Incest with sister is ok

[malgbs]

Incest etc -- DCL

Easy to spot a witless coward -- they run from battles they know they can't win or have long since lost and try to conceal their pathetic scramble for safety with incogitant incoherence.
Wasn't aware I had argued -- an argument, de facto, requires two participants, a small detail which has escaped your attention.
Not sure what "argue thing one" means except that it isn't literate or English and must be decelese. But then, expecting an amoeba to string three words together so as to make sense would be too much to expect, wouldn't it? Words like 'really' and 'awfully' are so overused, have little, if any, substantive meaning and are rarely, if ever, used by literate minds. They are also very passe -- it must still be 1890 in Hollyweird.
Don't worry DCL -- no more from me, I don't waste my time on people with less intelligence than an amoeba. I am surprised a protozoan can cope with the sagacity of a turtle and that it tolerates the moronic lifeform. Pity it hasn't yet done the world a favour and eaten the darn thing. Hope it feels hungry soon........

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

God you're silly.

Really.

 

[malgbs]

Moderator

Please insist that messages are posted in English, not arrant nonsense which serves no purpose other than cluttering this message board. In the English Language: -
1) "God you're silly" means 'God is silly.'
2) The word 'God' means a 'perfect, omnipotent, omniscient originator and ruler of the universe' and 'God' cannot, by definition, be 'silly': those words are mutually exclusive in toto.
If the author of "God you're silly" meant someone other than God is silly, the word 'God' is what is termed redundancy in English grammar: a word which adds nothing save conclusive proof of illiteracy and propensity to display ignorance. The word "really" is archaic and a second example of redundancy. Five words ('you are') or four ('you're') of which two are redundant: 20% or 25% at best for sentence composition, an abysmal failure.

I've explained that before but see it hasn't been learnt because someone can't resist the temptation to unequivocally evince, for the umpteenth time, that which all readers of this message board knew long ago: he hasn't yet attained the level of moronity (mental age of between 7 and 12 and IQ between 50 and 75).

The subject of this message board has evidently changed from incest to the wisdom of God. As to that, it's a non sequitur -- 'silly' has no conceivable relevance to 'God' and vice versa -- please see 2) above. If incest remains the subject, may we please return to it?

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

LOL Okay, this is PC or somebody pulling my ass right? Nobody is this obtuse. LOL

 

[sister@pagans.net]

I'm all new here and stuff.

This is a fascinating thread and I have to apologize if I'm covering covered ground. I've posted a few stories about incest. My fascination comes from the extreme taboo of it. The fantasy of other people engaging in acts of passion with a person they're not morally supposed to makes me really hot. The reality of the situation is quite a different story.

I hardly even liked my sister when I was growing up and, once I hit puberty, the thought of interacting with her sexually was repugnant to me. She was a year younger than I, but we never even experimented in the vicinity of each other...well, wait. She used to tease me by exposing herself to me when we were pre-pubescent. I was curious, but not ever turned on.

Now, in my late twenties, that hasn't changed. But my fetish has grown over the years to the point where I can't be turned on by fantasy that doesn't involve taboo and the associated guilt. It's sick, I know, but I really get off on it when I'm all alone .

I dated a girl who did fool around with her brother, and even though it indelibly scarred her, I felt a deep schism between my libidinal fascination when she talked about it and the utter horror I felt at the thought of an older brother sexing up a sister 7 years younger than he. It really screwed her up. Lame.

Sexual experimentation between people of differing experience levels at an early age has to be wrong. I try not to be a moralist, but I've been unwillingly fucked up by lots of things (thankfully nothing sexually damning...I'd really hate to be tethered emotionally when it comes to sex), and I think that there can be a moral line drawn where the damage of one's actions can affect something as wonderful as sex and sexual desire so severely.

As I read in someone else's post, I've also not had contact with my biological father since before I can remember. If I met a half sister and liked her, I can't imagine there not being some sort of sexual tension and possibly even a little fooling around. Barring pregnancy (another theme in my writings and fantasy that doesn't play out well in real life), I think there's nothing wrong with that. Consensual sex between people of similar experience levels and mutually respectful intent owe nothing to society's expectations.

Fuck fuck fuck! Just don't intentionally, or by selfish inaction, hurt somebody.

Oh, and Adam and Eve were clones, not siblings. Maybe god added a little to the Y he took from Adam, but, according to legend, neither of them had a mother. If they had the genes of a parent, they were both of God alone. And their children did not take each other as mates. The Bible mentions "other people." Those outside of Eden. That's who they mated with and God's genes spread through the Middle East like a virus.

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

The fantasy of other people engaging in acts of passion with a person they're not morally supposed to makes me really hot. The reality of the situation is quite a different story.

Precisely. This is what I've always said when people ask "How come incest stories are so popular?"

It has nothing to do with the incest, but with the natural moral obstacle to sex that familial relationships provide. That's what people like.

