Why not propose a scheme along these lines? The first number is the age of one partner, and the range of numbers is the range of people of a certain age who can legally have sex with a person of first. It goes for any combination or number of sexes.
The thing that really bugs society is the whole ADOLESCENCE/children question around the consent laws. In theory, we have no immediate moral problem with a 25 year old fucking an 80 year old, since both of them have made the mystical transition into adulthood. However, we say that a 40 year old and a ten year old is RIGHT OUT. To quantify the ages so precisely around adolescence seems strange, as well. To accomodate this, we could have less nasty non-jail sentences (seeing a shrink/community service) for, for example, an 18 year old tapping a 13 year-old), all the way up to whatever age is right-out. Send a 25 year old who got with an 8 year old to jail. The process of fixing the age cutoffs could be helped by the psychological establishment.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-06 5:06
Wow, this is actually a good idea. Good luck getting the godlings to accept it though. Both graduated sentences and consents would change things a lot, and remove the nasty habit the addicts have of killing (because murder brings less punishment than being considered a paedo in some places.)
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-06 9:14
>>1
so.....a fourteen year old is only allowed to have sex with someone seventeen or younger, but a twenty year old is allowed to have sex with a fourteen year old...
confusing, and contradicts itself. sounds like it'll fit right in with the rest of the legal system.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-06 11:29
I think this is a stupid idea because traditionally sex has always meant adulthood, something that adults do. That is, anyone who have sex is an adult. Therefore this number range would cause more of a sense of 'unfairness'.
Regarding the limit of 18 years for the age of consent (in the US): anyone under that age cannot legally fuck. That was what made the law originally 'fair' -- because anyone under that age is not considered an adult and not able to fuck. But now that 17 and 16 year olds are fucking each other and not being punished for it, there is a sense of 'unfairness' in the law in that no one over 18 can fuck them and so they are seen as special.
In conclusion, this is retarded but something similar is implemented in New Zealand (I think).
However, we say that a 40 year old and a ten year old is RIGHT OUT.
I am sure society would not like a 40 year old fucking a 10 year old but I am equally as sure that society would not like a 13 year old fucking a 10 year old.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-06 12:25
as soon as someone hits puberty, sexing them should be legal. parental consent for under eighteens may make sense, but outright illegaling sex to young people, even after they have all the appropriate hardware and hormones telling them to do so, that's just a recipe for not-goodness.
forty year olds sexing ten year olds might not be socially acceptable, but eighty year olds sexing eighteen year olds is looked down upon too, yet still perfectly legal. social acceptance shouldn't have any bearing on legal 'right' vs 'wrong'. it's just 'ewwww'.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-06 16:02
>>3
hence the qualifier 'a scheme along these lines', dumbass. I was just brainstorming ranges-anyone can sit down and make them consistent with a litter effort. Why don't you?
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-06 17:07
Although age is just a human concept to mark time and not everyone hits puberty at the same time, anyone under 18 shouldn't be sexing anyway unless they have the ability to handle the results of said sexing. It is assumed someone over 18 has the ability to take care of themselves and offspring and if not they can rot in jail better than someone under 18. If you want to sex someone that has hit puberty, fine, but you should have the legal obligation to the results and not just financially. If you want to sex someone that hasn't hit puberty you should kill yourself.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-06 22:58 (sage)
>>7
And that's why the good Lord gave us contraceptives and abortions!
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-07 1:34
That's ridiculous, even conservative american researchers put the pedo rate at like 1 in 4 men and thats with a lot of denials, or people who just don't know they do. its probably more like half, or can't be distinguished
Fact is, i don't give a fuck what you want to sex, be it young, old, or not human. We simply need the laws to keep society in place, therefore obey them for the sake of the law, not morals.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-07 10:15
>>7 "anyone under 18 shouldn't be sexing anyway unless they have the ability to handle the results of said sexing"
then anyone cant have sex until they're like, what? 40?
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-07 10:29
So, you're saying that you can have sex with a person if their age is x1.34 +-92/145 + the square root of pi + or - 5, right?
