Forum: Story Discussion and Feedback

Thanks mate,

rather lengthy and detailed replay, more then I hopped for. It helps some. There are great many authors to choose from, and making sure I am not being offensive here, declaring that you are not on my list of favorites, I'll find time to read a story or three, you have posted, to round of what you have told me. One never knows, you may become another I like to read.
Cheers.

Hey Arq,

went to the list of authors, I can not find you either! Is it because you've removed your stories?

Like I posted before. They've been pulled (from EVERYWHERE... except maybe 1 or 2 sites that I don't use anymore.) And I am in the midst of a rewrite.

Why? I didn't like how they turned out. Let me give a cogent paradigm here. NISJC which was one of my more recent stories, was about... maybe 30 pages long, Followed Naked in School rules and well, I took it down and began rewriting it. I've written it three times total now. It's 52 pages at the moment, and I'm loving what I did.

Hopefully the things I change will make other readers enjoy as well, but at this point, it's more of a "It's for me" thing as the only reason I'm continuing re-writes on it is because I don't like where it goes, and I know I could do better.

Thank you Sir,
another lengthy response. Unless I read an essay, a scientific book or premise, condition of enjoying someones writing, is a suspension of belief. So whether the act has happened or it is a fantasy is of no issue. To me, it is an act of love, between the two. Any coercion or worse, use of violence to facilitate it, is abhorrent to me. Just the way I am.

Forgot to add that, unlike Arquillus, the only connection between the sex by teenagers in my stories and my real life is that some of the incidents (not involving family members, BTW) are taken from life- except that, sadly, those incidents did not feature any real sex.

Thanks Joe,
you a right, pointing out the choice of words in the quote of my paragraph.

You, as the other two gentleman, go on the list of authors to read, before I kick proverbial bucket.

Something of a personal question if I may. Two in fact.

Are you by any chance an Aussie? Bondi Beach is a famous beach here in Australia, namely, Sidney in the State of New South Wales. And if you are not, and if you happen to get here, you've got to make an effort to visit it. But then again, I'm prejudiced.

Second, under "J" in the list of authors, I can not spot Joe_Bondi_Beach! Am I blind? Help me out.

Have a cold XXXX! (An Aussie would understand this bit.)

Second, under "J" in the list of authors, I can not spot Joe_Bondi_Beach! Am I blind? Help me out.

Drop the Joe and look up Bondi Beach.

I am very ignorant here, Sir,
when you say "pedo" , what do you refer to?

Is it a homosexual act, with a minor, regardless of gender, or, miner plus adult in the family? Would very much appreciate clarification, if you please.

Thank you for that Sir,

I was under impression that pedophilia was a sexual act, outlawed in most jurisdictions, as an act between an adult and a person under 18.
According to you, two underage people can be pedophiles if they are a day under 18?

Are you sure about that, Sir, and I promise, solemnly, I am not picking a fight with you?

Just looked it up, and according to Merriam Webster and the link you suggested the full definition goes as" "Pedophilia, An adult initiating sexual contact with a pre-pubescent child (boy or girl, 12 or under)

"Pedophilia, An adult initiating sexual contact with a pre-pubescent child (boy or girl, 12 or under)

That's the police definition and is bull shit. Pedophilia, like all paraphilias, is defined by attraction, not by action.

Whatever man,
I copied and pasted the definition from a dictionary.

Dictionaries have been known to be wrong.

Welcome to Pessimistic Persons Incorporated. Its clear you qualify for membership.

I am bemused by your statement, however it may be differing from my stand point. To debate is to hear other person view.

I must say though, on what grounds you say, and how you support that...."dictionaries have been known to be wrong"? For some reason you've lost me there.

Well, the incorrect citation you gave is one obvious example.

Very well,

I'm with you here in general, so the conclusion on what we both agree, the legal side is very much arbitrary, confused and inconsistent. I was "hanging" on a definition sited in a dictionary. Silly me. The law does not operate on common grounds. We do live in confused times.
Thanks again.

