This is addressed in part to me, right? You are inviting an answer?

Sure. I'm not afraid of you anymore. I'll try my best to listen to what you say and respond where I feel I need to speak up.

an unusual kid. Your call.

Every kid is unusual is one way to look at it. Another is, she's NOT unusual. Maybe YOUR view of this is unusual. Since the 'sexual abuse post', I've asked family and friends what they think of a 9yo being assisted at bathtime by grampa. Not a single objection and about 50% high approval. My culture sample is middle america; who knows what your is.

My call. That's right.

Maybe G12 has ideas.

Ha, that's funny. Know many 12yo girls? Not her problem.

Would people be interested in a fictional GM?

Not me, thanks. I like my girls and my GM's REAL.

good intentions aren't always enough

I think they are.

There is no secret to be found here.
Does this include knowledge of the special eye contact that happens more then that any other time? You wrote of much more than just supervising a bath.

Yes, it does. She and I have 'special eye contact' in public, not just the bath. I peek. I'm a pedo. Nobody else in our lives is concerned about it, just you.

Soap can remove natural oils. Water alone is best.

I'm interested in this. I can't find much info online. Can you cite?

I believe [GMs] demonstrate the pedophile as a loving human and not a monster. So your attack of mine is actually very hurtful to me.
I don't see the relationship between those statements. I know pedophiles are usually loving humans. I never suggested you are a monster; I never came close. I stated some specific concerns about what I feared might happen.

I felt that you created the relationship between those statements in your post. My GM was intended to be a sharing of an everyday event from a pedo point of view. You made it sound like a dangerous situation that needed investigation. It's what we hear constantly from anti's that call us monsters.


ROMANCE:

Your example of romantic feelings (I miss you so much, how come I can't spend more time with you? I dream about you day and night. It hurts my feelings when you don't like to play with me like we did before, etc. You don't want to give me a hug goodbye -- I'm SO sad...) is not healthy for ANY relationship. That's not what I mean by romantic feelings.

What I do mean is that romantic love does not need to be limited to "being in love" any more than it requires sexual expression. The mother of g9 & g12 once told me that her girls will decide what kind of husband (father of their children) they will want based on their relationships with their daddy, grampas, and other males close to the family. She encourages cuddle time and sweet talk and lots of 'I love you's'. Both of us once showered g9 when she was g7 with caresses and admiring words as g7 soaked it all in and 'cooed' with satisfaction and knowledge of being loved. It was intentionally romantic. We told her THAT is what it feels like to be loved. It's a lesson and a valuable one. She now knows what it feels like and can judge her suitors intent better than if we never did that.

I am sorry for making you feel bad. But I just can't apologize for raising an issue about the potential welfare of your girls. I should think you might thank me.

Thank you for being concerned about my girls. Your apology for 'making me feel bad' is accepted but that's not the important part I wanted apology for. I wanted apology for assuming I was being a selfish pedophile and was not considering my girls welfare.

One way of looking at this situation that you think my criteria for worrisome consequences are stricter than the ones some people here use -- but they are nowhere near the paranoia of modern societal standards.

It's not that I think your criteria is stricter than most people at GC. It's that you jump to worrisome consequences too easily. It's that you DON'T "mostly give the benefit of the doubt". I'm afraid that I disagree here; I feel like you are just like the paranoia of modern societal standards in this case.

-hugs-