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-07 10:30
I don't know, this seems stupid and a waste of time.
>>10
all one really needs is a reasonable income and the responsibilty to handle their own family. raised properly, a boy can be a productive head of a household by the time they hit puberty, and a girl can be a productive keeper of a household by the time they hit puberty. if such people have the means and ability to sustain their own family, they should be allowed the option.
(this is, of course, assuming a traditional marriage way of doing things. other options do exist, but the basic premise stands.)
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-07 23:28
>>14
you stupid, what the hell is a matter with you?
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-07 23:34
>>14
And you think that's an attractive option, when all his friends are trading baseball cards and eating twinkies?
No, you fuckhead, kids do not have the ability to be responsable.
Sure, 13-17 year olds are both physically and emotionally equipped to bear offspring--it just depends on the enviroment they're in.
Imagine a 14-year old girl giving birth some 10,000 years ago in a small tribal village. She wouldn't have to take care of the baby all by herself, she would have the support of her mother, sisters, aunts, cousins, tribemates, and even the goddamn father! In today's modern culture, where school, universities and expanded career choices have extended childhood well into the 20's ("adultolescense"), your average 14-year old is not well-prepared for childrearing, she would be thrust out into the scornful world as a pariah and a liability with no one to look out for her. Hell, even 24-year olds no longer have the social/financial ability to raise a kid!
In short, this isn't the bronze age. </armchairprofessor>
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-08 0:37
Sure, 13-17 year olds are both physically and emotionally equipped to bear offspring--it just depends on the enviroment they're in.
Imagine a 14-year old girl giving birth some 10,000 years ago in a small tribal village. She wouldn't have to take care of the baby all by herself, she would have the support of her mother, sisters, aunts, cousins, tribemates, and even the goddamn father! In today's modern culture, where school, universities and expanded career choices have extended childhood well into the 20's ("adultolescense"), your average 14-year old is not well-prepared for childrearing, she would be thrust out into the scornful world as a pariah and a liability with no one to look out for her. Hell, even 24-year olds no longer have the social/financial ability to raise a kid!
In short, this isn't the bronze age. </armchairprofessor>
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-08 8:23
>>18
a large portion of a modern education is 'extra' stuff which doesn't actually help one earn a profitable living. sure, things like Shakespeare, social studies, and calculus are nice things to know, but if you're training as a carpenter or auto mechanic, they're pretty much useless.
specializing one's education from an early age allows one to become fully productive much faster. focussing on a career and keeping up to date with current innovations is not unfeasible for someone starting in their teens.
Not everyone needs to be a doctor or a lawyer with years upon years upon years of education mashed into their skull.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-08 9:39
>>20
Cuz this world needs more idiot savants, amirite?
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-08 12:37
plus, learning does not stop at marriage. you can still read shakespeare and go to college after you are married you know.
also, >>18's "in this modern world" argument is flawed because the kids will be raised differently.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-09 1:31
>>1
if a fourteen year old is sexually active, what difference does it make if he/she is doing the deed with another fourteen year old, vs an eighty year old? why should it be 'okay' for one and 'wrong' for the other? either way, sex is sex.
>>23
Truth. If someone is sexed, it should't matter who it's by to everyone else.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-09 5:59
>>23
Sex in not just sex. With it often comes social and economic consequences, and I don't just mean pregnancy. Seriously, how many guys would expect sex after paying for a date, or women have a sexual attraction to wealthy men? A lot of people don't consciously think about that when they want a fuck, but sex does have this "power" dimension. Sex is in many ways similar to possession.
In "less enlighted" periods of history, women WERE possessions. This is because of 1)sex and 2)kids. I can have sex with my woman, you can't. It was the easiest way reconcile law and sex. But times have changed. Laws partially reflect morals. Sex is liberalised greatly in many countries. Yet, there is stigma and taboo. These are not things so easily changed. To say that there is no moral problem with a 25 yr old fucking an 80 yr old >>1 is not true. It just has no immediate legal consequence.
