[quote]sonnyp wrote:
^^ Gross. A 27 year old who fucks 18 year olds ain’t a bald guy. Pure and simple.[/quote]
prob
[quote]sonnyp wrote:
^^ Gross. A 27 year old who fucks 18 year olds is a bad guy. Pure and simple.[/quote]
Half your age plus 7. 20 and a half and up for a 27 year old
[quote]sonnyp wrote:
^^ Gross. A 27 year old who fucks 18 year olds is a bad guy. Pure and simple.[/quote]
So?
And why?
Probably because he defiles those innocent little doves…
You have no idea…
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]sonnyp wrote:
^^ Gross. A 27 year old who fucks 18 year olds is a bad guy. Pure and simple.[/quote]
So?
And why?
Probably because he defiles those innocent little doves…
You have no idea…[/quote]
Dude, there is a magical line in the sand that demands no man of a certain age…oh wait…that is all a social construct that will change with time just like it has before.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]sonnyp wrote:
^^ Gross. A 27 year old who fucks 18 year olds is a bad guy. Pure and simple.[/quote]
So?
And why?
Probably because he defiles those innocent little doves…
You have no idea…[/quote]
Dude, there is a magical line in the sand that demands no man of a certain age…oh wait…that is all a social construct that will change with time just like it has before.[/quote]
Yup. Considering how long man has been on this planet, wasnt too long ago that all a chick needed to do was bleed before she was considered old enough to bed and breed.
[quote]Waittz wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]orion wrote:
[quote]sonnyp wrote:
^^ Gross. A 27 year old who fucks 18 year olds is a bad guy. Pure and simple.[/quote]
So?
And why?
Probably because he defiles those innocent little doves…
You have no idea…[/quote]
Dude, there is a magical line in the sand that demands no man of a certain age…oh wait…that is all a social construct that will change with time just like it has before.[/quote]
Yup. Considering how long man has been on this planet, wasnt too long ago that all a chick needed to do was bleed before she was considered old enough to bed and breed. [/quote]
What’s your point. There are no real lines in the sand other than those we agree on as a society. All of our acceptable standards of behaviour are based on social constructs. Those constructs change, often for the better. Some of those constructs eventually get codified into law others remain as the “soft laws” of etiquette and appropriate conduct. This is why we have a society.
At one time that newly menstruating girl was essentially the property of her family and would be married off to whomever they chose regardless of her wishes. It was also perfectly acceptable for that husband to beat her if he chose. We have since decided those things aren’t cool. I find this to be an improvement, but that’s just a “social construct” man, so I guess it’s irrelevant. Oh wait…
Edited
[quote]batman730 wrote:
At one time that newly menstruating girl was essentially the property of her family and would be married off to whomever they chose regardless of her wishes. It was also perfectly acceptable for that husband to beat her if he chose. We have since decided those things aren’t cool. I find this to be an improvement, but that’s just a “social construct” man, so I guess it’s irrelevant. Oh wait… [/quote]
What does that have to do with age of consent?
In an enlightened society, wouldn’t it be up to the girl once she was of sexually mature age?
You seem to see sex at a young age as loss of social power…instead of SOCIAL EMPOWERMENT.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
At one time that newly menstruating girl was essentially the property of her family and would be married off to whomever they chose regardless of her wishes. It was also perfectly acceptable for that husband to beat her if he chose. We have since decided those things aren’t cool. I find this to be an improvement, but that’s just a “social construct” man, so I guess it’s irrelevant. Oh wait… [/quote]
What does that have to do with age of consent?
In an enlightened society, wouldn’t it be up to the girl once she was of sexually mature age?
You seem to see sex at a young age as loss of social power…instead of SOCIAL EMPOWERMENT.[/quote]
Just because something’s legal doesn’t mean it’s not socially inappropriate/creepy. It’s perfectly legal for a man of any age to look at little girls at the swimming pool, so long as he just looks. It’s still creepy.
