what about 13:16 on page 14? troll?

It's the juxtaposition of a woman who can label her own body parts frankly but is not able to deal with sexuality or sex. It's jarring because I would expect such a person to speak of "private parts" or "private area" not her vagina.

Anonymous wrote:
"A mom uses the word vagina but doesn't teach her nine-year old the facts of life?"

Thanks for the chuckle. I like how you linked these two.

Truly tickled here.

Actually, I don't understand what is unusual about this. What word would a mom who doesn't teach a nine-year old the facts of life use?

"A mom uses the word vagina but doesn't teach her nine-year old the facts of life?"

Thanks for the chuckle. I like how you linked these two.

Truly tickled here.

I feel this is a fake post. I'm not relying on the "She changed her story!" vibe, which I also feel is overworked on DCUM and I agree with JS about the cross-examination going on too much. No, to me it went all the way back to the original post. It's the combination of explicit language being used (the word vagina is used twice) while at the same time the context of Christian prayer is thrown in and a helpless dejected mom is asking for advice and saying she's never taught her nine year old the facts of life. It just doesn't add up for me. A mom uses the word vagina but doesn't teach her nine-year old the facts of life? And posts with dejection and helplessness when there's a possible molestation and doesn't want to tell her husband? Something doesn't add up. Something is stinkeroo. Someone is trolling with elements to appeal to too many populations and using explicit terms that will capture the immediate attention possibly of Google search.

jsteele wrote:

Anonymous wrote:And now the "father" has posted a thread. I reported that one. Something is NKR here.

That thread was a quite obvious hoax. The poster has tended to behave like a pretty serious member of our community -- even starting a couple of threads in the Website Feedback forum -- so, this was out of character. But, hopefully she will enjoy her new spot on my shit list.

how are you sure its a "her"?????

Anonymous wrote:I am starting to think this is a troll rather than a perv, at least. i think he / she is looking for drama, not stories, but I could be wrong. Either way, it's sick and I don't care if Jeff has info we don't have about her posting history, I do not buy that thread for one second.

I have long learned not to underestimate the ability of our users to spot a fake. Several of you are quite good at it. Because a number of you are so adamant that the thread in question is not authentic, I rechecked all the evidence that I have available to me. There is nothing to suggest that the thread is not truthful. But, because I respect your opinions, I am going to concede the obvious point that I have no proof that the thread is authentic. There is evidence supporting the truthfulness of the thread, but it is far short of conclusive. So, in a situation in which I find nothing supporting the thread being a fake and quite a bit to support that it is truthful, I am going to have to go with truthful. While the possibility remains that I am wrong, that possibility is not enough for me to act upon. So, in absence of something more substantial pointing to the thread being a fake, I'll give the OP the benefit of the doubt.