Re: virus: A "Confession" about "The Sign"

Joe E. Dees (
Mon, 24 May 1999 02:48:03 -0500

From:           	"Joe E. Dees" <>
Date sent:      	Mon, 24 May 1999 02:29:02 -0500
Subject:        	Re: virus: A "Confession" about "The Sign"
Send reply to:

> From: (Brett Robertson)
> Date sent: Sun, 23 May 1999 17:40:17 -0500 (EST)
> To:
> Subject: Re: virus: A "Confession" about "The Sign"
> Send reply to:
> > I asked my sister-in-law one time if there was a situation in which she
> > could imagine having sex with one of her sons. SHE said that she could
> > imagine it happening... perhaps in the situation where the son was
> > disabled and would never be able to have a woman otherwise.
> >
You mean where she felt sorry for the poor mother fucker (grin)! Then rent him a hooker; an incestuous pity or charity fuck isn't necessary.
> > This is just to show-- from a mother's perspective-- that sex is not
> > necessarily perversion by the definition given.
> >
Actually, I think a mother like that is a pretty sick puppy herself. It doesn't surprise me that she's family of yours.
> >
> > Another example, knowing your own mothers, sex which your mothers
> > consent to, indirectly... that is, sex which she can rationalize (ie.
> > for family and children's sakes) ARE acts which are performed upon one's
> > mother. This example suggests that if one can maintain ties with the
> > degree of acceptance that one's own mother represents (and certain ties
> > to one's actual mother in the face of certain acts performed), then
> > these acts are not perverse.
> >
So if she'd agree to let a german shepherd mount her so some mad bestial voyeur wouldn't blow one of her little darling's heads off with a shotgun, or even for carpool and grocery money, that's quite OK, ay? And YOU'RE the puritanical fist shaker here, double-r-ing (-ant & -ave) about evil and chaos and such?
> > In situations where one's own mother can condone certain acts which
> > other mothers might find perverse (and convey the acceptability to her
> > son's and daughters in a way that isn't considered "perverse" in its own
> > right), one must resort to a more pure logic... one in which "mother"
> > represents other than one's own biological mother (ie. "holy mother").
> > Only in such cases can we speak of a righteousness which might be termed
> > "immaculate conception"-- though by degrees, we can assume that this
> > standard is represented by the biological and social roles of actual
> > mothers (and to a certain extent, "fathers").
> >
Sounds like you've got an (un)healthy madonna-whore complex of your own going on there, B-boy!
> > It is a good definition. An individual's inability to imagine sex which
> > is acceptable to their own mother would be more indicative of that
> > person's perversions than of the utility of the definition (or else
> > shows a lack of imagination).
> >
I cannot imagine any sex that my mother and I could possibly perform that would even remotely approach being acceptable to either of us; but if you can imagine acceptable sex you can perform with your mother, hey! It takes all kinds! Just keep your kind away from ALL the warm bodies in my family, and their pets, hokay? BTW, have you broached this subject to your mother? That's one response I'd be interested in reading!
> Well drop those knickers and bend over, boy, your daddy's waiting
> (and if he says it's ok, I guess it is to you, too).
> >
> > Brett Lane Robertson
> > Indiana, USA
> >
> > MindRecreation Metaphysical Assn.
> > BIO:
> > ...........
> > Put your item up for auction! Bid on hot opportunities! Click HERE to
> > view great deals!:
> >
> >
> >