BenGals Cheerleader Indicted for Sex With Teen

Off Topic
81

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[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]

Yeah well, in that case I am in my default box.

Not giving a fuck.

82

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[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]

Yeah well, in that case I am in my default box.

Not giving a fuck.[/quote]

celibacy huh … I’m sorry :frowning:

83

If a guy shouldn’t be able to do it to a 16 year old girl, a girl can’t do it to a 16 year old guy. I would feel like that guy would be a terrible person for banging that scrumciously hot overdeveloped 16 year old…but the other way around? It’s still wrong but I don’t feel the same. I think it has to do with gender bias. We’re males and we feel differently. I wonder what a female’s take on this would be.

84

[quote]polo77j wrote:

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[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]

Yeah well, in that case I am in my default box.

Not giving a fuck.[/quote]

celibacy huh … I’m sorry :([/quote]

Well, played Sir, well played.

85

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
If a guy shouldn’t be able to do it to a 16 year old girl, a girl can’t do it to a 16 year old guy. I would feel like that guy would be a terrible person for banging that scrumciously hot overdeveloped 16 year old…but the other way around? It’s still wrong but I don’t feel the same. I think it has to do with gender bias. We’re males and we feel differently. I wonder what a female’s take on this would be. [/quote]

There is no bias, its not the same thing.

Dont let the prevailing egalitarianism poison your mind.

86

Golly gee! I’m sure glad that did not happen to me when I was 16. How much would that suck to have consensual sex with an NFL cheerleader? That poor baby! Who is going to protect the children… err adolescents, rather?

87

[quote]andy1977 wrote:
Golly gee! I’m sure glad that did not happen to me when I was 16. How much would that suck to have consensual sex with an NFL cheerleader? That poor baby! Who is going to protect the children… err adolescents, rather?[/quote]

No one.

They are nothing but prey for insanely hot cheerleaders.

88

[quote]orion wrote:

[quote]HoustonGuy wrote:

[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]

Yeah well, in that case I am in my default box.

Not giving a fuck.[/quote]
So bi it is. That’s cool.

89

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
If a guy shouldn’t be able to do it to a 16 year old girl, a girl can’t do it to a 16 year old guy. I would feel like that guy would be a terrible person for banging that scrumciously hot overdeveloped 16 year old…but the other way around? It’s still wrong but I don’t feel the same. I think it has to do with gender bias. We’re males and we feel differently. I wonder what a female’s take on this would be. [/quote]

Of course it’s not the same.

A young girl has a fully functional uterus that is usually taken care of by her family.

Seducing her, which is, btw, rather easy for a grown man , is a true dick move because you could change her and her family’s life drastically - they might have to rear a grandson with your genes.
And the man’s reason is often just to experience some pleasure.

An adult woman, on the other hand, knows what she’s into. The risks of pregnancy and emotional burden can (and should) be calculated by her.
The young, male teen is clueless but cannot do harm by definition.

90

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
If a guy shouldn’t be able to do it to a 16 year old girl, a girl can’t do it to a 16 year old guy. I would feel like that guy would be a terrible person for banging that scrumciously hot overdeveloped 16 year old…but the other way around? It’s still wrong but I don’t feel the same. I think it has to do with gender bias. We’re males and we feel differently. I wonder what a female’s take on this would be. [/quote]

“Scrumptiously hot, overdeveloped 16-year-old.” Haha. This reminds me of the time a friend of mine told me she was a double D when she was 14. She said A LOT of people would stare at her chest: men, women, teenagers, teachers, restaurant workers, medical professionals, it did not matter. Maybe many of them did not know how young she was? I met her when she was 22 and wearing a 32-G bra. She is slightly under 5 feet, she’s thin, and pretty. But I could not help but wonder what I and any other heterosexual man on earth would think seeing her when she was only 14 and a DD. Would we assume she was in her late teens or early 20s based on her looks? Would we still look even if we knew her age?

