Should we allow girlfriend's daughter to join us for a threesome?

[Guest MrsVan]

You want my advice! I think what you did was sick... I as a mother could not bring myself to include my children into my sex life and cannot believe that the mother allowed this to continue..Are you looking for approval? Because if you are I don't think you are going to get it... And then to ask for advice and everyone said no, to come back and say that you decided to do it...Wow! I have to say that I can see this daughter coming out of this in due time and having some major issues as she gets older..

 

You definitely do not get my pat on the back for a job well done because you have really disgusted me..I just cannot imagine even though she is an adult, to still decide to have sex with the mom and daughter..

[tribbles 490]

I'm happy to hear that you all had fun and at least so far, no drama.

 

I hope it stays that way.

 

I agree with the live and let live philosophy.

[sexyshelby 19]

I'm curious to know the conversation that went on between the three of you prior to letting this happen? Care to share?

[JaneAndJohnDoe 17]

Wow. Have been following this thread with great interest, and can no longer resist the incredible urge to pipe in and let the slings and arrows fly.

 

First, I recognize that it isn't "technically" incest. However, I must specify the fact that it may not "legally" or "technically" be incest, but it is most certainly "incest-like" and it crosses the line of decency.

 

We have 3 teenagers in the house. They are NOT welcome in our bedrooms. They are NOT welcome to know the intimate details of our sex life. They have been, however, always welcome to open conversations about sex and sexuality, in general terms.

 

For example...

 

When my 13 year old daughter wanted to know about blowjobs, I gladly obliged and gave her all the information she wanted and needed. When she asked "Mom, do you give dad blowjobs?", my response was this...

 

"Honey, I love and respect you so much that I will happily answer your questions about sex. I will give you 100% honesty in all things. But I will not answer your questions about my personal life, because it is none of your business. It belongs to me, and me alone, and will not be shared. There are things I want to keep private about, and for this reason, I will not answer this question, or any other that asks me specific things about my own sex life. please respect that."

 

And she understood. She never crossed the line again to ask a personal question. But she has often come to me for more information about all kinds of things, and I've always been straightforward with her. It did not close our conversations and in fact, it allowed her to feel free to ask me about everything under the sun. She didn't feel I would judge her.

 

If she ever asks me about swingers, I will give her my honest opinion, but I will NEVER cross the line and tell her about my swing life.

 

Having said all that, my reasoning is simple...

 

My role as her mother is very different from the role I have as my husband's wife. She needs me for guidance and as an example for her to compare her life to. She does NOT need to picture me in compromising situations, and I will not taint our relationship by forcing her to accept my morality.

 

The mother in question here, in my opinion, crossed the line with her daughter many years ago, in 100 different ways. Whether it is because she can't control her own sexuality, or whether it is because she is sexually attracted to her daughter, or maybe it is even as basic as an urge to show herself off to her daughter...whatever the reasons are...she is NOT qualified to be that woman's mother. She isn't doing her job. She has forced her own sexual choices on her daughter, and that is just plain wrong.

 

*Jane steps gingerly off her soapbox now*

[Chicup 38]

With the girl being almost half your age (as you stated elsewhere you were 56) and under the circumstances, I'd like to find it hard to believe (Gee mom let me walk in on you having sex with the near 60 year old man, and take pictures) but weirder things have happened in the world.

 

Well good for you I guess, even if it's Jerry Spingeresk.

[stoutgatte 25]

The Mother and Daughter did not have sex together. No Incest.

 

I agree fully with VegasLee. But still, I wouldn't do it...

[trick59 15]

MrsVan said:

You want my advice! I think what you did was sick... I as a mother could not bring myself to include my children into my sex life and cannot believe that the mother allowed this to continue..Are you looking for approval? Because if you are I don't think you are going to get it.. And then to ask for advice and everyone said no, to come back and say that you decided to do it..Wow! I have to say that I can see this daughter coming out of this in due time and having some major issues as she gets older...

 

You definitely do not get my pat on the back for a job well done because you have really disgusted me...I just cannot imagine even though she is an adult, to still decide to have sex with the mom and daughter...

 

bravo mrs van, bravo

[ANGEDKY(mr) 100]

Curiosity killed the cat !!!!!

 

IC 35-46

ARTICLE 46. MISCELLANEOUS OFFENSES

 

 

IC 35-46-1-3

Incest

Sec. 3. (a) A person eighteen (18) years of age or older who engages in sexual intercourse or deviate sexual conduct with another person, when the person knows that the other person is related to the person biologically as a parent, child, grandparent, grandchild, sibling, aunt, uncle, niece, or nephew, commits incest, a Class C felony. However, the offense is a Class B felony if the other person is less than sixteen (16) years of age.

 

 

IC 35-42-4-2

Criminal deviate conduct

Sec. 2. (a) A person who knowingly or intentionally causes another person to perform or submit to deviate sexual conduct when:

(1) the other person is compelled by force or imminent threat of force;

(2) the other person is unaware that the conduct is occurring; or

(3) the other person is so mentally disabled or deficient that consent to the conduct cannot be given;

commits criminal deviate conduct, a Class B felony.

(b) An offense described in subsection (a) is a Class A felony if:

(1) it is committed by using or threatening the use of deadly force;

(2) it is committed while armed with a deadly weapon;

(3) it results in serious bodily injury to any person other than a defendant; or

(4) the commission of the offense is facilitated by furnishing the victim, without the victim's knowledge, with a drug (as defined in IC 16-42-19-2(1)) or a controlled substance (as defined in IC 35-48-1-9) or knowing that the victim was furnished with the drug or controlled substance without the victim's knowledge.

 

So while it appears it isn't illegal under Indiana code. I do have a question for you...If you had a daughter would the two of you have a FMF if you two never sexually interacted with your girl or how about a MFM both of you pleasing another guy??? Still sound like a cool and fun evening??

[lovedoctor 15]

VegasLee said:

The Mother and Daughter did not have sex together. No Incest.

 

Lee, I respect where you are coming from in being non-judgemental. But I do beg to differ with your opinion.

 

If they were all in the same bed, and they were having sex - even if it was just a "magnavox" sandwich, then it's still incest. It would be different if he diddled the mom and then diddled the daughter at some other time without them present all together in the same time and space. Totally different. The only thing that saves it from being illegal is that the daughter is an adult. I still question whether the mother is an adult.