You know what, maybe the current laws SHOULD be revised. But it won't come without a great deal of campaigning and education and fighting for your point of view. You never know, people might accept it eventually; no right comes without a fight. But given the current state of US politics, I wouldn't be too optimistic.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-09 10:17
>>Sex is in many ways similar to possession.
Exactly why it shouldn't be allowed for little kids. Older people will take advantage of younger people when such a large age gap exists. It's human nature.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-09 12:37
>>26
Not talking about little kids here. We are talking about after puberty.
And sex is sex. Somthing adults do. If you are having sex, you are an adult. Little kids don't have sex.
Kids just gone through puberty are still kids themselves, and naive and ineffectual in a great many respects. If you don't understand this simple principle, then you're not too far removed from puberty yourselves. sex between persons of very different ages usually connotes a "power question", and it's much easier for a middle aged man to abuse a younger teenager (which is not to say that it's not often the case that a middle aged man can abuse a middle aged woman) Why then, do we not pay special attention to the adults who are abused? For one thing, it's another discussion. In the second place, criminology starts with the assumption that abuse is a usual component when there extreme age gaps-and one participant is on the shy side of adulthood, having practically no autonomy.
HOWEVER, it is pretty nuts to me that a 17 year old and a 21 year old can have sex and one of them gets in legal trouble for it-that's what spurred me to suppose a graduated law in the first place, and that's what spurred me to think that there must be a (happier) medium. Some states already have statutes in a similar spirit. The idea of these laws is not to condone early sexual contact, but to remove an unnecessary stigma from two young people experimenting. All laws with respect to abuse, assault, and rape remain intact.
Finally, >>27, you are obviously wrong when you make the blanket statement that "if you are having sex, you are an adult". Lots of folks may make it to full fleged adulthood with minimal sexual contact, but most don't. It's-gee-a component of the TRANSITION to adulthood, for most people. The false dichotomy of "adults" and "little kids" is also inadmissable, since the main group under discussion is adolescents. As for 12 and 13 year olds who do get caught doing things, I don't see too much use for the law, except if there was an abuse of some kind.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-09 16:24
Consensual sex is consensual sex no matter what psychobabble you filter it through and it should not be illegal.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-09 21:58
>>28
should it not be the parent's responsibility to ensure that their children aren't sexing irresponsibly when they hit puberty? there are already laws in many places where a child may be sexed or married even if they're below the age of consent, if the parents give their consent as well. this, to me, makes much more sense than a gradiant which just makes things more complex and provides no visible advantage.
you are naive in this respect: part of the passage from adolesence into adulthood involves working around parental control. There are two main reasons to keep your kids from having sex: 1. STDs 2. Pregnancy. Either of these could be treated as a form of abuse in the right setting.
THE POINT, FROM THE BEGINNING OF THE THREAD, HAS BEEN THIS: ADOLECENSE, FROM A PSYCHOLOGICAL STANDPOINT, IS VERY DELICATE. IT DOES NOT MAKE MUCH SENSE TO CREATE A GREAT STIGMA (POSSIBLE JAIL TIME) FOR TWO YOUNG ADULTS WHO HAPPEN TO HAVE SEX IN A CONSENSUAL FASION. It DOES
lastly, whoever you are, stop saying 'sexing'. It's fucking annoying.
MAKE SENSE TO CREATE LAWS WHICH ARE MORE SENSITIVE TO THE SEXUAL PROBLEMS OF ADOLESCENSE, WHATEVER THEY TURN OUT TO BE.
As for your MAIN point: YES. GOOD PARENTING SHOULD PREVENT TEENAGE SEX. I am quite frankly in favor of most people skipping sex until they are around 16-20, preferably on the older side of that margin. This does NOT imply that we need to make it patently illegal for there to be ceratin contact between persons of a certain age. That's part of what I'm arguing for.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-10 3:22
I am in favor of having sex whenever you want, as long as its consensual not taking advantage of anybody. I think underneath all the very old-styled analysis is just people who are disturbed by the fact that children/teens have a sex drive.
Despite what we say, we all know how likely it is to catch STDs in a normal school environment, and how little pregnancies result considering how much teen sex there must be.
