Where do we line up to high 5 this kid? I don’t think she should be in trouble for having sex with a 16 year old male. It should I suppose be asked if she used her authority to take advantage of him somehow, and THAT should get her in trouble… But come on. I very much doubt she had to say “Timmy if you don’t fuck me, I’ll fail you”. Assuming her exhusband isn’t dead, and she hasn’t had him fertalize any eggs, you can hardly call a 16 year old who got laid by a CHEERLEADING TEACHER a victim.
[quote]four60 wrote:
Would you feel the same if the teacher was a 34yr old male and the kid a female?[/quote]
It’s not politically correct to say so, but I wouldn’t feel the same, because it’s not the same. Different biology / hormones, gender roles, etc… make a teenage boy a VERY different animal than a teenage girl, and a middle aged male very diferent than a “milf”.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
[quote]niksamaras wrote:
Well, as long as I don’t look him in the eyes or kiss him it is not gay.[/quote]
Still quite gay…[/quote]
Excuse me?
Everyone knows that as long as you dont make eye contact its not gay!
Or if it happens when you are in college!
Or drunk!
[/quote]
It’s called “experimenting”.[/quote]
I thought that that report whose name somehow escapes me, Masters, Kinsley, Kinsey, both?
I dont know, but that “experimenting” thing seems to happen a lot.
So, what I am putting out there, what if you experiment and decide that you dont care for it?
How gay are you?
That whole topic is interesting insofar, as there are whole cultures where you are not gay if you penetrate a man, but you are if you take on a more “feminine” role.
For them it is about roles assigned to biological gender, men having sex in and of itself is more or less meh.[/quote]
Pretty sure dudes having sexual contact with one another = gay. The rest is just rationalizing.
[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]Hellfrost wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Am I the only one to find what she did very wrong?
And chiefly because, at 16, I had zero ability to control myself hormonally. So, yes, if this woman decided she wanted to have sex with me, I would have “hit that like the fist of an angry god” to quote the picture. I would have also fallen madly in (what I would have thought was) love.
And, at 16, probably like most men, I was also not ready for the emotional connection, nor, G-d forbid, a child.
To answer the question “why” : I think she did this because she wanted someone she could control, as she is out of control in her own life.[/quote]
The mature adult part of me agrees with you whole-heartedly.
However, my dick says “STFU!!!”
[/quote]
Fair enough![/quote]
No doubt is is extremely wrong. A 34 year old authority figure had sex with one of their 16 year old subjects. It is also every kids dream.
[/quote]
Right, because as soon as the clock hit’s 12:01 and they turn 18, a magical fairy waves her wand and grants them maturity… Please, kids are having sex at the age of 13-14, it has been like this since humans have walked on this earth. If they both volunteered to have intercourse together, then I don’t see the problem. Now if she used her authority as a teacher to force the kid (Yeah right!!) into have a relationship with her, then she should be punished appropriately. [/quote]
There’s a HUGE difference between fucking a 16yo teenager and a fucking a 34 year old WOMAN.[/quote]
And just how do you know that?
[quote]Hellfrost wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]four60 wrote:
[quote]Hellfrost wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Am I the only one to find what she did very wrong?
And chiefly because, at 16, I had zero ability to control myself hormonally. So, yes, if this woman decided she wanted to have sex with me, I would have “hit that like the fist of an angry god” to quote the picture. I would have also fallen madly in (what I would have thought was) love.
And, at 16, probably like most men, I was also not ready for the emotional connection, nor, G-d forbid, a child.
To answer the question “why” : I think she did this because she wanted someone she could control, as she is out of control in her own life.[/quote]
The mature adult part of me agrees with you whole-heartedly.
However, my dick says “STFU!!!”
[/quote]
Fair enough![/quote]
No doubt is is extremely wrong. A 34 year old authority figure had sex with one of their 16 year old subjects. It is also every kids dream.
[/quote]
Right, because as soon as the clock hit’s 12:01 and they turn 18, a magical fairy waves her wand and grants them maturity… Please, kids are having sex at the age of 13-14, it has been like this since humans have walked on this earth. If they both volunteered to have intercourse together, then I don’t see the problem. Now if she used her authority as a teacher to force the kid (Yeah right!!) into have a relationship with her, then she should be punished appropriately. [/quote]
Would you feel the same if the teacher was a 34yr old male and the kid a female?[/quote]
Exactly. Im sure this 16 year old kid’s parents trusted his teacher to act in a professional way and educate (lol, take that however you want i guess) their child. Not to take advantage of him sexually. And yes, when a 34 year old fucks a 16 year old, it is taking advantage of. it doesn’t make it any different because she is hot.
[/quote]
So what is the difference between a 16 year old and an 18 year old in this case? A lot of states have age of consent at like 16. Would it have better if the kid was 18?
[/quote]
I’d say slightly better if the kid was 18, and much better if the woman wasn’t his teacher. The age thing isn’t the only issue, it’s also that she was in a position of authority, and actually responsible for his safety and development, which she took advantage of.