I also very much doubt anyone in today's society knows what they're doing

You should have stopped there, and I would remove "in today's society".

n some legal jurisdictions the legal age is 16, some it's 18, and in some they have the R&J clause that says it's legal if they're within a set time range of each other. In most cases if either party is below the age of consent then it's pedophilia for both parties

Pedophilia is not a term used anywhere in the law in any state in the US. What you are describing is a crime called statutory rape.

PS: I have read elsewhere (on a legal blog) that there is at least one US state that provides a minimum age of consent for females but not for males. So in that state teen on teen sex, only the male would be guilty of statutory rape even if the female was the older of the two.

be convicted as what the courts call a pedophile does

Sorry, Pedophile is a medical term it is not used by the courts anymore than it is used by the law.

Now there are politicians and media talking heads that do use the term pedophile they way you suggest in talking to the general public. They are wrong in doing so.

say that with a straight face next time you see some judge or cop or prosecutor in the news gloating about putting some dirty, rotten pedophile behind bars for years.

Most state judges as well as all DAs are politicians (ADAs are not elected, but most have ambition to be the DA and so should be considered politicians). I have never seen any cop other than a Chief/Sheriff or a PD PR hack (who is not actually a sworn officer) making these kinds of comments. In fact, line cops are discouraged from talking to the press without approval.

These are all political statements made for public consumption. They are also usually deliberate knowing lies to smear the defendant with the general revulsion most people have towards sex with prepubescent children.

You should not rely on political statements for word meanings. Politicians love to use words in a way that stretches or even contradicts their normal meaning in order to confuse or deceive.

Nor should you rely on medical or dictionary definitions for word meanings

Yes you should words that are very specifically medical terms. The word pedophilia did not exist prior to the psychiatric diagnosis.

People who misuse medical terms because they don't understand them should be corrected, not encouraged.

The medical fraternity have a definition of what a child is and it's been around for centuries,

1. The "medical fraternity" hasn't been around for centuries.

2. The word child is a very different case as it was not coined specifically as a medical term.

A 3rd century copy of the Hippocratic Oath seems to disagree with the comment above. That shows they had a medical fraternity large enough to want the oath used back then

I wouldn't call the healers that they had back then doctors nor what they did medicine. There is almost zero relationship between what they did and modern medicine.

Doctors ancient or modern have similarities. They charge for providing treatments based on superior knowledge and training they have persuaded others they have. They collect their fees whether their treatment is a success or not. Sometimes the success is not due to their treatment. To recover from a cold takes 7 days. With modern medicine it only takes one week. One big difference between doctors then and doctors now is doctors then used to make house calls. As modern drugs have improved success rates, the level of service has declined.

I have no hard data to back this up but having patients come to doctors has enabled them to see more patients and make more money. The trend to specialization has also raised some doctors incomes. They come to do good, and they do well.

Doctors ancient or modern have similarities. They charge for providing treatments based on superior knowledge and training they have persuaded others they have.

I wouldn't call ancient doctor's knowledge superior. Much of ancient doctor's so called knowledge was wrong.

Despite the Hippocratic oath, up until the acceptance of germ theory and the advent of modern scientific medicine around 150 years ago, many if not most "medical" treatments were outright harmful to the patient.

I did not say ancient doctors had superior knowledge and training. I said they had persuaded others that they did.

They did some things like set broken bones that did not depend on the germ theory of disease. Limited bleeding was likely as effective as giving an antibiotic pill to kill bacteria when the patient has a virus. Psychosomatic illnesses respond to almost any treatment. Looking wise and doing something can be better than doing nothing for some patients.

Clearly dirty hands delivering babies was responsible for a lot of mother and newborn deaths. Ancient doctors probably left that for midwives so their reputations were not injured. For a while surgeons and doctors were different professions, with a lot of surgery done by barbers. On the basis they had sharp instruments, I suppose. When barbers shaved with straight razors, not that different from a scalpel.

As to the point on definition the medical fraternity came up with a definition of what child is, which is sometimes called the biological definition, and defines a child as being between birth and puberty - which matches many dictionary definitions as well. Neither of which match any definitions in the laws.