Put simply, the REAL problems here are
1. We don't have a cure for all STDs
2. Americans tend to have something against abortion
3. While most kids/teens who have sex are informed enough not to risk STDs or pregnancy, there are still kids not properly educated on the matter.
The saying that people shouldn't have sex at the time when they want it most is kinda like saying we shouldn't leave the house cause we might get hit by a car, trip and fall.. etc. Every single animal and humanity up till about now has fucked like crazy during puberty, its natural. I think its kind of ironic how we see it as a stigma just when contraceptives and medicine become widely available. Then again only north americans and the religious islamic think this way about teen sex.. so I'm not sure.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-10 5:20
You're all wrong! Kids should be pure innocent virgins till they're 30!
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-10 6:54
are you guys trying to say society's laws are wrong? how dare yOU?!@ =P life doesn't r-evolve around strict laws or guidelines. iow we are not robots. however, living in this current society learn to deal with your own choices and not bitch at what you already knew to be against the grain.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-10 9:09
>>31
"you are naive in this respect: part of the passage from adolesence into adulthood involves working around parental control."
you say this as if it's a good thing. adolescence->adulthood should, if anything, be more strict on 'follow the rules', because that's what adults are expected to do. once they're out and on their own, they can ignore their parents control if they so desire. it's their own problem then.
if teens have sex without their parents approval when they're old enough to know right from wrong but not experienced enough to properly understand the consequences of their actions, they should be punished, either by the parents or by the law. anything else would be irresponsible. shoplifting and murder aren't 'okay' if they're just done for the purpose of experimenting and fun, why should sex with minors be?
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-10 9:44
>>36
what the fuck. you are confusing sex with minors and sex between minors and mixing up everything to ultimately say nothing.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-10 12:54
>>36
because sex with minors doesn't compare to shoplifting and murder?
i think its only in america that parents think teens don't know the consequences of sex, i'm not sure how true this is, but in most other places it happens that teens know more about risks like STDs/pregnancy than their parents do. Can't say the same for children though
i don't see why you would need your parents approval to have sex, your consequences are your own, if some kid beat some other kid with a baseball bat, he didn't ask for his parent's approval, not that it would matter if he planned on carrying it out. It's like asking your mom if you can go to the bathroom every time, the point of growing up is to handle these things yourself, you don't magically become immune to sex risks once you pass 18.
i think its fairer to say that the few teens/kids that do in fact rape another or get somebody pregnant when they don't want to be, are the ones that be punished by law.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-10 18:55
>>37
i'm afraid i don't understand. how is sex between minors not the same as sex with minors? they both involve minors, and they both involve having sex with them.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-10 19:09
A fourteen year old getting pregnant by a fifteen year old, neither of which is economically responsible enough to handle the child, or a fourteen year old getting pregnant by a thirty-two year old with a steady job and fully capable of supporting a family? I don't understand why anyone would consider the first option preferable.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-10 20:41
>>40
No one prefers the first option, although you are trying to imply someone does just so you can paint the second option in some positive light, perhaps to justify it. Society does not prefer either option, but they do find the second one more abominable.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-10 20:46
>>41
what the hell. are you retard? why would the second option be worse. i would think the second is much more preferable since the kid will be born in a healthy environment.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-10 22:24
Hahahaha, healthy environment? This couple with a 18 yr age difference will be subject to media/public scrutiny. Will 32 even be able to keep his job? I suppose the parents of the fourteen yr old have no say in this. Is 14 supposed to have a life any more? Who's looking after the kid when everyone's off to work/school. Or maybe 14 should quit school. I know teen pregnancy is the norm in some hick towns, but what about in the rest of the civilized world? Where is this healthy environment?
Are YOU retarded? Do you deny society things badly of both? Do you deny society reacts more adversly to a pedophile than to teen sex? The second option is worse because society says it is. I did not express my opinion on which is worse.