 

No one died and left me boss either. But I spend a great deal of my working day putting my education to use. Thankfully, I don't end up with many situations like this. Personal beliefs aside, I stand behind my professional ones.

[sexyshelby 19]

I agree...if they were all in the same bed, it's still sexual - maybe not intercourse, but still sexual in nature.

 

Question to Magnavox: Would you have a threesome with your girlfriend and your son?

[WildMiCouple 324]

Seems to me this is an issue between the mother and daughter. If they are ok with it, then I certainly don't have a problem with it. Three consenting adults doing what they choose behind closed doors. It's all about individual rights. As long as they aren't infringing on anyone else's rights...live and let live.

 

Brett

[sereneiders 263]

WildMiCouple said:

Seems to me this is an issue between the mother and daughter. If they are ok with it, then I certainly don't have a problem with it. Three consenting adults doing what they choose behind closed doors. It's all about individual rights. As long as they aren't infringing on anyone else's rights...live and let live.

 

Brett

 

As for them, being all adults, inside closed doors, I could agree. Even when being pretty sure there are objective reasons to reject that issue between the mother and the daughter that doesn't involves morality here (long to explain, see my previous post).

 

The fact is, what happened isn't private anymore when magnavox spread the voice to the four winds (something fitting his nickname) and asked us for approval of what they did. He's the one asking for our opinion, we're not opining on someone else life without being invited to. Once he ask for our opinion, he's up to get it, whether he likes it or not.

 

Moreover, this is an odd post in this board, magnavox isn't stating something as a problem or an issue he needs help to deal with. He's just describing facts, telling us how happy he feels about them, and then asking us for an opinion, so he open the door for a judgmental one.

 

Mine is, the most likely is that this people is sick, I feel threatened by this even when I wasn't in the room, just because of winding it up, I feel they're dangerous.

 

The laws against incest are rooted in every culture, moreover it is THE primary law on top of which stands all the other laws that shapes our societies. You may or may not understand this, but the taboo feeling this have for most people shows you an unconcious valuation of this law importance.

 

If someone break this rule, is showing he/she gives it a shit about the law in general, that he/she is unaware of the laws, moreover when exposing what he did in public and looks for approval, because he even gives a shit about the taboo feelings the rest of us may have, that what we call "trolling", proving that he gives a shit about the feelings from people around him. He asked for advice, got advised against it, did it against the advice and came here to update us to prove how wrong we were in our advice, centered in the immediate "fun" he had and ignoring the in depth motivations for our advice nor the long terms consequences this may have for all the involved people. He gave a shit about our opinions, he just want to make us change our mind and forget about laws the same way he does. It sounds a little psychopathic from him, another sign that this people may be sick and may be dangerous.

 

Against magnavox beliefs, swingers are people even more aware of the law than vanilla ones. We have to understand the importance rules have, even the preventives ones, develop a set of rules for ourselves and stick to these to successfully swing without damaging our marriages. We cannot dare to forget the importance of the law because if we do, we'd be risking everything we treasure the most. Trying to impose his beliefs to us in this matter is, at least, a threat for us, or for newbies who may read this post and undermine the law importance with catastrophic consequences for them.

 

I live and let live. This guy is the one who came here trying to impose his opinion about the incest as a nice attachment to the swingers lifestyle. This way he's the one interfering with my life, and I have the right to react against this.

 

So, the alarm is ringing in my head, I won't touch this people not even with a fire hose spray of water. He wants my opinion, now let him deal with it. There is no argument able to silence the alarm ring in my head.

[WildMiCouple 324]

sereneiders said:

This guy is the one who came here trying to impose his opinion about the incest as a nice attachment to the swingers lifestyle. This way he's the one interfering with my life, and I have the right to react against this.

 

Perhaps I'm losing something in the translation here, as I realize english is not your primary language. But, the OP was not imposing his opinion on anyone...rather, just giving it. He posted his original question and got railed by most of the responses (again, I couldn't care less what consenting adults do behind closed doors). And then you say he is interfering with your life. I guess I just don't get it

 

As far as laws go...there are plenty of sodomy laws still on the books here in the U.S., that make it illegal between consenting adults to engage in oral or anal sex. Does that make it wrong, just because we had puritan forefathers who thought they knew what was best for all of us?

 

Brett

[sereneiders 263]

WildMiCouple said:

Perhaps I'm losing something in the translation here, as I realize english is not your primary language. But, the OP was not imposing his opinion on anyone...rather, just giving it. He posted his original question and got railed by most of the responses (again, I couldn't care less what consenting adults do behind closed doors). And then you say he is interfering with your life. I guess I just don't get it

 

As far as laws go...there are plenty of sodomy laws still on the books here in the U.S., that make it illegal between consenting adults to engage in oral or anal sex. Does that make it wrong, just because we had puritan forefathers who thought they knew what was best for all of us?

 

It is a matter of thinking the incest forbidding laws has the same degree of importance than the sodomy ones. While the latter may exist in some places, and I agree, because of puritan forefathers, the former is wide spread along every culture in the world and along human history. It is the ONLY law shared by all and every culture and society. Giving the huge diversity of customs and laws, having one law common to all is at least, something curious and worth to point out.

 

A lot of sociologist today agree that this is not casual, and offers you a spread range of explanation for this. In general regarding to a way to avoid genetics flaws that were discovered to happened after incest along thousands of generations where humans developed our cultures. Some psychologists say this law have to do with the way your personal structure develops. I posted a brief explanation for this before, explanations I bought and you may not buy at all.

 

Of course, I put my money on what I already bough, until someone gives me a better explanation, which isn't "that's some puritan stuff". Moreover, what made me bought this explanations is that it is the only one deprived from any "puritan stuff", while other theories are somehow loaded with "puritan stuff".

 

From what I bought, I believe once someone engages in incest, something cracks in his/her head, no matter the age nor what some society considers as adults. That think that cracks is the symbolic link that keep apart your self image as a being from the rest of the universe around you, the boundary that makes you recognize your wishes are limited by everyone's else's wishes as the way to keep any social structure viable. Once broken that link, you MAY have no turn back, you can hold that link but by means of a permanent conscious effort from you, much like alcohol addicts have to effort to avoid drinking again.

 

The sole attitude of "letting us know" we were wrong in our advice shows to me his link is loose and that he doesn't even understand why someone would have to hold that link, or even have it.

