My grammar erred in the sentence about Piper Fawn, otherwise there's just a few punctuation mistakes. I couldn't be bothered proof reading. I wouldn't call myself a pervert or a neat freak. Animal needs must be maintained and dishes need to be washed. I am a hermit though.

Write the next chapter and explain how I got this way then.

If I'm really being purely constructive, I would advise you to say simply "founders" or "country's founders" or something a long those lines.
"Forefathers" would sound silly as you say "fathers" not a moment later.

Indistinct? I believe it to be concise and to the point; exploring all possibilities of your desired meaning.
Perhaps before giving me snide and nonconstructive advice against expressing found errors in your work (practically free editing), perhaps dig deep in that vain and vacuous mind of yours and lay the dredges to work to pull up some humility, thus gaining the ability to learn from your mistakes and grow as a writer; something, judging by your shallow expression of writing, that could be very beneficial to you.

Not at all sorry. I really liked it because it seemed like something I couldn't write at all -hah. I generally don't like things unless they sound like something I wished I had wrote or something I think I couldn't write.
They should probably arrive? *winces at own suggestion*

That's really well written. Thanks.

That was really good my friend. You um... need to understand the difference between 'were' and 'where' though.
Like I said though - really nice.

What do you mean by 'four founders'?
I think you may mean forefathers; pertaining to those who founded the US.
Or perhaps you actually put forth the proposition that the entire country's population was inbred from four founding people?

In the case that what you desired to say was 'fore founders'... well that does not make a lot of sense. Unless we are referring to those who founded england - those who founded fore our founders. But to this I would respond in a cold nasally whine "Who do you mean? William the first in regards to their monarchy?"

I would compare this with a porno making vague attempts at story line.
While arousal is sometimes preferred, more often within woman, by literary devices over visual stimulation, it is quite often for the capture of imagination. This lacks just that. I've read much eroitca and this seems an ugly couple vainly trying to see their appeal through fragmented reflective glass. Shortly; all these lines. have been said and this is a mere disordered reproduction of mainstream erotica.