Name:
40-san2005-11-10 22:35
>>41
pregnancy is a risk of sex between a man(boy) and woman(girl). both options i specified are possible, and if two people have sex they should acknowledge the risks thereof. i'm not trying to 'imply' or 'justify' anything, merely adding an extra perspective to the situation.
regardless of what i think about the two people involved themselves, the welfare of the potential child must be accounted for. he/she often ends up being a victim, and is the only one involved who doesn't actually get a say in the situation.
responsible sex involves both participants being willing and able to support a child. condoning minors to have sex with each other before they can support a child, while outright forbidding more responsible people from having sex with minors just because of the age difference, i consider that abominable.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-10 22:50
You guys act like pregnancy is the rule in teen sex and not the rare exception. Wouldn't it be an easier and practical solution to concentrate our efforts on contraceptives, abortion rights (if you're a supporter), and STD cures/preventions? I mean lets face it, even in conservative places sex among teens is probably rampant, just as it's always been, everywhere. Remember when you were a teen? Sex will happen anyway, lets bring out the education and the condoms.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-10 23:03
>>45
exception, yes. but still a risk. you wouldn't take a shotgun and just fire randomly around the street just because the chances of actually hitting someone are low. if you hit someone, and he dies, that's homicide, and you would be held responsible for it.
if you have sex, and a child is conceived, it's the parent's fault, and they should be ready to take responsibilty for it. contraceptives are not 100% effective, STDs are irrelevant, and abortion is (in my opinion, at least) murder.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-11 0:48
>>46
I didn't say it wasn't a risk, i said it was a far smaller risk than the alarmist media would like you to believe. But the point still remains that its not conceivable to avoid sex in teens, wether you want to or not, or wether people think its right or not. The whole idea can't be implemented unless you result to inhumane restraints, even in the Victorian age with the castrations and such, teen sex was still rampant. Point being that the theory of teens not having sex may be a nice thought, but in reality will never happen. Therefore we have to resolve to the next best thing against unwanted pregnancies and the like.
I have no doubt that if a minor has sex and ends up pregnant, we would shift blame on the parent, the key here is to avoid such a situation, weather by abstinence (not likely), or contraceptives (works at least most of the time)
Make no mistake, I do not envy pregnant teens the same reason I don't think the world needs any more people, i just think we should fight teen pregnancy with realistic, efficient means.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-11 1:23
>>44
Responsible people are not forbidden from having sex with minors. Responsible people know not to do it to begin with. It's the irresponsible people that the law is there for. While minor with minor sex should not be condone (and I don't think it is), we treat minors as minors because they're stupid, rash, lack self-control, but maybe we should send them to prison too?
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-11 8:21
>>38
Parents are legally accountable for their children. That is not to say children have no rights beyond their parents. Rather it is difficult and ultimately arbitrary where you draw the line, but it has to be drawn.
Now one could ask why differences are recognised between adults and minors exclusively, and not divided further into specific age groups. It's not difficult to give proximate factors for the current division. For the sake of convenience, as well as good enforcement of the law the difference is arbitrarily determined so, set by precedence made in the past. We simply haven't reached the stage where adolescents have legal standing more fitting to their "effective" freedoms and responsibilities. The shift to greater acknowledgement of adolescents as an important legal demographic would be a welcome move. Nevertheless, no matter what happens, someone will feel left out. Throwing tantrums because you can't legally hit lolis a couple of years too young isn't the right attitude either.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-11 13:19
>>47
i fully accept that teens will have sex (or, at the very least, try to). however, as >>44 pointed out, sex can result in pregnancy, and bringing a child into an environment which can't support it is just irresponsible.
rather than allowing teens to marry and raise a family legally (regardless of age of the partner), society expects them to either stew in their hormones for years, or engage in irresponsible (and possibly illegal) sex which can put a newborn child at risk. neither option seems particularly desirable to me.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-11 17:32
I don't think the whole debate should be about weather teens can have sex or not. Like that other guy said, they're teens. When i was a teenager EVERYONE wanted sex, we all knew about pregnancy and other risks, but we all still wanted it. Is it lack of self-control? Yes. Is it the raging hormones? Yes. But since we already established that kids don't have the maturity to practice safe sex or abstain from sex, wouldn't it be more practical to stop pregnancies at the level which we CAN control (Contraceptives/Education)?