 

And he interferes with my life in several ways: by trying to mix up incest with swinging, that may lead someone to believe swingers are up to engage in incest. If that someone were at the Congress, that could support arguments to turn swinging into an illegal activity (if not in the USA, in other countries like mine). Or just damaging my credibility because I am a swinger in front of others (someone my believe I am also incestuous). By giving motivations for others to think it doesn't have consequences to engage in incest. I am convinced there are very serious ones, and I can support this conviction. And I may have to deal with these people later.

 

Just by asking my opinion and make me face you with my opinion or shut up, he already interfered, even if I didn't offer one opinion (I am sure there are people against incest that read the thread and refused to post, as there are who hesitated before answering the post). This is like asking for the opinion about abortion: whether you give it or not, you're faced with the question, you struggle about answering or not, about the way to do it... that's interference. As it is interference any question in the board I feel I have something to say about.

 

It is MY life when I keep something private, if I ask for an opinion I cannot hide behind my privacy later on, and certainly I am interfering with other people life, just by making them spend time giving their opinion to me. Just that simple.

[in4alook 15]

I know I will regret putting my 2 cents in but I can't resist. Not for this original post which I have doubts that it is real, and if it is it sounds like bragging, (like asking "My dick is too big to ride a bicycle is that a problem?"), but as a bit of a wake up call. I have skimmed these posts with varying amounts of interest at the different posts. I find it odd that people that engage in what the majority of people deem deviant behavior (i.e. swinging) judge another for what they deem deviant. Isn’t that having your cake and eating it too? I have seen people quote laws, gee sleeping with someone you are not married to is against the law in some areas as well as oral sex. Did you know you can get life in prison for anal sex in Nevada USA? Yeah you can legally pay a woman to sleep with you but anal sex gets you life.

 

If you think it is sick, do you believe in the Holy Bible? If you do then you must also believe we would not be here if Adam and Eve's children didn't commit incest. Lots daughters got him drunk and had incestuous relations with their father so that he could have a chance at a male child after their mother was turned to a pillar of salt. All these people were not condemned. Were they children at the time? Nope! Neither were the mother and very ADULT daughter and they didn’t even have sex. If there was psychological damage it was done long ago to both mother and daughter. I also doubt there is a single person here that hasn’t been damaged in some way.

 

Is it out there on the fringe? Oh yeah. Would I do it? Not if I wanted a long term relationship with the Mom. Sounds like a set up for drama. But some people are just extremely open, as shocking as it maybe. I tend to agree with Friedrich Nietzsche right and wrong are a matter of opinion.

 

Just remember this the next time a bible thumper tells you that what you do behind closed doors with other consenting adults is sick.

 

Ok let the flaming begin.

[lovedoctor 15]

in4alook said:

I find it odd that people that engage in what the majority of people deem deviant behavior (i.e. swinging) judge another for what they deem deviant.

 

It sounds from your post that you think this is more likely a hypothetical situation put forth by a troll. I agree with that, and it certainly has provided for stimulating conversation.

 

It is also probably odd that most of us come on here to discuss our opinions. I am happy that the first amendment allows us to do so as those in other countries are not so lucky.

 

Many of those countries are centered around the fertile crest in the same area where the original pentetuch (?sp) was written. Now if you are quoting Nietzsche, you may question the bible as a spiritual guide anyway (or just deny it, LOL). I think, with all due respect, that there are as many examples of hedonism in the Bible as there are laws against, so it is kind of a moot point. While I don't intend to debate it, we really have to be careful when we pull that up as a reference, especially given the fact that most of us do not read the original Hebrew version. We are very good at interpreting and reinterpreting until the original intent is so colored by our own agendas that it is no longer meaningful. I am not Jewish, but I have been to Temple a few times, and I am impressed with the Spirit of Community in this faith that inspired Christianity. OK, sorry~ this is off subject, but it is interesting. It does, however serve as a good example when we are seeking to use something out of context to prove a point.

 

There are things in humanity (not Christianity) that are verboten and most are probably illegal too; those items that when we use our emotional intelligence to consider are so ingrained in us as a species that they have become mores. We are a society of Nos. In other words, laws would not exist had the unlawful deed not been perpetrated in the past. But laws are not mores. At sometime in the past some Congressman's son may have gotten raped by a man and out of that came a law against sodomy. I don't know. But when law is applied as a study, it is a known that there are anachronisms that mostly represent this kind of history in our society. But they are not mores. Feelings against incest are mores. Laws against incest are just laws.

 

I'm glad you posted your opinion, and above just represents mine. That's not flaming, it's a discussion. I think, on this board, you will find a lot more discussion than you will find flaming!

[getnit2gethr 15]

In otherwords, laws would not exist had the unlawful deed not been perpetrated in the past.

That argument is circular. To get around that you might have to say, laws would not exist had the controversal deed not been perpetrated in the past. But that line of reasoning opens a whole new box of worms.

 

How about a somewhat converse line of reasoning? If controversal deeds are kept hidden from those who oppose them no laws would exist. I'm not sure if that would be true either.

 

Just another two cents for the pot.

[VegasLee 1,486]

in4alook said:

Did you know you can get life in prison for anal sex in Nevada USA? Yeah you can legally pay a woman to sleep with you but anal sex gets you life.

 

Nevada was one of the first states to repeal this law. They do have a law that is very broad though that has not been tested in the courts as of this time. "Crimes against Nature". Most attorneys in Nevada feel this is in place if they ever really want to go after someone dealing with sex. Most also say that Oral sex falls into the category of "Crimes against Nature" but we have not had an anal sex law for many years.

 

Just for info.

[sereneiders 263]

I know I am going to regret this.

 

lovedoctor said:

It is also probably odd that most of us come on here to discuss our opinions. I am happy that the first amendment allows us to do so as those in other countries are not so lucky.

 

Which other countries? And how lucky do you think you are?

 

In every place there are a set of predominant ideologies that provides a valid frame for a discussion. Freedom of speech is allowed only when the arguments doesn't go beyond that frame. We can see other's people frame as very narrowed because it becomes obvious for us that certain thoughts that we're free to talk about are off-limits for them, but the same happens when they watch us: from their frame they may be able to find where our frame is narrowed.

 

I point this out because it may be read (and I' am not telling this is what you meant to say) as an assumption from your part that you're not "framed" in any way while people from somewhere else obviously is, so you may provide a more objective viewpoint.