[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]Hellfrost wrote:
[quote]Maiden3.16 wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Am I the only one to find what she did very wrong?
And chiefly because, at 16, I had zero ability to control myself hormonally. So, yes, if this woman decided she wanted to have sex with me, I would have “hit that like the fist of an angry god” to quote the picture. I would have also fallen madly in (what I would have thought was) love.
And, at 16, probably like most men, I was also not ready for the emotional connection, nor, G-d forbid, a child.
To answer the question “why” : I think she did this because she wanted someone she could control, as she is out of control in her own life.[/quote]
The mature adult part of me agrees with you whole-heartedly.
However, my dick says “STFU!!!”
[/quote]
Fair enough![/quote]
No doubt is is extremely wrong. A 34 year old authority figure had sex with one of their 16 year old subjects. It is also every kids dream.
[/quote]
Right, because as soon as the clock hit’s 12:01 and they turn 18, a magical fairy waves her wand and grants them maturity… Please, kids are having sex at the age of 13-14, it has been like this since humans have walked on this earth. If they both volunteered to have intercourse together, then I don’t see the problem. Now if she used her authority as a teacher to force the kid (Yeah right!!) into have a relationship with her, then she should be punished appropriately. [/quote]
There’s a HUGE difference between fucking a 16yo teenager and a fucking a 34 year old WOMAN.[/quote]
One difference is the prison experience.
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
[quote]niksamaras wrote:
Well, as long as I don’t look him in the eyes or kiss him it is not gay.[/quote]
Still quite gay…[/quote]
Excuse me?
Everyone knows that as long as you dont make eye contact its not gay!
Or if it happens when you are in college!
Or drunk!
[/quote]
It’s called “experimenting”.[/quote]
I thought that that report whose name somehow escapes me, Masters, Kinsley, Kinsey, both?
I dont know, but that “experimenting” thing seems to happen a lot.
So, what I am putting out there, what if you experiment and decide that you dont care for it?
How gay are you?
That whole topic is interesting insofar, as there are whole cultures where you are not gay if you penetrate a man, but you are if you take on a more “feminine” role.
For them it is about roles assigned to biological gender, men having sex in and of itself is more or less meh.[/quote]
Pretty sure dudes having sexual contact with one another = gay. The rest is just rationalizing.[/quote]
What you are pretty sure of is a relatively new invention.
No such thing as a “homosexual” until well into the 18th century.
Before that sexual orientation as a defining characteristic was not even a concept, it could literally not be thought.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Am I the only one to find what she did very wrong?
And chiefly because, at 16, I had zero ability to control myself hormonally. So, yes, if this woman decided she wanted to have sex with me, I would have “hit that like the fist of an angry god” to quote the picture. I would have also fallen madly in (what I would have thought was) love.
And, at 16, probably like most men, I was also not ready for the emotional connection, nor, G-d forbid, a child.
To answer the question “why” : I think she did this because she wanted someone she could control, as she is out of control in her own life.[/quote]
So you are only allowed to have sex if you are ready for an emotional connection?
IE 90% of all sex is illegal in your book?
If a chick wants to bang a scrawny teenager, it’s her loss.
If he fathers a child, she has to “bear” the consequences.
No need to jail anybody.
Nature wired women to look out for providers, if a few have a broken radar, where’s the harm?
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Or it could just be she’s an Ephebophile[/quote]
FWIW that has been the official vatican double speak for “hot for jailbait”.
Sounds better then “pedophile”.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Or it could just be she’s an Ephebophile[/quote]
FWIW that has been the official vatican double speak for “hot for jailbait”.
Sounds better then “pedophile”.[/quote]
They were right, there is a distinction.
Wanting to fuck a child or wanting to fuck a teenager is not the same, period.
Strange thing that “parthenophilia” has never made the news.
C’mon, they have the lobby - I presume most aren’t even into children. It’s probably more about showing they can get away with it.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
[quote]niksamaras wrote:
Well, as long as I don’t look him in the eyes or kiss him it is not gay.[/quote]
Still quite gay…[/quote]
Excuse me?
Everyone knows that as long as you dont make eye contact its not gay!
Or if it happens when you are in college!
Or drunk!
[/quote]
It’s called “experimenting”.[/quote]
I thought that that report whose name somehow escapes me, Masters, Kinsley, Kinsey, both?
I dont know, but that “experimenting” thing seems to happen a lot.
So, what I am putting out there, what if you experiment and decide that you dont care for it?
How gay are you?
That whole topic is interesting insofar, as there are whole cultures where you are not gay if you penetrate a man, but you are if you take on a more “feminine” role.
For them it is about roles assigned to biological gender, men having sex in and of itself is more or less meh.[/quote]
Pretty sure dudes having sexual contact with one another = gay. The rest is just rationalizing.[/quote]
What you are pretty sure of is a relatively new invention.
No such thing as a “homosexual” until well into the 18th century.
Before that sexual orientation as a defining characteristic was not even a concept, it could literally not be thought. [/quote]
Uh, ok. Two people of the same gender are not homosexuals.