It doesn't matter if its irresponsible or illegal, it will happen anyway. We all know what its like being a teenager. So instead of trying to stop every teen from having sex, which I don't think is possible, why not hand out condoms? Make better condoms/contraceptives? Tell them the real details to safe sex instead of trying to scare them? Granted this won't stop all unwanted pregnancies, but i think its the right step towards it.
Name:
i hate everybody2005-11-13 9:17
why not just sterilize all the teenagers? since they have proven that NOTHING can keep them from fucking, why don't we just acknowledge that they are all immoral and disgusting and deal with them accordingly?
teenager = disease vector
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-13 9:20
If they are old enough to bleed, they are old enough to butcher.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-13 9:49
I have never had sex, and don't believe I ever will. For that matter, I've never even kissed.
I'm 20.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-13 9:50
Therefore, people shouldn't be having sex because it makes me jealous and forlorn at the bliss I was denied during my childhood!
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-13 10:06
I am wanking
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-13 10:36
>>43
Just because society thinks something is a bad idea, does not actually make it a bad idea. As mentioned back in >>5, social acceptance shouldn't have any bearing on legal 'right' vs 'wrong'.
Go back a generation or two, and blacks didn't have the right to sit in the same restaurant as whites. Go back even further, they weren't even allowed basic freedoms. Further yet, and women weren't even allowed to make decisions on their own. Society accepted these as a matter of course, just because that's the way things were.
Society doesn't accept minors having sex with anyone past the age of majority. This isn't in doubt. It does not make it wrong, and should have no bearing on any laws in this regard.
Presumably you live in a country which supports basic freedoms such as freedom from discrimination.
Ageism can be just as discriminatory as racism and sexism. Saying that teens aren't responsible enough to raise their own family and choose who to have sex with (regardless of the age of the partner), just because they're not eighteen yet, is no better than saying women can't vote just because they're not men, or blacks can't own property just because they're not white. Going along with society in this regard, or even just avoiding to speak out against it, just makes the problem worse.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-13 10:43
Go back a generation or two, and blacks didn't have the right to sit in the same restaurant as whites.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
They still shouldn't. They are disgusting beasts and are walking AIDS factories.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-13 10:44
All I know is that I find little boys and girls sexually attractive. I am 40. Is this unusual?
>>65
You are pretty fucked up in the head if you find nude pix of a pretty 16 year old gross.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-15 21:29
You are pretty fucked up in the head if you find nude pix of a pretty 16 year old gross.
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Amen to that!
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-15 22:16
If it was Rosie O'Donnel at 16, it would be gross.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-16 1:02 (sage)
>>69
Actually, I do. Even at 16 most of them are obviously immature. They still have baby fat, and their figures aren't quite developed yet. It's not until >17 that they fill out. 18? 19? Now you're talking.
You might be interested in studies of primate sexuality. Only the deviants bother with immature females, the rest ignore them. If you think 16 is mature, you're living in a fantasy land (or are too stupid to recognize exceptions when you see them).
Or just want to rationalize your kink. gb2/l/ pedo.
Name:
female anony2005-11-16 10:12
>>72
I hearby nominate thee stupidest poster ever. Yes you even beat the scientologists just now. And primates are ugly fuckers, why would you study them? Study big kitties and wolves and sponges, they're cute.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-16 22:20
Oh, no! I'm being called stupid by a pedo! One with the dumb nick "female anony" too (rofflecopter)!
Wait, I'm being called an idiot by a rationalizing 4chan retard! One who understands the issues of scientific validity in animal studies!
Holy shit, clearly I am wrong! No, wait...
Stop pretending everyone is like you dipshit. You're a fucking deviant, and your attempts to prove otherwise are fucking pathetic. Ever seen a boylove forum? You sound just like them.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-16 22:25
lol
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-16 23:33
>>74
you're a fucking retard. 16 is immature? what fantasy land are you living in? oh right, america. gb2 whatever shithole in there. kthx
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-16 23:40
Many porch ape jigaboos are grandmothers by 16.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-17 1:15 (sage)
>>76
You bet they're immature. How old are you, 18?