 

This is not true, and perhaps the only way we have to enlighten ourselves is by being aware that we have a frame to deal with, and the people with a different frame are the ones able to point out where our frame is narrowed, helping us to look at things in a different way.

 

To feel lucky just because we're free to speak, shows how unaware we are about our frames (or how well we fit inside them), and become a prejudice against other people's framesets.

 

Now, I'll give you a hard time here :

 

Since I am not an U.S. citizen, I am curious to know whether you believe I am lucky or not, how much you worth my opinions at the lights of this belief, and if I should resent your comment.

 

Don't worry, that's just for you to understand how far someone can be misled from your words

 

Back to the topic... even having these different framesets, no matter how far the ideology or the philosophy are from one culture to the next, we all share laws against incest, and just incest. There should be something there worth to understand, huh?

[lovedoctor 15]

That argument is circular.

 

Sorry, I guess I didn't make myself real clear. That concept is taught in history and law courses in college. I didn't make it up myself.

[lovedoctor 15]

sereneiders said:

Which other countries? And how lucky do you think you are?

 

In every place there are a set of predominant ideologies that provides a valid frame for a discussion. Freedom of speech is allowed only when the arguments doesn't go beyond that frame. We can see other's people frame as very narrowed because it becomes obvious for us that certain thoughts that we're free to talk about are off-limits for them, but the same happens when they watch us: from their frame they may be able to find where our frame is narrowed.

 

I point this out because it may be read (and I' am not telling this is what you meant to say) as an assumption from your part that you're not "framed" in any way while people from somewhere else obviously is, so you may provide a more objective viewpoint.

 

This is not true, and perhaps the only way we have to enlighten ourselves is by being aware that we have a frame to deal with, and the people with a different frame are the ones able to point out where our frame is narrowed, helping us to look at things in a different way.

 

To feel lucky just because we're free to speak, shows how unaware we are about our frames (or how well we fit inside them), and become a prejudice against other people's framesets.

 

Now, I'll give you a hard time here :

 

Since I am not an U.S. citizen, I am curious to know whether you believe I am lucky or not, how much you worth my opinions at the lights of this belief, and if I should resent your comment.

 

Don't worry, that's just for you to understand how far someone can be misled from your words

 

Back to the topic... even having these different framesets, no matter how far the ideology or the philosophy are from one culture to the next, we all share laws against incest, and just incest. There should be something there worth to understand, huh?

 

Huh?

[pleasuretherapy 15]

I think what has really happened is that the 3-way is just someone's fantasy, not a real occurrence. Wanna bet?

[sereneiders 263]

lovedoctor said:

Huh?

 

Never mind... I let my thoughts drift there.

[jesusholmes 15]

Why not! I thought swingers were the most open minded people!! Apparently the mom and daughter feel natural about sex and nudity!! I hope some day my child will have great sex. It is fucked up if they play with each other , but hey as a guy, I'd do it!!

[sereneiders 263]

jesusholmes said:

Why not! I thought swingers were the most open minded people!! Apparently the mom and daughter feel natural about sex and nudity!! I hope some day my child will have great sex. It is fucked up if they play with each other , but hey as a guy, I'd do it!!

 

Well, let's take a house as an example. You may have more or less openings, but for that you need walls around and a ceiling over your head, if you don't, then you're not having an "open house", you don't have a house at all!

 

One thing would be feeling natural about sex and nudity, for example, talking openly about sex and going to a nude camp. If they were to play to each other, it's more than a mere "fucked up", it's to demolish your house because (supposedly) you want it to be "more open".

 

Not understanding this difference, or perceiving there are a good motivation most people around you makes such a difference, is, at least, scary.

 

BTW, it's calling my attention how correlate what people say with the way they write. Something regarding to the awareness about the law, as if the awareness and the degree people fits to grammar laws where a reflection of the way they relate with the remaining ones.

[Swing*8701 885]

If I ever wonder whether to do something, I just say it out loud and see how it hangs in the air. So say, out loud,"Should I have sex with my girlfriend and her 29 year old daughter in the same bed ?" If you're not cringing, you have other issues.

[SamuiCouple 70]

I find this pretty depressing, to be honest. I once thought that people in the swinging lifestyle had open minds...

 

Instead it appears to me more and more as if they are just in another little box. Judging everybody who is not in their box. Same as the vanilla crowd.

 

Illegal? So is Mary Jane. From posts here about that subject, nobody raised the legality of that issue.

 

If it doesn't curl your hair, it doesn't mean it's wrong. Else simple swop is just as wrong.

 

Is the world only moving from one little box to the next? Not opening up their ideas, carried around for thousands of years? We have to have boundaries where we can shout 'Wrong!' across the fence to feel safe and secure don't we....

[sereneiders 263]

SamuiCouple said:

I find this pretty depressing, to be honest. I once thought that people in the swinging lifestyle had open minds...

 

Instead it appears to me more and more as if they are just in another little box. Judging everybody who is not in their box. Same as the vanilla crowd.

 

Illegal? So is Mary Jane. From posts here about that subject, nobody raised the legality of that issue.

 

If it doesn't curl your hair, it doesn't mean it's wrong. Else simple swap is just as wrong.

 

Is the world only moving from one little box to the next? Not opening up their ideas, carried around for thousands of years? We have to have boundaries where we can shout 'Wrong!' across the fence to feel safe and secure don't we....

 

So... what's your box size? How big it should be to not be little? Too big as not having a box at all?

 

Do you really believe you don't have your own box? That is isn't as little as everyone's else box?

 

And... what makes you believe swingers are more skilled than vanilla people to understand and think about this?

 

We're humans. We're limited by definition. You find this depressing? So bad for you.

 

I won't be able to sleep for an entire month from the way your measured my box here.

[intuition897 2,177]

SamuiCouple said:

I find this pretty depressing, to be honest. I once thought that people in the swinging lifestyle had open minds...

 

Instead it appears to me more and more as if they are just in another little box. Judging everybody who is not in their box. Same as the vanilla crowd.

 

Illegal? So is Mary Jane. From posts here about that subject, nobody raised the legality of that issue.

 

If it doesn't curl your hair, it doesn't mean it's wrong. Else simple swap is just as wrong.