I have known a number of girls who were having sex with men in their 20’s and 30’s while they were still in their (sometimes early) teens. I didn’t find the dynamic to be especially empowering. Actually a couple of them ended up as drug addicted prostitutes, but I digress. The “1/2 your age + 7” rule is obviously not legally binding, but it is socially sensible in most cases, IMO. Especially in our society where an 18 year old is still allowed to be a child in many respects.
If my daughter at 18 years of age were to bring home a dude in his 30’s, I would have no legal recourse, but I would find it to be very uncool. If that makes me unenlightened, so be it, I’m OK with that.
[quote]batman730 wrote:
Just because something’s legal doesn’t mean it’s not socially inappropriate/creepy. It’s perfectly legal for a man of any age to look at little girls at the swimming pool, so long as he just looks. It’s still creepy.[/quote]
Question…isn’t it “creepy” because of our current society only?
[quote]
I have known a number of girls who were having sex with men in their 20’s and 30’s while they were still in their (sometimes early) teens. I didn’t find the dynamic to be especially empowering. Actually a couple of them ended up as drug addicted prostitutes, but I digress. The “1/2 your age + 7” rule is obviously not legally binding, but it is socially sensible in most cases, IMO. Especially in our society where an 18 year old is still allowed to be a child in many respects.
If my daughter at 18 years of age were to bring home a dude in his 30’s, I would have no legal recourse, but I would find it to be very uncool. If that makes me unenlightened, so be it, I’m OK with that.[/quote]
You seemed to miss the point. Our current society sees it as bad…so of course you would often find really younger girls associated with sex to have been in bad situations.
That is because sex at a young age is bad IN THIS ERA.
200 years ago, a girl having sex at the age of 14-16 wasn’t exactly being reported to police.
It is highly possible in the future the age of consent will be reduced and people will not see that as “creepy”.
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]batman730 wrote:
Just because something’s legal doesn’t mean it’s not socially inappropriate/creepy. It’s perfectly legal for a man of any age to look at little girls at the swimming pool, so long as he just looks. It’s still creepy.[/quote]
Question…isn’t it “creepy” because of our current society only?
[quote]
I have known a number of girls who were having sex with men in their 20’s and 30’s while they were still in their (sometimes early) teens. I didn’t find the dynamic to be especially empowering. Actually a couple of them ended up as drug addicted prostitutes, but I digress. The “1/2 your age + 7” rule is obviously not legally binding, but it is socially sensible in most cases, IMO. Especially in our society where an 18 year old is still allowed to be a child in many respects.
If my daughter at 18 years of age were to bring home a dude in his 30’s, I would have no legal recourse, but I would find it to be very uncool. If that makes me unenlightened, so be it, I’m OK with that.[/quote]
You seemed to miss the point. Our current society sees it as bad…so of course you would often find really younger girls associated with sex to have been in bad situations.
That is because sex at a young age is bad IN THIS ERA.
200 years ago, a girl having sex at the age of 14-16 wasn’t exactly being reported to police.
It is highly possible in the future the age of consent will be reduced and people will not see that as “creepy”.[/quote]
I don’t see where I missed the point. We are living in this society, in this era, and thus are subject to the attendant social and legal constraints. I don’t see how what was acceptable 200 years ago or what might be acceptable in some hypothetical future is at all relevant to our actions today and how they are perceived.
^^You seem to be missing the point that this is not about young girls having sex. It’s about young girls having sex with men who are way too old for them. Exploring with your peers as you are coming of age is one thing, being victimized by a thirty-something is another. Society is not going to suddenly decide that it is OK to victimize its most vulnerable. An 18 year old is a kid. If you have sex with a kid, you are a bad guy. Stop trying to make it seem acceptable. It is not acceptable.
[quote]sonnyp wrote:
An 18 year old is a kid. If you have sex with a kid, you are a bad guy.