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
[quote]niksamaras wrote:
Well, as long as I don’t look him in the eyes or kiss him it is not gay.[/quote]
Still quite gay…[/quote]
Excuse me?
Everyone knows that as long as you dont make eye contact its not gay!
Or if it happens when you are in college!
Or drunk!
[/quote]
It’s called “experimenting”.[/quote]
I thought that that report whose name somehow escapes me, Masters, Kinsley, Kinsey, both?
I dont know, but that “experimenting” thing seems to happen a lot.
So, what I am putting out there, what if you experiment and decide that you dont care for it?
How gay are you?
That whole topic is interesting insofar, as there are whole cultures where you are not gay if you penetrate a man, but you are if you take on a more “feminine” role.
For them it is about roles assigned to biological gender, men having sex in and of itself is more or less meh.[/quote]
Pretty sure dudes having sexual contact with one another = gay. The rest is just rationalizing.[/quote]
What you are pretty sure of is a relatively new invention.
No such thing as a “homosexual” until well into the 18th century.
Before that sexual orientation as a defining characteristic was not even a concept, it could literally not be thought. [/quote]
Uh, ok. Two people of the same gender are not homosexuals.[/quote]
Maybe they are, maybe they are not.
Thinking that who someone has sex with how often actually is a defining characteristic of said person is a relatively new concept.
You can choose to stay within that concept, more power to you, but ultimately you are trapped by words.
If you want to you can call anyone who has “experimented” “homosexual”, but then again, you may be terribly disappointed if people tend not to stay in your neat little boxes.
Ultimately reality trumps narrative and btw about 30% of all people are gay according to you.
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]imhungry wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]PimpBot5000 wrote:
[quote]niksamaras wrote:
Well, as long as I don’t look him in the eyes or kiss him it is not gay.[/quote]
Still quite gay…[/quote]
Excuse me?
Everyone knows that as long as you dont make eye contact its not gay!
Or if it happens when you are in college!
Or drunk!
[/quote]
It’s called “experimenting”.[/quote]
I thought that that report whose name somehow escapes me, Masters, Kinsley, Kinsey, both?
I dont know, but that “experimenting” thing seems to happen a lot.
So, what I am putting out there, what if you experiment and decide that you dont care for it?
How gay are you?
That whole topic is interesting insofar, as there are whole cultures where you are not gay if you penetrate a man, but you are if you take on a more “feminine” role.
For them it is about roles assigned to biological gender, men having sex in and of itself is more or less meh.[/quote]
Pretty sure dudes having sexual contact with one another = gay. The rest is just rationalizing.[/quote]
What you are pretty sure of is a relatively new invention.
No such thing as a “homosexual” until well into the 18th century.
Before that sexual orientation as a defining characteristic was not even a concept, it could literally not be thought. [/quote]
Uh, ok. Two people of the same gender are not homosexuals.[/quote]
Maybe they are, maybe they are not.
Thinking that who someone has sex with how often actually is a defining characteristic of said person is a relatively new concept.
You can choose to stay within that concept, more power to you, but ultimately you are trapped by words.
If you want to you can call anyone who has “experimented” “homosexual”, but then again, you may be terribly disappointed if people tend not to stay in your neat little boxes.
Ultimately reality trumps narrative and btw about 30% of all people are gay according to you.[/quote]
There are three “boxes”. Gay, bi, straight. These boxes encompass all.
[quote]Jewbacca wrote:
Am I the only one to find what she did very wrong?
And chiefly because, at 16, I had zero ability to control myself hormonally. So, yes, if this woman decided she wanted to have sex with me, I would have “hit that like the fist of an angry god” to quote the picture. I would have also fallen madly in (what I would have thought was) love.
And, at 16, probably like most men, I was also not ready for the emotional connection, nor, G-d forbid, a child.
To answer the question “why” : I think she did this because she wanted someone she could control, as she is out of control in her own life.[/quote]
x2
[quote]on edge wrote:
I just want to say I think that chick is a very genetically average looking woman who works REALLY hard to look good.
I respect that and yes I’d bang. I actually prefer the beauty who doesn’t have to work at it though.[/quote]
Her face isn’t the best thats for sure, reminds me of a scrunchie.
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Or it could just be she’s an Ephebophile[/quote]
Yeah! Go Ephebophiles! Rah! Rah![/quote]
Most famous ephebophile. Fr. Lawrence Murphy.
[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
[quote]thethirdruffian wrote:
[quote]therajraj wrote:
Or it could just be she’s an Ephebophile[/quote]
Yeah! Go Ephebophiles! Rah! Rah![/quote]
Most famous ephebophile. Fr. Lawrence Murphy. [/quote]
Are you attracted to 18-19 year old girls?
Chris, do you feel bad when you masturbate?
Is it a sin for you?
I truly hope you know it’s normal to do so.
[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:
Chris, do you feel bad when you masturbate?
Is it a sin for you?
I truly hope you know it’s normal to do so.[/quote]
Yet transcending inherent sin and overcoming “self” requires denial of many normalcies.