 

Is the world only moving from one little box to the next? Not opening up their ideas, carried around for thousands of years? We have to have boundaries where we can shout 'Wrong!' across the fence to feel safe and secure don't we....

 

When something we do harms others, it is wrong. I have said that I do not understand how this daughter's upbringing could NOT have been psychologically damaging, but having no direct knowledge of such things as incest (and not really wanting to expand my mind in that respect), I can't say for 100% certain that it WAS psychologically damaging. People go from birth to their death in whatever way they will; as long as they aren't harming others by their actions, and as long as they can assure us that they are not harming themselves, I really don't give a damn what they do.

[SamuiCouple 70]

When something we do harms others, it is wrong. I have said that I do not understand how this daughter's upbringing could NOT have been psychologically damaging, but having no direct knowledge of such things as incest (and not really wanting to expand my mind in that respect), I can't say for 100% certain that it WAS psychologically damaging. People go from birth to their death in whatever way they will; as long as they aren't harming others by their actions, and as long as they can assure us that they are not harming themselves, I really don't give a damn what they do.

 

Well put.

 

My box? It's pretty big, I think. The limits are: Don't harm others. Period. What may harm one person, won't harm another, so no hard and fast rules.

 

You're right, we're humans. We are limited. What is depressing is the mostly uninformed limits we set upon ourselves, then judge others by those limits. Loudly and sometimes violently.

 

What is depressing is that these often-changing self-imposed limits keeps us from living together in harmony, and reaching our full potential as a human race.

[FunBoy 15]

I think think someone just wanted to do a little trolling........

[sereneiders 263]

SamuiCouple said:

You're right, we're humans. We are limited. What is depressing is the mostly uninformed limits we set upon ourselves, then judge others by those limits. Loudly and sometimes violently.

 

Well, what I may say from your posting is that you're making a prejudgemental appreciation showing you didn't read the entire thread here.

 

I gave plenty of information on the motivations I have for my opinion in previous posts, before the last post that I assume you read. I believe I already justified my beliefs about this issue.

 

You may say I have the wrong information, that I misunderstood this information, that I misunderstood the original post and my information doesn't apply here... and any of these could be a valid argument. But telling people here had opined without any information where there is plenty of information posted, by providing a "little boxes" explanation is hilarious.

 

So, please, read the posts, and then come back and help me fill up and expand my little box with SOLID ARGUMENTS. Give me something to think about as to change my beliefs, instead of trying to mute the opinions against incest by claiming that we're against it because we have such a narrowed mind that it depress you.

[getnit2gethr 15]

Sereneiders, I'm sorry if I sound rude and I know your opinions are valued here, but you do sound a bit like you are on a crusade.

 

Perhaps there was a mis-translation with babblefish or something? I mean, how does "mostly uninformed limits" translate to "without any information"? And, where did you get the idea that SamuiCouple are depressed?

 

You made many arguments in your previous posts. Enough to show where you stand. Not everyone will agree. That's ok. I certainly hope you are not making these leaps just because they disagree with you.

[sereneiders 263]

getnit,

 

I guess there could be a translation problem here, if so, my mistake.

 

And I have no problem with anyone disagreeing with me. Again, I may have been misunderstood when SamuiCouple said "What is depressing is the mostly uninformed limits we set upon ourselves, then judge others by those limits". From here I thought he said they found "depressing" that some people (like myself) set limits without information (now you posted, I ask myself if I made a mistake here) for themselves, and then judge others by these limits. From my (miss)understanding, I felt the comment was harsh.

 

Now, if get this wrong, I apologize with SamuiCouple and with everyone here. The language barrier was higher than what I thought, and I should have to take more time to get it before answering back.

[jalmay 15]

Well, if the daughter was an underage or even in the early twenties, I would say NO, but as she is 29, means she and her mother are no longer mother and her child. They are both grown up women, who know what they need and want, therefore, I would say go for it, you will be enjoying beuty and wisdom in the same time.

[getnit2gethr 15]

I am relieved to hear that sereneiders. I had to say something.

 

I think SamuiCouple were simply expressing their sadness that many people in both the vanilla world and the lifestyle feel the need to impose (sometimes forcefully) their personal beliefs and morals on others, even without complete knowledge of all the facts of a situation such as this.

[sereneiders 263]

getnit2gethr said:

I am relieved to hear that sereneiders. I had to say something.

 

I think SamuiCouple were simply expressing their sadness that many people in both the vanilla world and the lifestyle feel the need to impose (sometimes forcefully) their personal beliefs and morals on others, even without complete knowledge of all the facts of a situation such as this .

 

Ok, that's what I understood, but here you have something subject to a free interpretation: all the facts about this very particular situation, or the facts this sort of situations may have in common? It seems I choose to understand the later while you choose the former.

 

Every rule may have exceptions, and for sure they do when these regards human behavior, but we'd be talking about this particular situation, and about it the only thing we have is the OP words, and so far it doesn't seem to contradict the common facts these sort of situations have and I pointed out, and because of this I said it is something "risky" with risks worth to point out.

 

My risk perception is what makes me advice against engaging in a similar situation, and after all, it is the same sort of perception everyone here gets rid of when advising against any behavior, even when there could be exceptions where these perceived risks wouldn't become real.

 

What upsets me isn't the idea in the way you posted it, but the denigrating words SamuiCouple choose to emphasize it: talking about "little boxes" to deem other people's view point, and feeling such a sadness because of these supposed "little boxes". Even when I admit I am limited in my tinny box, I won't accept anyone to have such a "poor guy" attitude towards me because of this, moreover when the fact is, we're all limited to some degree by our education and culture, as much as everyone have unique particular and useful skills to help each other enlighten and understand our experiences.

 

A forum is a place driven by these unique skills every member have, where we have the chance to take advantage of the skills others may use to help each one of us to overcome our limitations. By emphasizing the limitations to impose an idea we'd be denying these unique skills.

 

I regret not being calm nor clever enough to express this in this way from the scratch.

[Jeok 3]

Only ONE Question/Comment ... Would You let YOUR daughter into this relationship sitution?

[LOL_OMG 130]

I posted on this subject back in the day when it was on page 1. I stand by what I said back then but I would like to interject something based on what's been said since.

 

I really don't think it's relevant what your moral compass, religion, ethnicity, country of origin or frame is. And I don't care if it makes you depressed that people have a strong opinion, either way. I want to read the opinions or I wouldn't even log in.