91

[quote]andy1977 wrote:

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
If a guy shouldn’t be able to do it to a 16 year old girl, a girl can’t do it to a 16 year old guy. I would feel like that guy would be a terrible person for banging that scrumciously hot overdeveloped 16 year old…but the other way around? It’s still wrong but I don’t feel the same. I think it has to do with gender bias. We’re males and we feel differently. I wonder what a female’s take on this would be. [/quote]

“Scrumptiously hot, overdeveloped 16-year-old.” Haha. This reminds me of the time a friend of mine told me she was a double D when she was 14. She said A LOT of people would stare at her chest: men, women, teenagers, teachers, restaurant workers, medical professionals, it did not matter. Maybe many of them did not know how young she was? I met her when she was 22 and wearing a 32-G bra. She is slightly under 5 feet, she’s thin, and pretty. But I could not help but wonder what I and any other heterosexual man on earth would think seeing her when she was only 14 and a DD. Would we assume she was in her late teens or early 20s based on her looks? Would we still look even if we knew her age? [/quote]

HAHAHA. Probably. I always feel dirty after I find out how young they are…It’s just not appealing to me anymore if I find out she still gets dropped off at the mall to hang with her friends and see the latest teeny bopper flick. EWW

92

[quote]Schwarzfahrer wrote:

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
If a guy shouldn’t be able to do it to a 16 year old girl, a girl can’t do it to a 16 year old guy. I would feel like that guy would be a terrible person for banging that scrumciously hot overdeveloped 16 year old…but the other way around? It’s still wrong but I don’t feel the same. I think it has to do with gender bias. We’re males and we feel differently. I wonder what a female’s take on this would be. [/quote]

Of course it’s not the same.

A young girl has a fully functional uterus that is usually taken care of by her family.

Seducing her, which is, btw, rather easy for a grown man , is a true dick move because you could change her and her family’s life drastically - they might have to rear a grandson with your genes.
And the man’s reason is often just to experience some pleasure.

An adult woman, on the other hand, knows what she’s into. The risks of pregnancy and emotional burden can (and should) be calculated by her.
The young, male teen is clueless but cannot do harm by definition.

[/quote]

Interesting.

93

I now feel creepy reading a thread that was about a lucky dude smashing a hot bitch.

94

[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]

Not quite sure what you’re getting at with this post.

95

[quote]Broncoandy wrote:
Where do we line up to high 5 this kid? [/quote]

Right behind the lawyer letting him know about the child support he’s going to have to pay…zing!

96

She could just have a really tight pussy and feels little HS dick gets her off without pain.

97

Some double standards just don’t need to be fought against.

98

[quote]FrozenNinja wrote:
If a guy shouldn’t be able to do it to a 16 year old girl, a girl can’t do it to a 16 year old guy. I would feel like that guy would be a terrible person for banging that scrumciously hot overdeveloped 16 year old…but the other way around? It’s still wrong but I don’t feel the same. I think it has to do with gender bias. We’re males and we feel differently. I wonder what a female’s take on this would be. [/quote]

This has been discussed before. Some female posters said that they had had relationships with men much older than them I’m their teenage years and thought they were mature enough to understand what was going on, but in hindsight they were not.

We have also had the conversation about how young is too young for men. There was a small but vocal group arguing that once girls have breasts that they are open season. While the majority argued against that attitude it nearly drove me from these boards (i think I took a several month break). I think you will find that those in their 30s (and this is speculating) are more likely to see something wrong with big age gaps than those still in their 20s.

I teach college and the students are kids to me. Some may be pretty but they are pretty kids, nothing to lust over.

99

[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]

I think what she did was wrong too. I think she should be fired. I’m not sure if she should be jailed or not though. I’m leaning towards “not” but I’d want to see what exactly happened. …and yes, that was my dream at 16 too.

eh, my 2 cents.

PS The homophobia on this thread is kinda funny, but I just skipped over most of it.

100

[quote]Gambit_Lost 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]

I think what she did was wrong too. I think she should be fired. I’m not sure if she should be jailed or not though. I’m leaning towards “not” but I’d want to see what exactly happened. …and yes, that was my dream at 16 too.

eh, my 2 cents.

PS The homophobia on this thread is kinda funny, but I just skipped over most of it.[/quote]

People saying there isn’t anything wrong with it scare me, honestly. I have a hard time beleiving that they would be okay sending their child to school and the person they trusted to educate them was having sex with them. As a teacher she is the students legal guardian. She completely abused that trust and at the very least should be fired.