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-17 3:13
I wonder if that Ludwig guy posted here...
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-17 10:11
>>78
whatever, you old coot. if you don't want to see your daughter grow up, it's your own fucking problem.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-17 12:41
im 20, i live in holland, and i can tell you that almost every kid from age 12 and up fucks far before they reach your so called "adulthood".
and in retrospect i dont think its that bad that these teens fuck each other. go ahead, experiment whatever you want. good for your social skills with the ladies later on in life.
as to the op, i think its not that harmful if teens mess around with each other. its when someone who fully understands how it works "uses" a younger person, thats where it goes wrong.
how to be the judge of this? fuck if i know, i dont mess around with any girl under 16 because jesus fucking christ, try to conversate with a girl in puberty... you'd go crazy within 10 minutes.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-17 13:00
Adulthood and maturity can be obtained at very different times. I'll use myself as an example. When I was 13 I had sex with a 12 year old, we were both educated on STDs and pregnancy but we were both virgins, had clean parents, and used protection. I've been going on 4chan since I was 12 --I am 15 now (lol underage b&)-- and I've been using the internet all the time since I was 10. I was exposed to a lot of stuff, sure I had a stage where I was emotionally troubled, but then I realized I was being dumb and got over it.
There'd be no reason for either of us to get in trouble, we both understood and conscented to the situation, hell, there's even a 20 year old who I have had sex with on a couple occasions. Sure, it may be illegal but I'm not some dumbass who is going to completely disregard the fact that I could get an STD or get someone pregnant.
Education and proper protection are what is really needed, not laws saying how horrible anyone is who has sex with a minor.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-17 21:26
All I know is pre-teens are hot. I want a few for Christmas.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-17 21:26
All I know is pre-teens are hot. I want a few for Christmas.
>>87
what about that one women's pedo organiztion? or the girl version of nambla lol``````````````````
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-18 21:53
nothin' quite like anal with a 9 year old.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-21 0:35
>>72
Certainly doesn't explain the popularity of "barely legal" teen porn (dressed as sexually naive catholic or japanese schoolgirls) or hollywood's obsession with teen starlets and fasion (ambercrombie & fitch).
Not saying I'm disagreeing with your moral viewpoint, just that the "sexually immature" look (by way of physically immature adults) seems to be more popular than you take it. It's connected to the sexist "I claim this virgin land" thing, or simple sexual insecurity ("the younger she looks, the bigger a man I feel").
That, and many 12-16 year olds CAN pass for over 18 these days.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-21 0:53
"Barely legal" are still at least 18 year-old women. They're decently developed, yo. I doubt most people would be interested in a real girl of 16, unless the person is younger than ~20. They're fat and skinny in the wrong places.
That, and many 12-16 year olds CAN pass for over 18 these days.
12 as 18? No way. One in a million.
16 as 18? Maybe 1 in 40, but those that do... bother me, because I like it. Unf. :(
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-21 1:08
I really do think that people bothered by an attractive 16 year old are truly fucked in the head and need to see a psychologist.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-21 1:27
>>91
So you can tell the difference betwen a 16 and an 18 year old? Those two years make THAT much of a difference in physical developement!? Fuck, I can't tell the difference!
I'm sure maturity takes a little longer than that...
You'll be proud to know that I failed with flying colors...
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-21 2:03 (sage)
>>92
I think people over 20 who want to fuck a 16 year old need to visit a psychologist. Oh no.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-21 2:45 (sage)
>>94
Passed both (1/5 and 2/5). So, it seems I can.
Of course, few of the 16 yo girls I've seen in the girls' schools near my house look that good. Showbiz uses lookers, so it's a biased sample.
Except for the anorexics, that is. Too fucking many of them.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-21 2:53 (sage)
Eh, sexual attraction to adolescents isn't something one can "grow out of" quickly and easily. A man in his 30's and older--with the attraction being a primary or exclusive one (thus a paraphilia)--is in rather poor taste. But a young man in his early-to-mid 20's, the memories of his high school days still fresh in his mind, may not be so psychologically unsound (especially since many adultolescents are still mentally immature and inexperienced) unless he is obsessed with it. This isn't a absolute, black and white debate. Human sexuallity is painted in shades of gray.