 

To the original subject:

 

It's our job as a race to protect our youngins. You won't ever convince me that having sex with them or even in the same bed would be beneficial to them. I would lay money that this experience for the daughter would be detrimental in almost every case. So why do it? Why put your own child at risk? It's that simple.....these children (29 years old or 9 years old) are the world's future...shouldn't we treat them with reverence?

 

Okay I gotta stop now.

 

Mrs LOL

[SamuiCouple 70]

I was going to post an explanation of my statements, but decided against it. I don't need to convince anyone.

 

I apologize for any offence taken, and/or aggravation caused. It surely was not my intention. I have nothing to gain by making enemies.

 

Peace

[sereneiders 263]

Up to me, it is ok.

 

Not always we're able to pick the best words to express ourselves, sometimes we talk from our guts... this is at last, a conversation among people, and as in any conversation, there are misunderstandings, peaks of heat, thing someone may need to say or keep for him/herself. I felt that comment unfair and answered back, but I don't keep any hard feeling against anyone, moreover because I have the choice to speak and vent, and already choose to do so, so that belongs to the past by now.

 

I am not offended, you don't need to apologize for posting your ideas. Let's talk. It's like dancing, from time to time someone may step on someone's else toes, there is a reaction because of it, but you don't stop dancing because of that.

[davex100 15]

Normally I would find this situation very far fetched however about a year ago we (my gf and I) were attending the club we play at (Trapeze Atlanta). We had eaten dinner and decided to go back into the rear areas to play. While we were in the locker room undressing two ladies and a guy showed up and they had lockers close to ours. The ladies were extremely attractive one I judged to be in her 40s and the other mid twenties. They were accompanied by a nice looking man who also looked like he was in his 20s. We chatted as we undressed (as you do). We generally disrobe and put towels on to wear in the rear area of the club but noticed the younger lady just stripped down nude and was stood waiting for her "friends". They seemed very pleasant and attractive and we were definitely interested in spending more time with them in one of the play areas of the club. Then the younger lady floored us when she asked the other Lady if it was ok with her if she remained nude and hoped it didn't embarrass her, and addressed her as "Mom".

 

I exclaimed "you have to be kidding" but she answered that the other female was indeed her Mother and she had never been there before but they had found out a few weeks ago that she had played in the lifestyle and had told her that they did also. We went our separate ways. My gf and I just found it all a little weird to be honest. Later in the group room we met them again when they just happened to be laying on the mattress next to us. They had hooked up with a single guy and the mother was with him and her daughter's husband. It was the most unusual thing we had ever witnessed (and we've seen some things). We did not get involved with them even though the younger woman made it clear that she was interested by leaning over and sucking my cock for a few minutes, but we made our excuses and went to another area of the club. Throughout the night we saw them with several other partners.

[sereneiders 263]

davex100,

 

We had a similar experience at our club, although it didn't went as far as yours. There was this couple we've already seen before, a woman around 50, pretty extrovert with a guy around her age, introverted, who use to spend the night sitting at a table and looking at this woman fool around with the guys in the dancing floor. But that night they were with two other women, one 22 years old that she introduced as her daughter, and another, younger, who were introduced as a niece.

 

That seemed pretty scary for us. This mother, who talk with us before, told us this gal was her daughter from a previous marriage, that she was so sexually active that she cheated on her husband over and over, and since her daughter just married a guy "as stupid as her former husband" that for sure won't be able to satisfy her needs, she bring her daughter there as to give her the chance to meet other men and know "the truth about sex". She told us this IN FRONT of her daughter and niece! And the gals were smiling all the time. As far as we know, the gal didn't do anything but dancing and teasing guys, while the mother was doing her usual game, groping guys and teasing harder. I doubt they were up to share the same bed, but anyway, they were sharing a degree of confidence regarding sexuality, and this mother had this "pimp" attitude all night long, telling the same story to every guy she could, offering her daughter for a "good fuck", teaching her the "benefits" of cheating on her recent husband while denigrating her father big time... wow.

 

Of course, since then, we step away from this woman... it was a freaking experience.

[in4alook 15]

Quote

“It is also probably odd that most of us come on here to discuss our opinions. I am happy that the first amendment allows us to do so as those in other countries are not so lucky.”

 

Why would this be odd? And some of the people that have been posting aren’t in the US not that the first amendment applies to any forum I have ever been in. It is a privilege to post here not a right.

 

Quote

"Now if you are quoting Nietzsche, you may question the bible as a spiritual guide anyway (or just deny it, LOL). I think, with all due respect, that there are as many examples of hedonism in the Bible as there are laws against, so it is kind of a moot point. While I don't intend to debate it, we really have to be careful when we pull that up as a reference, especially given the fact that most of us do not read the original Hebrew version. We are very good at interpreting and reinterpreting until the original intent is so colored by our own agendas that it is no longer meaningful. I am not Jewish, but I have been to Temple a few times, and I am impressed with the Spirit of Community in this faith that inspired Christianity. OK, sorry~ this is off subject, but it is interesting. It does, however serve as a good example when we are seeking to use something out of context to prove a point.”

 

What was out of context, and how is it a moot point? If you believe Adam and Eve were the origin of the human species, you would also have to stipulate that their sons and daughters would have had to have had incestuous relations in order for us to be here. Since the creator set things up this way it is logical to assume that the creator condoned such actions or there would be Adam and Eve and another couple so their children could intermarry. That is fairly cut and dry IMO.

 

Is my beliefs important to the discussion? No not really. I decided to delete my explanation of them to keep from boring people. I quote Nietzsche for the purpose of showing there are usually two sides to every issue. For instance one of the ten commandments says You shall not kill, yet the creator helps Joshua and the Israelis to kill while carving out the promised land if you do happen to believe in it….

 

When you bring up religion you can expect to step on toes no matter what you say, that is why I said let the flaming begin. I am happy to see that most people are either ignoring me, or that I accomplished my purpose, gave them something to think about. I do not wish to argue with anyone or change anyone’s mind as their thoughts and beliefs are as valid as anyone's.

 

Do I think it happened??......not too sure...it could have...probably has had sometime in history. I will assume he is telling the truth. Makes for a better discussion. Let us also keep in mind no incest occurred in the first place.

