not answer.

I asked you if you wanted us to list subjects that are likely to set off our triggers if there are any, so you could feel safer, but you did not answer that either.

I was trying to make it easier for you to trust us and us to trust you. But you did not respond.

So, we are clearly NOT communicating. You want to do something else--but what? You do not say.

I sense you think I am competing or challenging you. I am not. I am simply suggested we start out gaining each other's trust, and that does not work by criticizing and challenging each other. I did not invent that idea. That is just human nature.

So, if you have no wish to communicate with me, only to sort of make jibes, I do not feel comfortable or trusting of you. Why would I trust somebody who uses words to try to irritate or hurt me?

I have things I would rather do than open myself up to unnecessary, unprovoked jabs. And, I have a lot of listening and compassion to give to someone who wants to be genuinely open here. I think that is evident.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Maeann:
I think yr body and mind both hv 2 b into it.If not u hv a hostage but not a partner...It wld hv been easier 4 me if i had been better able 2 handle it all. I know sexuality is not just a penis in a vagina but ....its such a temptation once u start... accidents? happen b careful b gentle b kind b well I started 2 njoy it @12 or so...if i posted 2x by mistake 4 give me

---

At 12 or so u say ! when did u start ?

quote:

---

Originally posted by Virginstateofmind:
I think that the proper age is like 9 or 10.

---

My first time was 14 she was 9

quote:

---

Originally posted by Highlander2003:
At 12 or so u say ! when did u start ?

---

Highlander2003,

The post you have quoted an exceprt from is but one post in the longest thread ever created on this site.

It is also a post that contains a number of statements.

Are we to assume that what interested you in this post was ONLY the writer's statement that she began to enjoy sex around the age of 12? And that what you wanted to add was that you were able to get your penis in somebody's vagina as young as 8 years old.

I am just nor sure what your point is and why you posted. If someone wrote in that they got their penis into a 3-year-old, would that be a significant addition to the information here? In other words, that this is a contest to find the youngest child who has had sex or been incested? And, from this, if we find someone say the child protested at 3, or enjoyed it at 3 but grew up to hate men because of her early experience, that would finally have established once and for all "how young is too young"?

quote:

---

Originally posted by dreamguy15:
okay honestly im a 15 guy and i hate all of you sadly its not out of anger at what you do but out of jealousy.

Maby its just the hormones talking but since im an only child i always wished i had a sister (or two) or anyone that i could do that *stuff* with.well i dont

---

I think the first emotion that can really recognize is one of horror.

I just want to take all of your children and protect them from all of you.

First of all:
Parents - When you have a child.. first and foremost that child needs guidance, protection, love. They need a role model to guide them into adulthood. Someone whom they can trust and rely on.

A child - a person whom is under the age of 18 yrs old, Hell I would even go as far to say 19 and for some 20. Kids dont make rational decisions. They are into pleasure principle only.. Whatever makes them feel good - is their next high. Be it drugs.. be sex etc etc.. ( not all but most )
YOU as the adult - The one that is supposed to protect them from crap like this - Your doing it to them. I am truly horrified.

Have read through these posts and some have said "my daughter comes to me and wants to know what it is like"

FFS!!! you dont show them .. Be the parent.. BE the adult ! Talk with them - guide them .. Not take advantage!

If YOU are an adult - and your sexual partner is below the age of consent - You are breaking the law.. PERIOD! Its wrong.. You are in an authority position..

I have read how some of you try and candy coat it.. to make yourself feel better.. make others feel better.. but that is all it is .. is candy coating.. you are breaking the law.

People - I cant even believe this.. I really cant.. I have a hard time wrapping my mind around this.

( by some of your posts - this one in particular really sticks in my mind..) "my daughter came to me and wanted me to show her what it was like"..
By those standards.. gods..when she wants to try a little bit of crack or coccaine .. you going to show her how to do that too ?

If a person is over the age of consent - BOTH parties !!!!!!! Then you do what you want - fine.. I wont cast no stones .. to each his own.. BUT the minute you start talking about little tiny children .. THAT involves me.. that involves every person on this earth.. that makes you a pedophile.. and a sick person.

This site isnt just about - adults being able to talk openly about incest.. there are numerous NUMEROUS posts on this board .. about little children.. and that my friends .. is a no no..

Initially I thought your post not worth responding to. Why? Because if you'd actually read the material here while you searched to find the longest thread of all here, you'd have seen the issue you raise discussed time and time again here. Its even sometimes been discussed to death. Pedophilia and incest are actually separate topics that only in certain cases overlap. Very, very few here are in favor of pedophilia!

So why open this whole thing up again?

However, when you imply that discussion of no-no issues is in and of itself no-no, I have to respond. The strength of this site and others like it on various other topics is the way it gives people a chance to talk, listen and think. That's what true discussion is about.

I bet in your non-reading you missed how many times people have come here with one point of view (or even some particular fixation) and in time come to thank the site's participants on increasing their understanding or even altering their view. These changes weren't forced. In fact, forcing change rarely works unless the force causes submission. The power of open discussion, by comparison, is that people have the chance to reexamine themselves and to make their own adjustments, to see life in a new light and to be motivated along new lines.

No COMMENT!