Hell, how many european countries have their AoC at 14/15?
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-21 3:15 (sage)
>>91
You know that physically underdeveloped 18+ year olds exist, right? Not everyone is instantly an adult at 18 years, 0 days, 0 hours.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-21 3:40 (sage)
haha I fail hard at the test...
but 16 is legal here so boyah!
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-21 5:02 (sage)
>>91
Nah, but the law says they are. It's arbitrary, but the line has to be set somewhere. Imagine the mess if everyone was a case-by-case basis.
There's nothing inherently wrong with an 80 year old doing it with a 12 year old. Your ingrained sensibilities might find it aesthetically unpleasant, and society will no doubt make trouble for the unconventional couple. But it's the gawkers that make it a problem, not the wrinkled dick going into a young pussy.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-21 19:13 (sage)
There's nothing inherently wrong with an 80 year old doing it with a 12 year old.
I love unfounded assertions.
Here, can I make some wild claims too? It's okay, right?
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-21 19:33
>>103
What? This is morality we are talking about. So there is nothing inherently wrong in that nothing bad is going to happen unless you listen to some quacks. That is all.
Just saying it's so doesn't make it so; support what you say.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-21 23:03 (sage)
>>105
how exactly is one supposed to support an assertion like that? list off all the things that are inherently wrong, and if the list is empty, then success?
it can easily be disproven by listing even one thing that /is/ inherently wrong.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-21 23:28 (sage)
>>106
Well then, there's a little problem with that assertion, isn't there. If you can't support it, it's just fantasy.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-21 23:42
I quit this board.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-21 23:43
I believe there is something wrong with such large gaps in age.
With each year of our life we hit new problems and responsibilites. A 14 year old can not mentally, financially, or happily fill his or her half of a loving two-way relationship. The pressure exerted on a child expected to fuffil the responsibilities of someone much older usually leads to deap seeded psychological problems.
There is alot more to these relationships then just sexual consent. People who seek these relationships usually missed out on that aspect on their childhood. They see this innocence as secure, safe, and appealingly dangerous. If a older man has always had problems with woman his age or older, traumatic problems, he'll usually seek younger girls for mental security/dominance. This is a major problem, younger folk, their constantly changing in a hormonal process where in one year they can change from a silent pre-teen to an annoyingly noisey teenager. People who invest in mental security (this is manifest in their lives, espeacially their sexuality) with minors are in for a rude awakening. Nothing good can come of these relationships, fast-fowarding a child's innocence and reversing the adult's mental state. It attempts to find some medium but it's so large that it runs thin, and collapses.
The reason why pre-teen and teenage romance is frowned upon, even within appropriate age groups, is because they are not developed mentally to bring everything they could to a relationship. Children and Teenagers are usually prohibited to work, drink, drive and a dozen others because of similiar reasons. They just aren't ready, and don't mistake looking ready to actually being ready.
Societal norms have always taken cue from Biology, and the only situation where younger/older relationships was seen as anything less then a taboo were in situations of instense need (small villages, small birth rates, low survivablity).
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-21 23:58
>>108
Oh, we're really sorry! It won't happen again! Please come back!
We care about you! We really doooooo!!!
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-22 8:53
Everyone wilfully continues to miss the point and make unnecessary extrapolations. The point is not that teenagers should enter into sexual relationships, or even to assume that they are can cope emotionally with everything that comes their way in a sexual relationship. The point is that it's dumb that certain things are illegal.
I'm right.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-22 20:08
>>110
The sad thing is that 108 and 110 are really the same person. :-)
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-22 20:26
Someone explain the "are the same person" meme to me. Without ID there's no way to know.
Name:
Anonymous2005-11-22 20:51
>>111
We come to this problem. There are no list of conditions for making something illegal. It is done on the whims of congressmen and the supreme court.