 

 

Given the fact that the Mother/Daughter had been nude together sleeping in the same bed.....it is not that far fetched that she would allow this to happen. Believe it or not some people consider sex in the same vane as a massage. A simple intimate giving and receiving of pleasure.

 

And BTW thanks for the welcome!

 

Quote

“I would lay money that this experience for the daughter would be detrimental in almost every case. So why do it? Why put your own child at risk? It's that simple.....these children (29 years old or 9 years old) are the world's future...shouldn't we treat them with reverence?”

 

I would actually take that bet. I don’t believe that at 29 anymore damage could be done, and what is she at risk for exactly? A 29 year old is a woman not a child. Maybe her child but to say there is no difference in a 29 year old and a 9 year old is not logical. As far as reverence goes…some would be of the opinion that the mother is showing the daughter the highest form of reverence. Giving her, her man if even for a moment, it was when she needed it. How selfless is that?

 

See it is all in how you look at it IMO. At least in this case since we are talking about consenting adults.

 

 

About the Nevada law.......I believe this information is accurate.....

 

Quote

 

"After the Nevada Supreme Court upheld the constitutionality of the Nevada gay-only sodomy law, the legislature in 1993 amended the law making four major changes.

 

The bill made oral and anal sex criminal only when performed in public and removed the qualification that made it apply only to acts committed between adults of the same-sex. The archaic, offensive and vague language "infamous crimes against nature" was replaced with "anal intercourse, cunnilingus, or fellatio." And the section stating that "any sex penetration, however slight is sufficient to complete the crime against nature" was removed, as it was no longer meaningful with the new language."

 

 

We know someone that died in a Nevada prison a few years ago for raping a woman anally. I think it was 20 years for the rape and life for the sodomy part, but I forget the length of the rape charge.

 

So I know that at least at one point the law wasn't limited to same sex couples. This crime did happen in the seventies so I apologize if my information was out of date.

[sereneiders 263]

in4alook said:

“I would lay money that this experience for the daughter would be detrimental in almost every case. So why do it? Why put your own child at risk? It's that simple.....these children (29 years old or 9 years old) are the world's future...shouldn't we treat them with reverence?”

 

I would actually take that bet. I don’t believe that at 29 anymore damage could be done, and what is she at risk for exactly? A 29 year old is a woman not a child. Maybe her child but to say there is no difference in a 29 year old and a 9 year old is not logical. As far as reverence goes…some would be of the opinion that the mother is showing the daughter the highest form of reverence. Giving her, her man if even for a moment, it was when she needed it. How selfless is that?

 

I believe the age isn't the issue here. You're assuming at 29 the context isn't the same than at 9, as much as a woman at 29 is an adult whether at 9 isn't. But you have to notice she have the SAME mother at 9 and at 29. My problem here is that, should a mother engage in sharing a bed with her 29 years old daughter, I may suppose there were other boundaries that she broke previously, even 20 years ago when the daughter was 9 (which would be required for a woman at 29, or at any age, to feel "natural" to share her sexuality with this degree of intimacy with her mother).

 

Because of that I was talking about the personality structure required to engage in incest acts. You have an structure and you'll have it all along your life. The mother have this structure, because of this structure and the way she behave with her daughter when she was a kid, she build up a similar structure than the one her mother already have, thus is "natural" for both of them to engage in incest acts. It doesn't care WHEN it happens, if both are legally adults by then, or not: as soon as it happened, they show a symptom of this structure both of them share.

 

An the problem isn't the incest by itself, but the lack of awareness of boundaries, which, in other scenarios MAY lead to real risks, if not for them, for others, mainly for those who doesn't share the same structure.

 

Since this is an structural problem, people who doesn't share this structure perceive incest as a risk and react against it as a self preservation measure for their own structure, because the structure grounds have to do with the awareness of the law, and the degree of commitment with the law.

 

By "law", I don't mean here one specific law, written, expressing the dealing with particular behavorial boundaries set by a society at some time in history (even today), instead the paradigm of the law: that there are something forbidden that is required for the society welfare. There's ALWAYS something forbidden, if there weren't forbidden behaviors, we wouldn't have a society at all.

 

In most (if not all) cultures along history, incest (even when defined in different ways) represents the archetype for this forbidden thing, archetype we call a "taboo", so not only engaging in incest, also the way people react towards incest, expose to the society how aware they are about "the law" (the need to have forbidden things, and which things are the forbidden ones), and the commitment they have with "the law".

 

People engaging in incest shows that they also MAY ignore other forbidden things, perhaps some that MAY damage third ones.

 

People who react against incest shows that they're willing to commit with "the law" (perhaps expressing the need to fit in their societies). When trying to convince this people incest could be ok, they're forced to face things pertaining to their own identity and the way they fit in society (or wouldn't fit anymore if agreeing), they need to preserve themselves and react against the idea. And because the self identity is one of the basements for your personality, is that I say its an "structural" problem.

[Logical 15]

Jesus christ! There are so many prudish people here, which surprises me given the nature of this forum. The amount of groupthink on this forum is appalling, and it shows in threads like this one. So many people here are so quick to say how wrong/sick/whatever something is. Alot of you people don't seem to understand that you are not in the majority as far as you "lifestyle" goes. Most people would think you are sick or wrong.

 

Who cares if the daughter wants to join in? I think things like that are natural, and perfectly okay. Just because she wants to doesn't make her "messed up". By the various gods, swingers are nothing but a bunch of elitist, stuck up assholes.

 

I think the problem with the majority of you is that you'd LIKE to do something like the original poster, but you feel guilty about it because society says that it's wrong, so you draw the line somewhere. Fuck society. Society is screwed up. Heavens forbid you offend anyone, or go against society's unwritten laws.

 

Why don't the lot of you get your heads out of your asses? Think logically about something for once. Just because society says something is wrong, doesn't make it wrong. If the majority of society walked off a cliff, would you? I hate sheeple.

[WesternSwing 504]

Umm... Yeah. Right. You are right. God I'm glad you straightened me out.

 

Mr. WS

[sereneiders 263]

Logical, there are other things forums are good for. Getting to know each other, and we did, indeed.

 

Most people actually believe we're wrong, others actually believe we're sick, but as far as I know, most swingers I meet personally, and a lot of members of this board, have high moral standards.

 

Surprised?

 

The fact that we fuck around with other people, that we share our spouses with others, doesn't mean we doesn't choose who to fuck with, nor under which terms to do it. We do choose, and most of us do it on the grounds of these moral standards.