In my stories I try to set up roadblocks to sex -- either emotional, moral or circumstantial roadblocks. The more angst ridden it is for a couple to get together the hotter it is when they finally do.

Incestual stories have those roadblocks built in, and that's why people like them. Did you ever read an incest story where the brother and sister start fucking on page one? Pretty dull, isn't it? See, it has nothing to do with the sex, but all to do with the angst of the journey.

But, as you stated above, the reality is much, much different. Incest stories (and all the stories here) reflect our fantasies, not our actual desires.

 

[malgbs]

God! You are brainless!
(how it should be written in English)
Can someone tell me if Hollyweird is in the USOA please?

 

[KillerMuffin]

How is what DCL stated brainless?

 

[malgbs]

KillerMuffin

You've got to be kidding -- a wind up!
If one writes 'God you are (or 'you're') silly' or whatever in English: -
1) The word 'God' is followed by an exclamation mark (downstroke denoting emphasis, dot denoting full stop [period in USA or as DCL contends USOA]) because it comprises either: -
(a) a prayer to God, tacit 'give me strength,' 'give me patience' or whatever the context of what follows requires; or
(b) a blasphemous expletive -- one could, for example, just as well say, 'Shit! You're silly!' -- if one wrote 'Shit you're silly' it would mean a particular piece of excrement was silly but shit doesn't have a brain so it can't be clever or silly and writing it that way simply proves the author is more than silly.
2) The words following 'God!' are those addressed by the addressor to the addressee, a separate, second, sentence. In 'God! You're stupid!' the second exclamation mark is optional but is normal because it is an exclamation, an emphasised statement, not a casual remark.
I thought 'Literotica' derived from 'literary' and 'erotica' --- if I have to keep producing dissertations as above, I can only conclude the site represents literary skills 0% and erotica whatever %. If contributors cannot string 'God,' 'You're' and 'silly' together in correct English to make 'God! You're silly!' seems to me there's no hope of anyone producing anything with any literary merit.
Think I'll give this site up -- better things to do with my time.
Bye one and all and a special 'bye' to you DCL.
Made your day DCL? I'm sure I have!
Au revoir

 

[MissVictoria]

God you are silly!
God you're silly!
God, you're silly!
God- you are silly!

God is silly!
You're silly, god!
You are a silly god!
Silly god, Trix are for kids!


Obviously the two groups have two different intentions, even with all of the incorrect punctuation.

As thinking human beings, isn't it our responsibility to interperate things as they were meant to be interperated, rather than go out of our way to interperate them another way in an attempt to make another seem ignorant?

I fear all it does in the process is make the attemptee look a bit ridiculous.

 

[malgbs]

MissVictoria

My final posting!
The responsibility lies with the communicator, not with the communicatee. It is the former's duty to ensure the latter understands him or her.
More than a quarter of a century as an Officer of the Supreme Court of Judicature, has proved in countless cases how one careless word, or even thoughtless punctuation, can leave the communicator with a situation he or she did not intend.
If we wish others to understand us, it is our duty to ensure that we are unequivocally and unambiguously understood.
If A says something ambiguous, how does B know how it was meant to be interpretted ? Answer: B cannot with 100% certainty. I thought you were a resident of USA -- which has the world's most litigious population, a great deal of which, if not the majority, revolves around ambiguities in what has been said or written.
Communicate (ie speak or write) means 'to make known' and de facto something to which the phrase meant to be interpretted can be applied is not 'made known' because it is open to interpretation, ie. is de fact and per se ambiguous.
I agree, the paragraph preceding "attemptee look a bit ridiculous" does make the attemptee I'm addressing look ridiculous.
This really is my last posting!

 

[Dixon Carter Lee]

Who cares silly person?

 

[KillerMuffin]

Oh good gawd, you're that anal retentive? Even I'm not that anal about all that nasty grammar shit. Yours isn't perfect, so let he who is without sin cast the first cowpie. Clarity doesn't always come with perfect syntax. Clarity comes with the wit to read and understand. For instance, your post was rather unclear in general. You are not a good communicator because you're enamored of all your four dollar words. You negelect some serious punctuative issues as well as what's commonly known as "flow," "cohesion," "pacing," and the "ability to capture a reader." In short, you're a bore to read. No wonder you've involved yourself in the more boring aspects of litigation. You're as fascinating to read as a military field manual. I'd wager that the whole split infinitive controversy has had you frothing at the mouth for decades upon decades.

Anyway, I was referring to DCL's rather lucid post regarding incest and fantasy, not his catch phrase. Since you have nothing intelligent to add regarding this discussion beyone the minute concerns of a single comma, one must conclude that you do, indeed, lack the ability to form cohesive and compelling arguments. We have words for people like you. Fuddy-duddy comes immediately to mind.

I don't think anyone will miss you. You may like to try the enema porn site up the 'Net. Have a nice day.

 

[lexium]

felt so guilty and did not

Why would you turn your sister away? You said that you loved her. "GUILT" I believe, if you loved her you wouldn't have turned her away

Lexium