Underlore

All part of the plan...

Daddy’s Little Sex Pet

http://www.creators.com/advice/annies-mailbox/annie-s-mailbox-r-2010-05-02.html

The link above contains a letter finding objection with a married couple composed of a wealthy older man and a young attractive woman who has taken to calling her husband daddy. It is further explained in the comments that this is apparently a total role for her in the age play sense.

The original commenter explicitly notes the sexual element to their game and takes deep offense calling it “sick.”

Given my stance on marriage, the pedophile witch hunt, the sexualization of children, the production of jailbait, monogamy, women’s rights, I suspect many of my readers would predict I would be equally appalled at this behavior.

I am not. I take this opportunity to explain why in part I dislike monogamy so much: It is the dishonesty and the lopsided nature of the thing. But this relationship in contrast has a clear and publicly acknowledged power dynamic. It also has a clear division of finance and a clear sexual exchange element.

The level of honesty of this relationship is sufficiently high for me to find not a single objection with it. It is clear to me that there are no victims here.

Normal marriage is a trap in my view. As I’ve explained in depth and detail in many other places. I feel on the whole with very few exceptions it objectifies women and renders men unwilling hosts. Few and far between are the open honest marriages.

An honest marriage can take two forms. On the one hand, we have a situation that ignores the how shall we say, more exploitative elements. These relationships are more like partnerships. Binary people. They in effect take a buffet approach to the traditional rules of marriage. Some of these are state sanctioned and some are merely long standing cohabitations, some are open, some are monogamous. Etc.

On the other hand are relationships that embrace the power issues and openly run with them. More accepted examples are like the one above, young pretty submissive female, rich older dominant male. What could be more wholesome really from the typical American perspective? What could be more in line with the American dream? This is what you’re trained to want.

The traditionals are just jealous.

Having said that I would like to point out that she can still divorce him and take half his stuff the instant she grows bored of him. Indeed she’ll be able to use his honesty against him in court. It will now be cake for her to paint him as a sexually dysfunctional would-be incestuous tyrant. And being that she’s young and pretty (and a she) she’d stomp him in court.

Society doesn’t have a problem with buying a little girl, they have a problem with you being open about it. The desire for the ability to one day ensnare a compliant little sex pet is the expected secret dream of every man in this country. (http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=392) Those who deviate from it are often attacked.

This relationship’s tolerability to the outside will last only so long as the money is good and the girl is happy. The instant there is any kind of marital stress at all, he’s burnt.

To illustrate that point imagine how people would react if she were 30 years his senior and acted this way. Or if the genders were reversed. I think it’s abundantly clear tolerance for this is a result of sexism in the minds of most people. They don’t tolerate it for the same reasons I do. They simply look at it and “See” nothing wrong.

We expect men to secretly want to screw their jaibait daughters, we expect men to replicate this scenario legitimately by hunting young. Just look at the level of sexual obsession the traditional father has for his “little girl.”

Indeed we project this expectation on all men and all children. Which is a big reason for the pedophile obsession in America. (http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=442) Couple this with a zero tolerance policy for pedophiles (as opposed to child rapists) and their simulated pornography, and you’re going to end up with a child porn black market and a teen pregnancy rate the likes of which we see today.

On a bit of a tangent the reason for this is blamable on monogamy. Genetically men are supposed to have abandoned the family and moved on to start another WAY before the daughter even approaches sexual maturity.

By forcing the man to stay both starved of sex and in constant contact with a young fertile female who is half him, and half a mate he’s already found to be fit, is a recipe for unhealthy sexual obsession. I think this is closely related the the phenomenon of separated adoptive parents and children developing strong and confusing sexual desires for each other when they have first contact as adults. This is explainable in terms of subversion of the Westermarck effect. (https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/wiki/Westermarck_effect#Westermarck_effect)

We encourage fathers to act every bit like possessive jealous lovers towards their daughters. This has consequences.

In effect it stems from, in my opinion, a complicated circumvention of natural kin-evasion mate selection mechanisms. We are programmed to seek genetically compatible mates, and by definition family is compatible. I think this also explains royal inbreeding and the common marriage of cousins.

Indeed to keep us from inbreeding like mad, the brain has special circuits to trigger revulsion at the sight of family members in sexual contexts. Incest occurs when those triggers are blunted, ignored, overridden, or absent.

I hope this has clarified my position.

If it has not let me make a series of explicit positions statements.

1. I feel simulated child porn should be legal on civil rights grounds.

2. I do not have a problem with age play or D/s life style relationships.

3. I believe in the possibility of indulgence in fantasy for fantasy’s own sake. (I.E. Just because she likes calling him Daddy doesn’t mean she wants to sleep with her actual father.)

4. I believe that people should be able to structure their sexual lives in any way they see fit so long as no one is being harmed.

5. Annoying people in public doesn’t count as harm. (I.E. I’m a hermit because I hate you people, you won’t see me trying to force you not to annoy me, I’ll just avoid you.)

As always I welcome comments and debate. But please, try to keep it logical and civil, you could end up in my book, don’t immortalize yourself as a jackass.

Updated: April 26, 2011 — 1:27 am
  • http://girls-in-magazines.blogspot.com roman guy

    Inciteful (!) article. It is useful IMHO to assess the issue of sexual desires for minors from a rational scientific perspective. While I agree with most of what you say, I suggest that the economics and power realities also must be considered. A variety of young and attractive partners has traditionally/biologically-based been available to only men who were wealthy and powerful. I’m not saying I like that – but it is the female’s way of culling males less likely to be an ideal partner (even for a brief DNA-injecting tryst).

    For examples in men’s magazines from the 1970s of minor-attracted articles, jokes, photos, news and fiction, see girls-in-magazines.blogspot.com

  • http://friendfeed.com/innomen Innomen

    It is useful IMHO to assess the issue of sexual desires for minors from a rational scientific perspective. While I agree with most of what you say, I suggest that the economics and power realities also must be considered.

    Absolutely. Maybe you’ll enjoy my article. http://underlore.com/TBA/?p=392

    I refer to this situation in America as the pedophile witchunt. And we’re inventing the witches.

    That blog spot is outstanding, I’ll read every character of it. And I’ve saved it in-case they take it down. Rarely do I meet a journalist as brave as myself. Kudos to you sir. You’re braver than I.

    As men its dangerous to even speak of minors and sexuality in the same paragraph in writing in public. I ant even imagine the flak I’d get if I found photographic evidence of the problem.

    Again, good job and thanks for the comment. You might want to check out the rest of my sociology and psychology posts. Many of them are relevant.

  • http://gone Roman Guy

    Hmm, just posting a few publicity pieces and listing the blog on blogspot’s own search engine and my blogs are gone within one week. Well, at least one I had backed up, unfortunately the same one as you did.

    Your prediction came true. I welcomed outrage, discussion, criticism. Instead I was closed. I wonder if it was a fellow blogger (70s porno chic or ?) that caused the difficulty. I suppose I will never know

  • http://gone Roman Guy

    Over 700 posts with samples on the film site. Gone.

  • http://friendfeed.com/innomen Innomen

    I am incensed beyond words at the deletion of your blog. As I said I have a complete scrapbook backup of it, perhaps you could do a news letter instead and release them via torrent? Your credibility is greatly bolstered by being censored in my opinion. May I suggest your next post and project be all the censorship itself and include a link to a torrent of the deleted blog.

    Have you contacted Google about your blog? At the very least you could demand the content, even if they don’t host them. Their responses would make blogable material. “Google Censors American Journalists” would seem to be an attention getter.

    I’m a huge Google fanboy, today I’m disappointed in them.

Underlore © 2013