This is a dispute you need to take up with legislators. My point is that differing definitions of child between law and medicine given that child is a term that originates in neither medicine or law is not a comparable situation to the deliberate misuse of a word that is uniquely a medical term.

but bears absolutely no relationship to what a child is according to any law in existence.

"If the law supposes that," said Mr. Bumble, squeezing his hat emphatically in both hands, "the law is a ass - a idiot".
--- Charles Dickens, "Oliver Twist" 1838

And that the law is an ass shouldn't be news to anyone.

I go with the psychological definition. A pedophile is anyone who is sexually attracted to prepubescent children, regardless of whether they act on that attraction. (People attracted to people between puberty and the age of consent are hebephiles (early teens) and ephebophils (late teens).)

In stories, of course, the attraction is acted on and (here coded gi or boy, for the age, lolita (child initiates) or pedo (adult initiates) for who initiates (codes moot since the age limit was imposed). And coded g or b for the age everywhere else. (Adolescents are coded ft and mt here and f and m everywhere else. (Adults F and M.))

The legal definition (anyone who has sexual intercourse with (rapes, since the "victims" are legally forbidden from consenting) anyone under the age of consent is a pedophile) is bull shit, and, by that definition, all pedophiles are rapists.

P.S. one wise man, there is no inherent connection between pedophilia and homosexuality.

Thank you for your response, my "taste" if I can employ that word here, is far from yours, so it seems to me there is no connection I was seeking at the outset, In other words, I do not see, how act of incest flows into act of pedophilia.

(edit, another spelling mistake. I should start paying attention. )

OneWiseMan, from most study, [most or many or some] people who are into pedophilia aren't attracted to boys or girls, they're fascinated by the young, and will abuse each equally. That doesn't always fit into a story's premises, but I think it's good to keep in the back of your mind as you write. It isn't gay or straight, it's the innocence.

You left an important word out of that, I've inserted three options in square brackets (I would go with "some". (Probably about the same percentage of pedophiles are attracted to both sexes as gyno/andro-philes are bisexual among adults.)) Speaking as a heterosexual pedophile (psychological definition cited above, by me) I'm attracted to girls.

BTW in your comment to Arquillus I think you're expressing your own kinks and squiks, those rules don't apply to everyone, or every story.

IMHO in your comment to Xmen the phrase "very young" is redundant with "children". Adolescents are not children. To me very young children are babies and toddlers, after that they're merely children, until puberty, after which they're adolescents/(very) young adults.

Tppm, my info. on pedophiles is based on research on abusers, habitual offenders who prey on kids

That is not a controlled study. For the research to be valid it has to be either of all pedophiles, or of all people as to who is a pedophile, not just sexual predators. That's equivalent to studying human sexuality by only interviewing convicted rapists.

Hijacking a thread here would be having it wave at Jack and say "Hi, Jack".

There would be lots fewer posts if it weren't for thread drift. And if those threads are interesting and or humorous, its ok with most of us. How else are we going to get hundred or two hundred post threads?

Hi there,

I do agree, that breaking rules, taboos is fun. I do have difficulty where an adult would follow his desires and fantasies and lead a young inexperienced , half grown child into a situation a child can not experience as a long therm benefit. Hopefully I'm not opening another can of worms, nor I want to be judgmental. PLEASE, it is just my stance and lets not argue in bad faith.

I do agree, that breaking rules, taboos is fun. I do have difficulty where an adult would follow his desires and fantasies and lead a young inexperienced , half grown child into a situation a child can not experience as a long therm benefit. Hopefully I'm not opening another can of worms, nor I want to be judgmental. PLEASE, it is just my stance and lets not argue in bad faith.

Most incest stories involve the younger person being the instigator, or the younger person being very enthusiastic when the older person instigates. Also, the "younger" person here is 16 to 18, maybe 15 at the very youngest. (On sites that even allow under-18 characters at all.)

Of course there is a crowd out there that prefers the more pedophile/molestation type stories where the younger participant is more like 12 or under. I rather agree that's delving more into "creepy" than "deliciously taboo".

Hello
I've being reading a few good stories ( on Incest ) and I should say Sadly there was only 2. and the rest was not even worth reading!!