[/quote]
If an 18 year old can die for their country, they should also be able to have sex freely with whom they choose.
[quote]sonnyp wrote:
^^You seem to be missing the point that this is not about young girls having sex. It’s about young girls having sex with men who are way too old for them. Exploring with your peers as you are coming of age is one thing, being victimized by a thirty-something is another. Society is not going to suddenly decide that it is OK to victimize its most vulnerable. An 18 year old is a kid. If you have sex with a kid, you are a bad guy. Stop trying to make it seem acceptable. It is not acceptable.
[/quote]
I wasn’t that damn innocent when I was 18.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]sonnyp wrote:
An 18 year old is a kid. If you have sex with a kid, you are a bad guy.
[/quote]
If an 18 year old can die for their country, they should also be able to have sex freely with whom they choose.
[/quote]
Basically this.
They had no problem shipping them off by the thousands to Iraq…but SEX AND A BEER???
Hell no!!!
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]sonnyp wrote:
^^You seem to be missing the point that this is not about young girls having sex. It’s about young girls having sex with men who are way too old for them. Exploring with your peers as you are coming of age is one thing, being victimized by a thirty-something is another. Society is not going to suddenly decide that it is OK to victimize its most vulnerable. An 18 year old is a kid. If you have sex with a kid, you are a bad guy. Stop trying to make it seem acceptable. It is not acceptable.
[/quote]
I wasn’t that damn innocent when I was 18.[/quote]
I was a father and a respiratory therapist at 18
[quote]Derek542 wrote:
[quote]Professor X wrote:
[quote]sonnyp wrote:
^^You seem to be missing the point that this is not about young girls having sex. It’s about young girls having sex with men who are way too old for them. Exploring with your peers as you are coming of age is one thing, being victimized by a thirty-something is another. Society is not going to suddenly decide that it is OK to victimize its most vulnerable. An 18 year old is a kid. If you have sex with a kid, you are a bad guy. Stop trying to make it seem acceptable. It is not acceptable.
[/quote]
I wasn’t that damn innocent when I was 18.[/quote]
I was a father and a respiratory therapist at 18[/quote]
I < edited by the Federation of Internet Ethics > when I was 18.
^^Again missing the point. The 18 year old is not in the wrong it the scenario where he or she is having sex with a 32 year old. The 32 year old is morally wrong. You have to draw the line somewhere and the age of consent being 18 is what it is, but that doesn’t mean that it is morally acceptable to have sex with an 18 year old when you are 32. You guys know this. Just stop it.
[quote]sonnyp wrote:
^^Again missing the point. The 18 year old is not in the wrong it the scenario where he or she is having sex with a 32 year old. The 32 year old is morally wrong. You have to draw the line somewhere and the age of consent being 18 is what it is, but that doesn’t mean that it is morally acceptable to have sex with an 18 year old when you are 32. You guys know this. Just stop it.[/quote]
What happens at the age of 32 that makes it wrong?
So it wasn’t wrong 24 hours ago when he was 31?
I’m confused now…so it is BAD for a 32 year old to have sex with an 18 year old.
How about 19 vs 42?
18 vs 30?
25 vs 52?
Please explain in detail to alleviate my confusion.
[quote]therajraj wrote:
[quote]sonnyp wrote:
An 18 year old is a kid. If you have sex with a kid, you are a bad guy.
[/quote]
If an 18 year old can die for their country, they should also be able to have sex freely with whom they choose.
[/quote]
An 18 year old can have sex with whoever they want. A fifteen year old can’t and shouldn’t because their minds are not properly formed to fully understand the ramifications in most cases. There is more to sex than just the physical act, or at least there should be.
I do think it should be a graduated scale depending on the age differential. 15 year old with a 17 year old, not a huge issue. 30 year old with a 16 year old, creepy as shit and it better not be my daughter.
Those of you thinking the age of consent is going to go down any time soon are smoking the good shit.