 

And I am not talking about silly morality, like "ok, we'll fuck with you but only if you come with us next Sunday to the church", there are boundaries. Incest is a basic social boundary, it is off limits. Does this turn me into a retrograded troglodyte? May be. May be too much modernity scares me. I have the right to have fear of people as much as I have the right to have fun.

 

The OP scared me, I wouldn't meet that guy nor get 100 yards close to him. And just in case, I wouldn't share my bed with someone who doesn't understand this. Luckily, you wouldn't do the same with an elitist prudish guy with the head shoved up his ass like myself.

 

Besides, I guess you already know that logic doesn't necessarily leads to the truth (if we were agreeing there exist "a truth"), it depends on the premises you start with. Wrong premises may lead you to wrong conclusions. We disagree about premises, not in the quality of our reasoning process.

 

BTW, reminding us we're against the majority because of our behavior, just to tell us later on we follow the majority like sheep have a name in logic: contradiction.

[in4alook 15]

Quote

"I believe the age isn't the issue here. You're assuming at 29 the context isn't the same than at 9, as much as a woman at 29 is an adult whether at 9 isn't. But you have to notice she have the SAME mother at 9 and at 29."

 

If you do not understand the difference between a 29 year old and a 9 year old psychologically speaking then I respectfully suggest doing some research on the subject.

 

A doctor described it this way: A human mind is like wet concrete when young. Before the age of 12 the slightest trauma can change the course of that young life. Whether it is daddy going off to war, finding his stash of Penthouses, or an inappropriate touch, these things will make a dramatic impact on a young mind. Between the ages of 12 and 18 the "concrete" begins to set (if you have teenagers you know how hard headed they can be), it takes a bit more to impact a teenage mind as compared to the prepubescent mind. It can still be damaged however. Think daddy dying in war, or molesting the child. After 18 any (I hesitate to use this word) aberrant behavior on the part of the mother, should not cause psychological damage to the daughter. More than likely the daughter would think that her mother is weird and avoid her.

 

As far as society goes I do not believe anyone has the right to tell consenting adults what they can or can't do as long as it harms no one else. This is where once again the age of the daughter comes into play. Society does however have an obligation to protect children from parents that would harm them. Once that child has reached adulthood it is the out of society's hands (or at least it should be).

[sereneiders 263]

in4alook,

 

I agree with you in everything you said. I pick the ages from a previous post, and used them very roughly speaking to point out another factor to take into account: this 29 years old woman HAD BEEN the daughter of the same mother when she was 9.

 

It is hard for me to believe the mother made a distinction about her daughter age beforehand, like thinking "ok, she's not still 18 so I won't share my bed with her, so I'll wait for her to become 18 (or whatever age) as to ensure this wont cause psychological damage to her", and even if she where thinking this way, I wouldn't believe she didn't do other things able to produce such a damage when her daughter was still young.

 

I am focusing on the mother here, and not the daughter. Such a mother is grown enough when the daughter is 29, and was gown enough when the daughter was 9, any "damage" the mother may got when she was young (and here I talk about structure and not "damage", I don't think of her as "damaged" or ill at all), already "shaped" her psyche. The argument you provided about the chances an adult have to get psychological damage applies to any significative change in his/her personality, so I suppose because of this that the mother didn't changed at her daughter age of 29, instead that she may had been shown her daughter the same sort of "lack of boundaries" all along the daughter life, in such a way she already "damaged" her daughter (again, i'd rather talk about structures) as for the daughter to feel normal to share her mother bed when she reached 29.

 

It is the mother behavior what makes me suspicious of the grounds the daughter have to entitle her own "free will" (if there exist such a thing) as to make this decision once grown up.

 

You may pick to explain human behavior by means of psychology (i do), but once you do so, you'd have to stick to this explanations all along the way, applying it for all the people involved. You cannot pick to explain the daughter behavior or chances to get damaged by means of psychology but forgetting to take in account the mother behavior by the same means.

 

This reminds me something about the crime of murdering your father or mother (it have a name I doesn't know in English). Some people say this crime shouldn't be punished the same way other murders are, nor the punishment be increased giver the close relationship among the parties, just because there's no way to repeat such a crime anymore. Someone only can kill his/her father or his/her mother just once, and no one in the world will take this role anymore.

 

The same way, we cannot emphasize the parental relationship importance, that makes this issue so particular, to deprive it from importance when thinking of the daughter as a "consenting adult", since big part of what lead this woman to be the way she is once adult, and make the choices she made once adult, came from the relationship and the models her mother gave to her before.

 

It is the mother the one who's a "consenting adult" all along the history with her daughter, the choices made by the daughter once she became "consenting adults" are signed by her mother choices along her infancy, at least you'd have to admit that way more signed by her mother previous choices than any other partner she ever will have in bed, as to suppose it is the same to lay with her mother than to lay with any other woman in the face of earth.

 

Because of this I believe it's fit to talk about the daughter as if she were a kid, and to talk about the care the kids deserve from the adults around them, and even more from their parents. Once the daughter choose to lay with her mother, it doesn't care anymore how old she is: I honestly believe the more likely is for her to get "damaged"... or to have been "damaged" before by THE SAME mother if the daughter is a "consenting adult".

 

However, I resent the word "damage" here, as much as I dislike the psychology schools talking about "normal" vs "aberrant" behavior (well, the behaviorists schools in general, pretty common in USA). I'd stick to the French ones to talk about personality structures, watching this sort of conflicts as the result of the interaction of people belonging to different structural classes.

 

Thus, I wouldn't dare to say this mother and her daughter are "ill", nor "damaged", instead that they both does what they do because they share the same sort of structure, and that I perceive this act as a threat to my structure, belonging to another class, just because it hits my structure "roots".

 

As for me, "normality" regarding to psychology is achieved when people have a limited enough degree of emotional stress as to give them the right to tell they're not "ill" while not harming others, as opposed to those who have enough emotional stress as to ask for external help to reduce it, or whose behavior could be dangerous for others.

 

On these grounds, we (this mother, this daughter, and myself) are all "normal" , but "incompatibles". And since the structure they share belongs to a minority of population, the majority, belonging to the other two classes, deem certain behaviors from the formers as "taboo".

 

All of this to say it is natural and that there exist an explanation for our reaction against the original post.